在宣传策略,国阵用"喝酒和赌马"来破坏民联所派出的候选人再益,会直接影响虔诚回教徒(少出城)的信心,而民联后来将巫统多名高官的不道德事故放大,希望平衡再益的问题,可是候选人不是有关巫 统部长,而是公关手腕一流的卡马拉,因此还是无法平衡“喝酒、赌马”对再益伤害。
从“兵马未动,粮草先行”的角度看,乌雪补选国阵砸钱是历年之首,从提名到投票,只是看路边自立的广告板,内容设计已经不是人头相,这次采用方式“台湾韵味”十足,比以往成熟,更重要的是,以往选战经验,要树立一个广告板需要用上的钱不少,若有去乌雪的人该知道,这次的公告板非常多,约一公里的道路上,就可以看见超过50幅广告牌,这还没有算巴士车站。
惊人的是,国阵宣布的拨款,不到24小时,有关内容、设计和全彩色广告板,就能在有关地点设立起来,如:国阵拨款给义山,在义山门口便可以看到拨款数额的告示板;国阵拨款给学校,就在学校附近有大型告示牌,面积只是比一般大型广告板小一点点。
民联宣传是以布条为主,华人选区的宣传方式极度凌乱,虽然标题和标语的设计不错,可是吊上的布条多,口号都不一样,选民看了如果是要到台上演讲还好,要有一个比较刻骨铭的印象比较难,要训导周围朋友更难。
民联只可能守住华人区,即赵明福事件、潜水艇、国防部丑闻、首相前助理说华人是妓女,印裔是乞丐、诺奥玛的极端言论、PERKASA的剥夺非土著权益、慕尤丁的马来人优先等,只是适合在非土著间流传,在马来群体中发酵应该是难上加难,再加上民联台上运动多,沿户访问少,要保住马来同胞每一票并不容易。
无论如何,民联要胜出并不容易,国阵组织能力强,能深入各个地方,一旦发挥效用,在偏远的马来社会以人盯人的策略,也离胜利不远了,至于回乡投票的选民会否有能力改变?猜想或许让民联乐观,但不是所有回乡的选民都支持民联......
整个过程,振国劳苦功高啊,也谢谢你的第一手资讯和分析。
ReplyDelete你这篇文章的最后一句好经典:
“但不是所有回乡的选民都支持民联...... ”
别客气,我只是尽力......
ReplyDelete输在垦殖民区, 非战之罪。
ReplyDelete“但不是所有回乡的选民都支持民联...... ”
跟"不是所有马来人都投国阵一样", 跟本有讲好像没有讲。那会有100%投一方的事情? 讲的是"倾向"。乡区马来人倾向投国阵,城市人倾向投民联。
keykok said: “但不是所有回乡的选民都支持民联...... ”
ReplyDeleteWho doesn't know your mama is woman?
If you can, tell exactly (or even more or less) percentage.
Can expected much from a Heboh MCA, anyway.
振国,
ReplyDelete或许下次你会写:
“不是所有新登记的年轻选民都支持民联...... ”
加油。
If i am Keykok, i will said "no every voters support PR".
ReplyDeleteWho can tell i am wrong?!
Sure i am right, i must be a god-of-bloggers!
well, we just share some info and a place for discussion, no body want be a god or what. relax...
ReplyDeleteI think a by election, either UMNO win (read: not bn) with more support or lost because of less support.
ReplyDeleteSome voters from city will support umno but some didn't.
What do you think of this?
Rubbish, right? That's same as keykok.
I think should follow wat PR did before polling day, they ask 8000 voters from town come back, and expected most of them will support PR.
ReplyDeletekeykok said: they ask 8000 voters from town come back, and expected most of them will support PR.
ReplyDeleteSo? what's wrong they said "most"? Did they said "ALL"?
So? Your statement "但不是所有回乡的选民都支持民联", compared with PR said "expected MOST of them will support PR", both are valid.
In short, you just said a rubbish statement. Unless you give a statisic (even more or less), with justifable reason, that how many percent of these voters didn't support PR.