[paudio]

The campaign actually already some narratives that are formulated in their slogans: country first, reform, prosperity, peace. However, there's no consistent one grand narrative. Well, supposedly perhaps 'country first', but it's vague, and hint too much on bipartisanship that practically nobody buys.

I suggest they choose 'reformer' as the grand narrative (which received a lot of discussions from both McCain and Palin). Keep pounding on it. Put it in their campaign materials (web ad, tv ad, etc.). The way they have today, they keep changing. One day it is about change. Next about country first. Another day is about reform. At one point, they even put 'change that we need' in their ad, a blantant imitation of 0bama's. They might be related conceptually, but as a narrative using them all make them ineffective.

[igoramus08]

I suggest they choose 'reformer' as the grand narrative (which received a lot of discussions from both McCain and Palin). Keep pounding on it. Put it in their campaign materials (web ad, tv ad, etc.). The way they have today, they keep changing. One day it is about change. Next about country first. Another day is about reform. At one point, they even put 'change that we need' in their ad, a blantant imitation of 0bama's. They might be related conceptually, but as a narrative using them all make them ineffective.

The narrative or brand needs to be a unique selling point for our ticket.

The Mavericks sounds cool but is not effective because it doesnt highlight why voters should vote for the ticket. It even implies a bit of recklessness.

Just "reformer" is better. But "experienced/proven/successful reformers" compares and contrasts our tickets' record of successful reform against their record of no or little reform.

This is what voters need. Successful reformers to implement the change that we need now. Obama with no track record is a risk.