I get that this is a bad piece and give 'em all their lumps for it. But I do think the strength of "convicted felon" as a talking point has been generally overestimated. The term you should use, that's more specific and packs more of a punch, is to call him a convicted fraud. That's the crime here.
News Analysis: When Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies, the U.S. was confronted with a historical novelty: a felon who once held the highest office in the land. Will the label actually tarnish Trump, as it has so many people over the centuries?
And it's not even that "felon" is getting watered down just because it's him now, as this frames it. It already did not carry as strong a sense of moral opprobrium as it had historically. Partly because attitudes towards rehabilitation have softened, partly because it's so overused by our system.
People will often judge a particular crime harshly (fraud is one!), but "felon" in and of itself is too muddied, too broadly applied, covers too many cases people don't see as blameworthy or at least not a permanent mark of shame for life. It wasn't the best way to formulate the talking point.
Agree. Also, if you’re talking in a public-facing way specifically about “34 felonies” you sound too online and like you’re talking to an informed, strong-Democratic audience. Pointless verging on counterproductive in my book.
weird little opportunity for some back-handed positive-vision statements to capitalize on it tho. Like "under my next administration we will pursue broad felon re-enfranchisement. I believe everyone should have a right to vote. Even my opponent Mr Trump."
which has the nice little effect of being a positive-vision policy that forces everyone discussing it to also note that Trump is bad, and cause problems for counter-messaging against it
That would have been a great line for Biden to have included in the debate. But that would be a degree of messaging competency his team clearly doesn't have, and it's a somewhat complicated point to boil down pithily such that I wouldn't be confident in Biden's ability to deliver it.
Again, this is kinda the weird thing going on, people are projecting things that he hasn't done onto him, and projecting things he *should* do that it seems like he, and his campaign isn't capable of. Not great.
Sort of? You get the hand you get and it’s often outside the candidate’s control; you have to respond as much as you have to push. I felt the defining 2008 moments were 1) McCain picked Palin and 2) suspended his campaign briefly re crisis and Obama said “no, that’s not what leaders do.”
I do not think a clever line like this, delivered by anyone, would land in today’s media environment. Maybe if delivered on a debate stage in 1988 it’d be a hit
