Here is something I know about winning elections: I am sure that in a horse race of at least a dozen candidates, the strategy of asking one candidate what have you done over the last 12 years will not get you there. The simple fact is that there are, at least, eleven other candidates who will be splitting the votes of those who don’t like the answer that will be given and so if you want to win, really win and not just participate, the strategy will have to involve more than that question.
One of my senior brothers will react to this post and say “Jimmy, you are a good man and I love you very much but what do you know about winning elections?” He might be right that I don’t know a whole lot about winning elections but I do know a thing or two about winning elections.
The voters, in my estimation, will want to hear what you will be doing differently to improve the their current condition. So rather than all other candidates asking one person the same question, let them start figuring out what is it that they intend to do that will have better outcomes for the people.
And oh, the people know that a lot has been done over the last few years and so to want to make them believe that nothing good has happened in the country over the last 12 years, will make them to not trust you. They want someone who can acknowledge that though challenges remain, we have made progress notwithstanding. The admission of this simple truism will create trust with voters and then they might be inclined to listen to what you have to say in the form of offering some kind of solution.
The game is about differentiating yourself and offering something that voters can believe in. Voters usually look at the messenger, the message, the associates, and the past and then wonder in their mind about believability. If they don’t believe you, they not vote for you.
These elections will, no doubt, be interesting and we will be watching. Not true! We don’t be watching; we will be fully participating.