Skip to comments.MARKETING GENIUS. PERIOD. (Herman Cain)
Posted on 10/25/2011 8:42:26 AM PDT by Brookhaven
For the past few weeks, I've had a recurring suspicion that the several gaffes of Herman Cain are in fact "gaffes." As in intentional. Deliberate. Planned.
Allow me to explain.
21 years ago, I watched closely as a complete political neophyte announced his intention to run as governor of Massachusetts. He was John Silber, president of Boston University. Silber was a staunch Reaganite, a native TEXAN, a blunt-spoken anti-activist authoritarian university president, a big-business booster, and a Democrat. And he was running to be nominated by the Massachusetts Democratic Party. What chance, huh?
Well, to make matters "worse," Silber started his campaign with a series of shocking "gaffes." From disparaging gay rights to attacking feminism and peaceniks to questioning why "immigrants from tropical climates" move to the wintry Bay State (of course for it's generous welfare benefits), Silber missed no opportunity to defame the hideous ideology that dominated the Democratic Party of Massachusetts.
Of course the house organ of that hideous ideology, the Boston Glob, responded with off-the-charts venom to these "Silber shockers," as the candidate himself dubbed them. For about 9 months he was lampooned as a joke...until the primary approached...Because Silber was polling about 25% in a 3 way race. Even the NYT noticed in July: "Despite waging an unusual, provocative campaign that has broken many of the rules of politics and offended some women, blacks and the elderly, John R. Silber is running more strongly than expected in the Massachusetts race for governor and could be in position to win the Democratic nomination in September."
The pattern of the "Silber shockers" was firmly established: Silber would make his comment in an interview or debate; the comment would be the focus of attention for 2-5 days; Silber would be righteously questioned and re-questioned about the comment, which he would then repeat in slightly less inflammatory terms, but still defend it; and interested voters would have heard Silber make and repeat his point about 5 times more than if he hadn't made the "gaffe."
But in September he was still down by ~15 points to the front-runner, a career hack named Frank Bellotti, when about a week before the primary, the other establshment candidate, Evelyn Murphy (Dukakis' lt. governor) fell on her sword to "guarantee" the win for Bellotti. "We can't allow even the chance of John Silber winning the nomination." And how did our famous "newspaper of record" report this development? "Ms. Murphy's action therefore appeared likely to deal a further blow to Mr. Silber, a political maverick whose public standing has been slipping in the past few weeks after he made barbed comments that have alienated many voters."
With Murphy out, Bellotti's lead jumped to 23 points in the polls. Those wonderful, wonderful polls. Keep watching those polls, people. The polls are everything, don't you know? How can an old pro like Frank Bellotti blow a 23 point lead in 5 days?
Five days later, Silber beat Bellotti by 10 points, a 33-point swing. The absurdly politically incorrect Reaganite Texan became the nominee for governor of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. And the old grey lady sobbed into her gin-drenched cornflakes: "In a stunning display of voter discontent, John R. Silber, the president of Boston University who peppered his campaign with provocative remarks, scored a major upset tonight over over Francis X. Bellotti, a former State Attorney General in the Democratic primary for governor."
Which is a long way of explaining why my spidey senses are tingling these days when so many people are saying Herman Cain's gaffes are proof his candidacy is doomed. The latest is this extremely unusual--I'll refrain from saying "strange"--ad that just aired during the World Series [embedded above]. OMG, a campaign staffer blowing smoke at the camera?! Can anyone else remember the last TV ad that showed a non-evil character just...smoking...a cigarette? It's just a...SHOCKER!
Mr. Cain is nothing if not a skilled communicator. Yet it seems that, as soon as more eyes than ever are turned on him, that he becomes a fumblemouth. And wasting huge, scarce campaign dollars on a bizarre ad. Even Brit Hume has written him off.
Mr. Cain has come from nowhere, with almost no money, and no political experience, to the top of the polls. Now he's being dismissed as a gaffe machine. But I'm telling you, he's as dumb as a fox.
I have yet to read a single gaffe by this man. At least, what I would call a gaffe.
Reminds me of a friend that said he picks his church based on which one has the best potlucks. It sounds really shallow, so you assume he’s kidding, but he’s not, so you ask him to explain. He explains it at length and the foundational concept he is bringing up is completely sound.
So now I tell people I choose the church with the best potluck. They ask me to explain. And so on...
Cain wouldn’t even be noticed were in not for the fact that Romney would probably otherwise be leading and running away with the nomination. The base hates Romney the chameleon, and that is the primary reason Herman is doing well. The situation is very similar to Delaware. Delaware primary voters hated Castle the uber RINO, so they nominated someone who didn’t have the slightest chance to win. We are now seeing that playing out on a national level. The establishment and virtually every single political analyst both right and left know Cain couldn’t seriously beat Obama, but the base feels they have no other choice than to make a stand for an actual conservative - even if that dooms us to 4 more years of Hussein. It’s sad, but that is the road we are on. Hopefully we at least hold the House and take the Senate.
I think what they are trying to sell here is an attitude.
We don’t give a damn about what other’s say.
We’re not going to go along with the Washington crowd.
Well, what is the explanation for picking a church with the biggest potluck? I have been looking for a church for a very long time.
Yo Brookhaven—I think you nailed it. Cain’s so-called gaffes are only seen as such by the Demrats, their propaganda organs, GOP RINOs, and the demrat-controlled GOP.
In fact, he is saying exactly what Tea Party conservatives, some old school Pubbies and perhaps some indies want to hear.
His lastest ad, showing his campaign chairman smoking, is a way of saying Cain will not be worrying about people smoking or what they eat. In other words Cain is not a nanny stater.
Guys like Perrwinkle and Romney have no clue how to respond to this and neither will The Usurping Marxist Onada. This is so refreshing.
[ Were rebels.
We dont give a damn about what others say.
Were not going to go along with the Washington crowd. ]
This is the same strategy that Sarah Palin used in her campaign against the “Good Ol’ Boys Network” in Alaska when she ran for Governor.
I think in the current environment we are in now, it has a very good chance of working.
But he doesn't fold he restates his position and casts doubt on what he was asked the first time around. Everyone goes back to examine the first question from all sides and inevitably come to the conclusion that the interviewer was deliberately unclear and misleading. By then Cain has reiterated his core position ten times over. The gotcha question fades from memory because no one can understand much less defend what the first talking head asked.
“Marketing Genius” nails it.
Here’s one of many examples I’ve noted: What marketing types call the “first mover” advantage...a recent example being the Apple iPad vs. other tablets. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-mover_advantage
Mr. Cain deployed FMA in championing his “999 Plan”, which also leveraged the advantages of simplicity and a memorable tagline. Now along comes Mr. Perry with his flat-tax plan, what the old timers would call “a day late and a dollar short”. All Mr. Cain needs to do is stand back and watch as his rival takes the arrows.
Another thing - just listen to Mr. Cain’s responses to questions as if you were a speech teacher. I’ve found that he nearly always is succinct and answers the question that was asked in a concise manner. We are so accustomed to the “uhhs and ahhhs..” of even professional speakers (like Obama), many may not consciously recognize Cain’s articulateness, but it registers subliminally and makes the listener want to trust and believe him.
Toonces the cat could beat 0warlord running on the Free Cat Food For Life platform.
That sounds a little convoluted - but Herman may have a little sneaky in him;)
His most appealing qualities are humor, ability, Christian faith, morality, resourcefulness, honor, Patriotism. That still leaves room for a little sneaky.
Straight from the start he was talking about ‘name recognition’, and how his goal is to move up in name recognition. He’s doing it!
Yeeeee haawww! How does one sound different than all the other pols unless he says something different? Lord knows the same old same old hasn’t been working lately. Wife and I will be at TEA Party rally with Mr. Cain at Galveston Greyhound racetrack this evening. Ya’ll come on down now ya hear.
Cain can be very clear and direct when he wants to be. Just listen to his speech in Iowa. He takes the gotcha guy's questions at face value, answers them as if he only partially understands that they are gotcha questions, then in follow up interviews he makes them look like monkeys by putting the spotlight back on the original question.
It's hard for the next talking head in line to reiterate a gotcha question without revealing its duplicity.
Yes, he is getting name recognition big time with these supposed gaffes. He has been talking like a good old boy who is, as elitist Krauhammer said, just winging it in these interviews. Then he goes to Iowa and belts out a speech that just floors everybody there. Unless that was a fluke he is going to show America what a real orator is. Not the teleprompter blow up doll kind of orator 0blahblah is.
One of my FB friends, a Romney supporter, thinks this ad is hilarious. It reminds her of a SNL skit.
Is it because people who take the time to make tasty potluck dishes are more emotionally invested in their church? They care more, it's more a community? That's just a guess. I'm curious, too.
Uh, Silber still lost. He just didn’t lose as early as the other losers.
It was Massachusetts. Romney would lose Massachusetts.
Right. There was one gaffe too many, lol.
—Well, what is the explanation for picking a church with the biggest potluck? I have been looking for a church for a very long time.—
I’ll synopsize here. He says it tongue in cheek, but it is along these lines: The bible is about two things: Man’s relationthip with man and man’s relationship with God. All of the ten commandments even fall within one of these two. And our relationship with other men involves “community”, and “it takes a villiage*” type stuff in a real sense.
He was basically saying he wants to be a part of a body of believers that enjoy each other’s time together in the Lord and follow the early church example. They love and promote community within the context of His will.
So it is really not about pot luck, but about how inclusive the organization is, from a biblical perspective and how “non-cliquish” it is. Your relationship with God can often be seen in your relationship with others.
I’m speaking off the cuff here. but you get the drift. And yes, ex-patriot, you get the drift of where he was going. :-)
Normally, I would change channels just to catch Brit's opinions, but in this election cycle, he is peddling nothing but 'GOP Establishment viewpoints'. Another commentator who is driving me nuts is Mr Establishment himself - none other than Karl Rove.
I remember him. I found out that Bellotti, who was involved in
helping screw up the MA auto insurance biz and chasing out
companies, got a stake in a newly formed auto insurance
company that inherited a good percentage of expiring policies.
Any way, the bottom line is that I, as an unenrolled voter, took a
Dem primary ballot and voted for Silber. Bellotti also oozed
sleaze, which didn't help him with any non-partisan types that
were paying attention.
(I think at that time, I had to stop at the town clerk's office on the
way out, and re-unenroll myself from a Democrat party affiliation.)
And the point being that the author may be comparing apples and
oranges in this, his analysis.
Anybody will beat Obama in a 2-way race.
He’s locked in @ 42% of the vote.
Some FReepers forget he only pulled 53% against McLame, and a dispirited R party, and running on a record of 100% success verified by the MSM.
By this time next year, most voters will be referring to 2007 as the “good old days”.
The overconfidence people have here is staggering. Hussein will get no less than 45% of the vote, and if we nominate a poor, gaffe prone candidate he could easily win.
Harry Reid was like the most unpopular Senator in the nation, yet he won fairly comfortably because we nominated a flake to run against him.
Hussein will have a billion dollars and the entire mainstream media and entertainment establishment in his corner, he will be very difficult to beat. The overconfidence you and others have is naive at best.
I don’t believe you can extrapolate the Nevada senate race to the POTUS race. Nevada was the one bright spot for Dems of a historic thrashing they took in 2010.
Baraq Hussein Obama is the James Earl Carter of 2012, and the Carville Precept will rule.
Obama can’t even get Democrats to appear in a campaign stop with him, except for the most liberal whackjob districts. His toxic coattails will make Dems a minority party for a long time to come.
You are way, way too overconfident. If you've been involved in politics for any length of time, I'd expect you'd know better. Seriously. Obama will get a minimum of 45% of the vote. Almost half of Americans pay no income taxes at all. Just under half are dependent on government transfer payments of one kind or another. We are a fully blossomed social welfare state, much like Europe at this point. The more we are like them, the more we will vote like them. My guess is this will be a very close election - something along the 2004 model. If we nominate a gaffe machine or someone that rubs the electorate wrong, we will very likely lose.
Maybe we should nominate a guy whose big plan is to tax poor people’s purchases so they’ll have some “skin in the game.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.