Posts

B²: 1,237

/1,729 Comments/in , , /by

If someone says: “1,237,” your immediate reply is: “the magical number of delegates a GOP candidate needs before he can be crowned the nominee.” That’s because the news cycle is obsessed with convention talk even though the main event is more than 2 months away.

It seems like the most important conversation is centered on the convention and rules and number of delegates, etc. rather than issues and how each candidate plans to govern. SAD!

But if the chatter is lively now, you can bet it will continue unabated through the end of July. Which means, if you work in (or close to) politics, you’ll likely field a question (or three) about the convention and the significance of 1,237. Do you know how to respond?

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: “If Donald Trump doesn’t have 1,237 delegates before the GOP convention in July, do you think he should be handed the nomination anyway?”

B²: “The convention is more than 2 months away. A lot can happen between now and then, and I’m going to leave that discussion to the RNC. Regardless, an issue to focus our attention on now is <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, steer clear of making predictions or recommendations because A) that’s not your job (unless it is…in which case, feel free to proceed) and B) talking about the convention ad nauseam for the next 60+ days doesn’t do much for your message. Always redirect the conversation back to the reason for the interview. You’re in control and it’s your message the audience wants to hear. No need to throw your hat into an already too-full ring.

NOTE: This strategy can also be applied to the Democratic convention. Just replace “1,237” with “super delegates” and “RNC” with “DNC,” and you’re all set.

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!”

B²: CNBC vs. the GOP

/85 Comments/in , , /by

If there was any doubt the mainstream media leans left, last week’s GOP debate proved it. Barbs thrown by the moderators, including a question to Rubio about whether he hates his day job and the comparison of Trump to a comic book character, left both GOP supporters and some left-leaning news outlets criticizing CNBC.

In response, candidates called out the moderators on the spot (enter Ted Cruz), or called out the mainstream media as a whole (hello Marco Rubio), as it was clear the questions strayed from substantive policy discussion to personal attack.

But what the GOP candidates succeeded in doing on Wednesday night may just be a one-hit wonder. Why? It was them vs. the moderators, and everyone watching knew it – the questions were unfair, a few called it like it was, and the audience rejoiced. But, what if you’re attacked personally and it isn’t so obvious? What if you don’t have a two-hour window to still explain your talking points?

In that case (which is where most of us find ourselves), it’s best to quickly acknowledge the question as incorrect and then B² (block and bridge) away from the bias to articulate your message so that you control the narrative. But how do you do that?

Good thing it’s Tuesday, B² day.

Here is an example of an unfair question and the B² (block and bridge) that sets the narrative straight:

Q: “People have said that your organization is just a political front. Isn’t that true?”

B²: “Not at all. The only time I hear that narrative is when a lack of information exists about who we are and who we fight for. The <insert organization or campaign name> is about… <insert talking point>.”

Wherever you take the conversation next, know that it’s a better use of your answer time to stay on message. The audience knows if/when a host is attacking a guest and you don’t want to sound like you’re whining…that’s never attractive. Instead, quickly acknowledge that you disagree with the question but then B² (block and bridge) to your answer.

If handled correctly, not only will the audience see through the bias but you’ll gain extra points by keeping your cool and championing your message anyway.