After the 2004 election, a lot of attention was made to the role of framing. It was clear that Kerry received the majority of support in policy, but lost the election anyway, and some attributed to the loss to framing.
Then George Lakoff's work on framing in politics got a lot of attention.
Lakoff on Framing
2006 happened (perhaps framing played a role?) and now we feel that the country agrees so much with Dems that we can't lose and don't need to fight the framing game. I don't believe this is the case.
In the general election, Republican candidates will frame the debate and we need to challenge. But much of the framing will depend on the credibility of the messenger. They are going to frame the debate in a way that makes it look good for their candidate. And the Dems will need to counter this framing and provide a different frame that suits the Democratic candidate's status. As we saw in 2004, it won't just be the position, but the messenger. For example, Security of Country = Security of You and George Bush = Commander in Chief = Protector. So what do Dems do and WHO is the best messenger?
I personally don't have the answers, I am an acknowledged Obama-supporter, and I want to see ideas about Clinton or Edwards, too. So I hope this diary can be a discussion, not an advertisement. With that caveat, this is my opinion...
Is this about the base or the middle? A lot of people talk about the role of the "base" in 2004, but Bush also got people in the middle because of security. So I do believe that message is mainly aimed at the center. But it also includes a framing that gets people excited at the bases, and for new voters.
So here are the main Republican candidates, and lets not underestimate any of them.
McCain: He has experience in Washington (more than any Dems). He is a veteran ("knows security"). He was "behind the surge". He has a reputation as a moderate, independent-thinker, and not beholden to special interests.
He will frame the debate as one of experience and security. Who can derail him on this? Not someone who is "experienced, but not as much". But someone who can talk about the problems of experience in Washington . Or in Clinton's case, legislative experience doesn't equal executive experience. But she would have to then bring in her years as first-lady, which may not be good with folks in the middle. Security: Who can demonstrate that the "old ways" of security are not really making us secure? I believe it's someone who draws a real contrast on what it means to have security. Again: Framing this as change over experience and the need for change is clear. McCain has a LONG voting record--- and enough of a record to demonstrate "old politics". However, how to frame the debate as change over experience without alienating elderly voters. I don't have any answers on this.
Romney: He was an executive. He can talk about his ability to manage the economy. He passed a big health care plan in Mass (unlike Clinton in Washington). He is not from Washington (can frame this over any of the three Dems).
He will frame this as "we need a real executive to come in and get things done-- I'm the REAL change candidate"). He will focus on the economy and paint the Dems as a continuation of policies that don't help us. Also, he will say "he is the real uniter". A populist message (CEO president will be a continuation of Bush), championed by Edwards, will be best in places like Ohio, as demonstrated in 2006. CEOs are just continuations of Bush. Another frame, best used by Obama, is that of change = a politics of consistency. Romney has proven to be a major flip-flopper who will say anything to get ahead. But unfortunately for Clinton (not all true) is that she (and her husband) are similar in vein. The Iraq decision is a clear example of this.
Huckabee: We are a country for everyone, not just freeky-social conservatives. No problem for any three of the candidates.
I don't think there's anyone else with a chance, so I don't bother.