Marc Perkel Rantz

Simplifying ones message doesn't necessarily appeal to a particular demographic.

Your title, while inferring that a simple message might automatically appeal to a certain demographic, is fallicious.

I'm sorry to nitpick, but I think that citizens of lesser intelligence are just as likely to be offended, disgusted or otherwise not moved to action by your simplified messages as they are any other similarly targetted message.

I do however, agree that a strategy of having a simple messge may be effective. But, without some sort of informed subjective (i.e., expert opinions from someone with experience in these matters) or a scientific basis for the argument of a simplified message, I think we should take your political strategies with a grain of salt.

Note: I have reviewed this message and I approve its content.

I believe that Kerry has all the stupid vote locked up. He has to go after the smart vote, but he can never get it.

Marc you should be Kerrys campaign manager. Because then he would win. Bush may be stupid. But he is shrewd and that is what the Kerry campaign is in need of.

Gershwin--I think Marc did explain the basis for his sound bites--read the post again. Anyway these sound bites are fact hes not pulling them out of thin air like the bushies are.

If you repeat a lie enough the people will take it as fact--Joseph Goebbels

"Gershwin--I think Marc did explain the basis for his sound bites--read the post again."

I think he explained his basis quite clearly. It's a rather simple point. What do you think I'm not understanding?

I don't disagree that a simplified message may be a good way to appeal to voters. I don't necessarily think it's true either.

Who's to say that speculation on a specific strategy will be more successful than another strategy. For example, "always be truthful", "try to interject catchy sound bites at every opportunity" , "portray your opponent in a negative light at every opportunity', "expound on your economic plans", "expound on your global military aspirations," "be as detailed as possible about your voting record," etc. I'm sure 1000 other potential scenarios regarding strategy could be argued.

Which will be most successful? There's no way to tell. All one can do is try. Do the political strategists have a good idea about an optimal strategy? I'm sure they do. Are they more correct than Marc? Perhaps. Or, maybe they're telling the candidates to do the very thing that Marc is espousing.

Isn't it interesting that a stupid person's vote counts just as much as an "enlightened" person's vote.

It is also very telling that the media has done such a fabulous job of portraying George Bush as intellectually inferior and the sheep of this country have bought into that fallacy. Look at the truth of this man's education and experience. The mere ridiculous discussing of Bush's intellectual abilities proves how Americans tend to believe every perception that they are SPOON FED by the media.

And another point to think about: should the "smartest" person always be the leader?

Kerry already has most of the stupid vote indeed, nearly every labor union in this country has endorsed him and as a former union member I have experienced that 95% of union members will vote the way that union bosses tell them to vote