Posts

B²: He Said, She Said

/1,458 Comments/in , , , /by

A lot of people tuned in to witness Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton strike the careful balance between policy talk and entertainment television. Americans want to know where the candidates stand on the issues, but also demand a meme-able moment…or 7.

Last night delivered. With a one-on-one split screen that just wouldn’t quit, the candidates were on full display. And a non-existent moderator allowed both to trade unassisted monologues and attack each other without limitation.

If you find yourself in a similar situation, in a debate without a moderator to interrupt or apply a timeline, how do you defend yourself?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “<Insert Hillary’s attack on tax returns>.”

B²: “<Dismiss tax return claim and quickly pivot to Clinton Foundation>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, very quickly discredit the claim and then attack your opponent. When Hillary mentioned Trump’s tax returns, the best response would’ve been to dismiss it and then attack her on the Clinton Foundation. A worthy attack he didn’t take advantage of, which seems to be the theme of the night…on both sides. In a debate, you always want to move from defense to offense. In. Every. Answer.

B²: Rubio’s Talking Points

/797 Comments/in , , /by

On Saturday night, Marco Rubio quickly became a study in what not to do.

In four minutes, Rubio repeated the same answer (almost word-for-word) THREE times. Not only did he make it obvious that the line was prepared and rehearsed, but he played into the narrative that Chris Christie had developed for him of “the memorized 25-second speech.”

True. DMG recommends you prepare talking points for every interview so you can block and bridge to each regardless of the question. But the pivot should always be natural. If you expose the technique, you fail to deliver. It’s a fine line between preparation and canned response. But it’s also possible to walk it. So, what could Rubio have done?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Christie’s attack: “I like Marco Rubio, and he’s a smart person and a good guy, but he simply does not have the experience to be president of the United States and make these decisions…”

Rubio’s B²: “Well, I think the experience is not just what you did, but how it worked out. Under Chris Christie’s governorship of New Jersey, they’ve been downgraded nine times in their credit rating… But I would add this. Let’s dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing…”

Christie’s continued attack: “There it is. There it is. The memorized 25-second speech.”

Rubio: “<address the attack and call out its inaccuracy instead of repeating the Obama talking point>.”

You can B² (block and bridge) an attack ONCE. And only once. If the attack comes back at you a second time, you must respond to it. In politics, the name of the game is authenticity, which can translate to thinking on your feet mid-attack. Continually dodging an attack implies the opposite. If Rubio had followed DMG’s rules, headlines the next day may have told a different story.

B²: Debate Attacks

/1,622 Comments/in , , /by

People attack when they’re scared.

Enter Donald Trump and his admission during last Thursday night’s GOP debate that the focus on Cruz’s citizenship was a direct result of Cruz “doing a little bit better” in the polls.

While many praised Cruz for defending himself, at least 7 minutes were devoted to a back-and-forth between Trump and Cruz. 7 minutes! It’s understandable that Cruz wanted to set the record straight as he should, but can it be considered a win if talk of his citizenship dominated the headlines the next morning? DMG says no.

Do you know how to craft a message that slaps down ridiculous accusations but then pivots to highlight a way forward?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here’s this week’s likely media question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “Well, aren’t you just (blank)/aren’t you just trying to do (blank)?”

B²: “That’s not the case. My record speaks for itself. What voters are interested in is <insert talking point>.”

A red herring is meant to distract, so don’t let it. Quickly correct the false premise (“that’s not the case” or “not at all”) and block and bridge to who you are or what policy position you support. It’s understandable that you want to set the record straight…and you should. But be mindful of the headline that will write itself if you spend too much time on defense. Don’t give the audience a reason to conclude, “thou dost protest too much!”