The traction theorem
Discussion at work the other day turned to why the Coalition’s attempt to smear Rudd was so much less successful than its attempt to smear Latham. The conclusion we came to was that Latham had form. It’s not your average leader who can boast biff and broken arms. The smear reasoned with the punters. It found traction. Latham appeared flaky and manic. He looked like an L-plate prime minister. You could not trust him with the economy.
With Rudd, the lines of attack against him are less compelling. For example, the fake Sunrise outrage from the Murdoch press looked more like professional journalistic jealousy than any failing on Rudd’s behalf. But fundamentally the lines against Rudd — same old Labor, glass jaw, blame-shifter, temper tantrum thrower, policy detail avoider, confabulator — are failing to get traction because they are not convincing. They do not resonate. They are not what the voters are seeing. (Alternatively, some of the labels can be applied to both sides, and therefore do not mark a point of competitive advantage).
What do you think? Will the Coalition get a grip on Rudd with some killer spin? And if so, what will it be? Have they already done it, and there is just a lag before it shows up in the polls? Or will the Coalition continue shooting blanks, as they sink slowly into the sunset?