General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Debbie Wasserman Schulz needs to go. [View all]Chan790
(20,176 posts)I've played that game before in local electoral politics...it's old-school dirty politics. You use a well-regarded prominent affable surrogate to constantly on a low boil say things that sound conciliatory to the other side's positions or even contradict the candidate in small ways that if you dig into are not contradictions at-all. Eventually, the other side gives credence and respect to that surrogate, hypes them as a voice of reason or someone to listen to...
then about 6 weeks before the election after the opposition has made your surrogate as credible (or more credible) with the voters leaning their way as their own surrogates, you drop the rock on opposition. Your surrogate immediately becomes prominently and vocally very on-message and connects what he had been saying directly to the campaign's message and shows that it was never contradictory at-all, it might have just been a bit more nuanced. Clinton's old hat at this game, he's been doing it for as long as he's been in politics. His not-on-message-ness makes him seem more genuine and connect better with people, it takes some of the polish off the sell. It's disarming and pretty soon people that never would have voted for the person he's surrogating for realize they agree more with him and his candidate than they do with the opposition they were planning to support.
Any Republican pointing to what the Big Dog is saying and planning or trying to use it against Obama is already snared in the honey-trap.