While the Minnesota race remains too close to call, a very close and contentious election has come to a close in Georgia. As many of you likely know, the Senate race in Georgia went to a runoff between incumbent Saxby Chambliss and Democrat challenger Jim Martin because neither candidate captured over 50 percent of the vote on November 4th. According to MSNBC (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/03/1696852.aspx), voter turn-out was down significantly, especially among African American voters. Overall turnout was down by nearly half; a quarter of voters in the run-off were black (as compared to one-third on November 4th). Chambliss won by a considerable amount with 57% of the vote.
The implications of this outcome are tremendous. It guarantees that Democrats cannot hold a supermajority capable of overriding a filibuster (60 votes are needed). This may prove to be an important barrier for Obama and a democratic congress to push their agenda through. It also reduces the stakes in the Minnesota run-off because that outcome can no longer swing control of the Senate.
The overhanging specter of the supermajority became an important tool for Chambliss's campaign leading up to the run-off election. He was able to successfully cast himself as the 'key firewall' that could hold off an impenetrable supermajority by the Democrats (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hHW-ZJ03DLcUGUM9z9p2nkbRAG-QD94R6TMO0). He and other high-profile GOP figures (such as Sarah Palin) were able to use this threat to whip up support and mobilize a strong conservative turn-out.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
MN still to close to call
Most of the votes have been recounted in the Coleman/Franken race and we still are not sure who will win.
The following are outstanding variables: do we trust the Franken camps numbers or the MN secretary of state numbers? The Franken camp has him behind 50 votes as of this morning. The official MN numbers are bigger, the difference is that they count every challenged ballot as a no vote and the Franken people assume that all challenged ballots will eventually be counted. There is reason to prefer this assumption since most challenges by both sides are frivolous and the legitimate ones will probably balance each other out.
Second: 171 votes were discovered today. The precinct that found them apparently has a voting machine malfunction on election day that caused the votes to be overlooked. However, the Coleman campaign is challenging these ballots, suggesting that the numbers for voting in the precinct don't add up with the addition of these ballots. These ballots would net 37 more votes for Franken.
For those counting at home, this means Franken could be 13 votes away from officially blurring the line between politics and political satire.
Also breaking Franken's way, it looks like the state is willing to consider counting the rejected absentee ballots. Franken people think these ballots could represent a net gain of 25-100 votes for the Democrat.
Here is a decent article on the subject:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35382149.html?elr=KArks:DCiU1OiP:DiiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
and a good blog post (with updates on Georgia too)
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
The following are outstanding variables: do we trust the Franken camps numbers or the MN secretary of state numbers? The Franken camp has him behind 50 votes as of this morning. The official MN numbers are bigger, the difference is that they count every challenged ballot as a no vote and the Franken people assume that all challenged ballots will eventually be counted. There is reason to prefer this assumption since most challenges by both sides are frivolous and the legitimate ones will probably balance each other out.
Second: 171 votes were discovered today. The precinct that found them apparently has a voting machine malfunction on election day that caused the votes to be overlooked. However, the Coleman campaign is challenging these ballots, suggesting that the numbers for voting in the precinct don't add up with the addition of these ballots. These ballots would net 37 more votes for Franken.
For those counting at home, this means Franken could be 13 votes away from officially blurring the line between politics and political satire.
Also breaking Franken's way, it looks like the state is willing to consider counting the rejected absentee ballots. Franken people think these ballots could represent a net gain of 25-100 votes for the Democrat.
Here is a decent article on the subject:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35382149.html?elr=KArks:DCiU1OiP:DiiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
and a good blog post (with updates on Georgia too)
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
A Final Update: Maine's US Senate race one month later
Incumbent Republican Susan Collins, once seen as the most vulnerable member of the U.S. Senate in 2008, ended up beating her opponent Democrat Tom Allen by twenty-two points (61-39 %) . Surprisingly, when Maine Democrats won both House seats by very large margins, Collins won every county except one, took the state's bluest cities for the first time in her career, and became the only Republican elected to federal office in New England during this cycle. How did she do it? Most pundits claim that Collins' "message of bipartisanship and independence trumped her opponent's attempt to link her to President Bush's policies on Iraq, the economy, health care and energy." Thus, Collins succeeded in distancing herself from Bush. The Senator's election is said to be important news for the state, since the moderate "women from Maine" - including senior Senator Olympia Snowe - can prevent a Republican fillabuster and help the Obama administration usher in a series of reforms. In short, as some predict, look for Maine's senators to be picking up positions as chairs of Congress's most important committees.
All this raises a few questions: 1) Did any other Republican Senator succeed by following Collins; bipartisan message? 2) Is this the strategy Republicans need to adopt in the next election? Should they be composed of a party of mavericks?
All this raises a few questions: 1) Did any other Republican Senator succeed by following Collins; bipartisan message? 2) Is this the strategy Republicans need to adopt in the next election? Should they be composed of a party of mavericks?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
This doesn't quite seem fair...
...many of the things I was going to discuss have been hit on quite expertly by Lacey and J.D. I guess it's my fault for waiting until the evening to post. I'll do my best to hit on some different themes.
1. J.D. talked about technology in regards to what McCain could have done differently, I'd like to pose a question not about the past, but about the future. How will candidates in the future use technology? Will the facebooking, and the emailing, and the texting, etc., be part and parcel of political campaigning in the future? Or was this a unique part of the Obama "movement" phenomenon? You really could ask the same question about incremental donations. Will technology allow these kind of numerous small donations to become more commonplace? Or once again, was this an Obama thing?
2. So, Struthers asked "what happened" in regards to the most important issue of the campaign. A few of you gave some suggestions, but I'd like to know what each of you regard as the most important moment in this election, if there indeed was one.
3. Last, Struthers said something to the effect of "we've lived up to Dr. Martin Luther King's dream." Do you agree with the sentiment? If not, what's left to accomplish? What will it take to completely fulfil Dr. King's dream for our nation?
1. J.D. talked about technology in regards to what McCain could have done differently, I'd like to pose a question not about the past, but about the future. How will candidates in the future use technology? Will the facebooking, and the emailing, and the texting, etc., be part and parcel of political campaigning in the future? Or was this a unique part of the Obama "movement" phenomenon? You really could ask the same question about incremental donations. Will technology allow these kind of numerous small donations to become more commonplace? Or once again, was this an Obama thing?
2. So, Struthers asked "what happened" in regards to the most important issue of the campaign. A few of you gave some suggestions, but I'd like to know what each of you regard as the most important moment in this election, if there indeed was one.
3. Last, Struthers said something to the effect of "we've lived up to Dr. Martin Luther King's dream." Do you agree with the sentiment? If not, what's left to accomplish? What will it take to completely fulfil Dr. King's dream for our nation?
More discussion questions!
1) Mr. Strother talked about how after he went to the Obama rally he began receiving "personalized" emails based on his age, income level, etc. I believe Eddie also mentioned in after the study group, but it seems that Obama has utilized this campaign to perfect the art of microtargeting. Do you think that the McCain campaign suffered from their lack of microtargeting? Did Obama overdo the microtargeting? Also, as Eddie mentioned, some members of our class had a somewhat negative attitude towards microtargeting. Has your opinion changed with this campaign or do you still feel like it is one step too far?
2) Mr. Strother said that in some places nearly 30 or 40% of the population turned out for early voting, suggesting the idea that perhaps in future elections we will not so much have an "Election day" as we will a "election month." How will campaigns have to adjust their advertising strategies to ensure that their reach as many voters as possible before they cast their ballot? Do you think that the "late October surprise" that we have joked about will become non-existent?
3) Finally, we have all recognized what a historic event this election is. Not only was the first black man elected President of the United States, but for the first time a woman had a viable chance at the entering the executive sphere as well. What aspects of this campaign will live onto make history books in the future? Do you think Palin's poor showing in the campaign will discourage the GOP from stepping outside the box again? Do you think that the glass ceiling has been shattered, or was this just a pure publicity stunt on the part of McCain. (I know the questions I am asking are very black/white, but I'm curious as to the implications for the future of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates for the future.) Was Palin a one-hit wonder, or will the nomination of a female running mate become a common thing?
2) Mr. Strother said that in some places nearly 30 or 40% of the population turned out for early voting, suggesting the idea that perhaps in future elections we will not so much have an "Election day" as we will a "election month." How will campaigns have to adjust their advertising strategies to ensure that their reach as many voters as possible before they cast their ballot? Do you think that the "late October surprise" that we have joked about will become non-existent?
3) Finally, we have all recognized what a historic event this election is. Not only was the first black man elected President of the United States, but for the first time a woman had a viable chance at the entering the executive sphere as well. What aspects of this campaign will live onto make history books in the future? Do you think Palin's poor showing in the campaign will discourage the GOP from stepping outside the box again? Do you think that the glass ceiling has been shattered, or was this just a pure publicity stunt on the part of McCain. (I know the questions I am asking are very black/white, but I'm curious as to the implications for the future of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates for the future.) Was Palin a one-hit wonder, or will the nomination of a female running mate become a common thing?
Discussion Questions for November 5, 2008
1) Clearly, one facet that sets this election apart is technology. Ray Strother said… “Technology has changed everything…It has improved campaigns in my opinion.” Ray claims that the computer revolution has created an environment were campaigning has gone back to “door to door” and “person to person.” What are your thoughts on the role of technology in this election? What does it mean for future elections? And, what do you think about Ray’s anecdote about 9,000 people making phone calls at rallies? Is this ethical? Is this what modern democracy looks like? Regardless of your feelings about the outcome of this election, technology poses a host of new considerations for political communication. What should we be excited about? What aspects of technology should we be aiming our most critical scholarly lenses at?
Knowing what we do about the results of this election, if you could magically go back in time how would you advise the McCain camp? Is there a strategy that could have defeated a campaign as well run and consistent as the Obama campaign? Presumably, this is the question facing the Republicans in 2012. The Obama re-election campaign will likely be at least as strong and utilize at bear minimum the strategies that worked so well in 2008. To what degree does this election demand an overhaul of the status quo in presidential campaigns as Ray Strother has suggested?
2) Several weeks back Republican pollster Whit Ayers predicted the RNC’s strategy of “Don’t Let the Democrats Have it All” in the last few weeks of the election. At this moment we are still anticipating a recount in Minnesota and a run-off in Georgia, but knowing what we do now or will in the next few days about the make-up of the next Congress, what effect did this message have if any? Secondly, what strategies worked in the last few weeks and what seemed like pure desperation? In the North Carolina senate race between Kay Hagan and Elizabeth Dole the attack on Hagan’s faith seemed both desperate and uncommonly mean, did any one else see ads in their races turn extremely ugly in the final weeks? What if anything could change in the area of “negative ads” as a result of this election cycle?
3) Finally, yesterday, Ray Strother asked “What Happened?” As we look back at this election what were the “Words that Work” from this campaign? What campaign messages were “Made To Stick” and what messaging strategies have we already forgotten from this historic campaign? If you are the McCain camp, were there messaging strategies that could have worked that weren’t used? Could those that were used have worked if they had been more “on message?”
In what ways did we see concepts from “Applebees’ s America” rear their heads in this election? What role did the exurbanites play or not play in electing our new president? Eddie asked yesterday given the outcome of the election “how many people still have a problem with micro-targeting?” Personally, I still see micro-targeting as a massive and very serious threat to civil liberties and privacy. Additional thoughts? Ray Strother said elections will… “…never, ever be the same again.” What are the implications of strategies of this type for future elections? What’s next in the realm of the citizen consumer and political strategy?
Knowing what we do about the results of this election, if you could magically go back in time how would you advise the McCain camp? Is there a strategy that could have defeated a campaign as well run and consistent as the Obama campaign? Presumably, this is the question facing the Republicans in 2012. The Obama re-election campaign will likely be at least as strong and utilize at bear minimum the strategies that worked so well in 2008. To what degree does this election demand an overhaul of the status quo in presidential campaigns as Ray Strother has suggested?
2) Several weeks back Republican pollster Whit Ayers predicted the RNC’s strategy of “Don’t Let the Democrats Have it All” in the last few weeks of the election. At this moment we are still anticipating a recount in Minnesota and a run-off in Georgia, but knowing what we do now or will in the next few days about the make-up of the next Congress, what effect did this message have if any? Secondly, what strategies worked in the last few weeks and what seemed like pure desperation? In the North Carolina senate race between Kay Hagan and Elizabeth Dole the attack on Hagan’s faith seemed both desperate and uncommonly mean, did any one else see ads in their races turn extremely ugly in the final weeks? What if anything could change in the area of “negative ads” as a result of this election cycle?
3) Finally, yesterday, Ray Strother asked “What Happened?” As we look back at this election what were the “Words that Work” from this campaign? What campaign messages were “Made To Stick” and what messaging strategies have we already forgotten from this historic campaign? If you are the McCain camp, were there messaging strategies that could have worked that weren’t used? Could those that were used have worked if they had been more “on message?”
In what ways did we see concepts from “Applebees’ s America” rear their heads in this election? What role did the exurbanites play or not play in electing our new president? Eddie asked yesterday given the outcome of the election “how many people still have a problem with micro-targeting?” Personally, I still see micro-targeting as a massive and very serious threat to civil liberties and privacy. Additional thoughts? Ray Strother said elections will… “…never, ever be the same again.” What are the implications of strategies of this type for future elections? What’s next in the realm of the citizen consumer and political strategy?
Monday, November 3, 2008
Predictions
I suppose I will start the predictions...
1. Presidential race - popular vote: Obama-52% McCain-47%
2. Presidential race - electoral votes: Obama-311 McCain-227
3. North Carolina Senate - Kay Hagan
Minnesota Senate - Norm Coleman
KS-02 Senate - Lynn Jenkins
1. Presidential race - popular vote: Obama-52% McCain-47%
2. Presidential race - electoral votes: Obama-311 McCain-227
3. North Carolina Senate - Kay Hagan
Minnesota Senate - Norm Coleman
KS-02 Senate - Lynn Jenkins
Should Georgia have been on our minds?
I am surprised that the Georgia senate race has not captured more national media attention. The incumbent in this race is Republican Saxby Chambliss, who faces Democratic challenger Jim Martin. There are two reasons why I'd expect this race to gain more attention. First, it is close. Right now, Real Clear Politics is giving Chambliss a three percent advantage . The recent history of the senate seat is the second reason why I'd expect this race to garner more attention.
Chambliss won the seat in 2002 from incumbent Democrat Max Cleland. During that race, Chambliss ran commercials like this one:
At the time, this advertisement was criticized by Republican senators Chuck Hagel and John McCain. Six years later, Chambliss is facing a challenge from his college fraternity brother Jim Martin (This human interest angle is actually another reason why I'd expect this race to gain national attention.). Though the candidates might be friends, that hasn't stopped Chambliss from running advertisments like this one:
This appears to be Chambliss' harshest and most personal attack on Martin. Otherwise, he has attacked Martin on taxes, and for being a Democrat.
Martin has kept his focus on the economy, sometimes tying Chambliss to the president's economic policies. Martin has also benefited from a series of advertisements that attack on Chambliss, courtesy of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. The following DSCC advertisement attacks Chambliss for supporting a 23 percent national sales tax:
Chambliss won the seat in 2002 from incumbent Democrat Max Cleland. During that race, Chambliss ran commercials like this one:
At the time, this advertisement was criticized by Republican senators Chuck Hagel and John McCain. Six years later, Chambliss is facing a challenge from his college fraternity brother Jim Martin (This human interest angle is actually another reason why I'd expect this race to gain national attention.). Though the candidates might be friends, that hasn't stopped Chambliss from running advertisments like this one:
This appears to be Chambliss' harshest and most personal attack on Martin. Otherwise, he has attacked Martin on taxes, and for being a Democrat.
Martin has kept his focus on the economy, sometimes tying Chambliss to the president's economic policies. Martin has also benefited from a series of advertisements that attack on Chambliss, courtesy of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. The following DSCC advertisement attacks Chambliss for supporting a 23 percent national sales tax:
Begich keeps things sqeaky clean (apparently wishes Washington did too)
So with months and months to create scathing advertisements against indicted and now convicted Republican AK Senator, Ted Stevens, Mark Begich, has kept things relatively clean.
Very clean in fact. Here's the dirtiest ad I could find, and it's about a car wash:
I think the "Ultimate Car Wash" is charming. I don't know if Jim would agree given how easy this would be to take negative, but the fact that he's not going for the jugular appears to be working. He's still up by double-digits (10.3 on Real Clear Politics). The rest of his ads are about his history (his dad was a U.S. Congressman who was lost in a plane crash), his "I-don't-care-about-politics" middle of the road stuff (the guy is for drilling in ANWR), and call for a Senator "as independent as Alaska."
Here's how 'negative' he goes on his website:
"Alaskans expect their elected officials to live by the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and transparency. Unfortunately, Alaskans have been let down by their elected officials. Secret meetings, hidden favors, special access for special interests, and now convicted legislators have given Alaska a black eye. The only way to restore Alaskans trust in their elected leaders is for them to earn it."
Very clean in fact. Here's the dirtiest ad I could find, and it's about a car wash:
I think the "Ultimate Car Wash" is charming. I don't know if Jim would agree given how easy this would be to take negative, but the fact that he's not going for the jugular appears to be working. He's still up by double-digits (10.3 on Real Clear Politics). The rest of his ads are about his history (his dad was a U.S. Congressman who was lost in a plane crash), his "I-don't-care-about-politics" middle of the road stuff (the guy is for drilling in ANWR), and call for a Senator "as independent as Alaska."
Here's how 'negative' he goes on his website:
"Alaskans expect their elected officials to live by the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and transparency. Unfortunately, Alaskans have been let down by their elected officials. Secret meetings, hidden favors, special access for special interests, and now convicted legislators have given Alaska a black eye. The only way to restore Alaskans trust in their elected leaders is for them to earn it."
I'm actually very pleased by what I've found (or not found). How easy would it be to run an ad or two with a grainy picture of Stevens superimposed over a deck with a nice grill? Or maybe an ad where Begich pulls a gun on Stevens' oil-co. cronies? If the smiley-everyman thing works in Alaska, then Begich knows it. I'm not saying he's being extra ethical or genuine by not cutting Stevens' throat. I'm just saying it's refreshing.
Of course, if I was a voter receiving direct mail in Alaska, who knows what I'd find?
Election Eve Report from North Carolina Senate Race
The Dole Hagan race for the North Carolina race has heated up over the last week of the campaign. The Dole camp has launched a provocative new ad accusing Hagan of consorting with "atheists." The ad embedded below asks... "If Godless Americans through a party in your honor would you attend." It's pretty rough stuff, see for yourself.
The Wall Street Journal makes note of the unexpected "dead heat" in North Carolina, but RealClearPolitics still shows Hagan leading in the polls up by +5.5. The article talks about the continued impact of new voter registration and voter turnout. According to the article "State officials" predict a million more voters will vote in North Carolina this election than did in 2004. While Dole has received some prominent endorsements, according to the Journal, even some of her supporters question the ethics behind the last minute attacks on Hagan a "Presbyterian Sunday school teacher" and her "Godless" affiliations. Have others seen attacks of faith in the final weeks of their campaign watch?
Finally, the article quotes Dole saying... "Republicans are outnumbered in registrations, so you can't win without Democrats," she said. "I've had people tell me they voted Obama-Dole." I wonder how many other down ticket races are seeing the Republicans candidate deploy similar strategies to distance themselves from the top of the ticket in the waning moments of this campaign.
Link to the Wall Street Journal article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122557136327590909.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The Wall Street Journal makes note of the unexpected "dead heat" in North Carolina, but RealClearPolitics still shows Hagan leading in the polls up by +5.5. The article talks about the continued impact of new voter registration and voter turnout. According to the article "State officials" predict a million more voters will vote in North Carolina this election than did in 2004. While Dole has received some prominent endorsements, according to the Journal, even some of her supporters question the ethics behind the last minute attacks on Hagan a "Presbyterian Sunday school teacher" and her "Godless" affiliations. Have others seen attacks of faith in the final weeks of their campaign watch?
Finally, the article quotes Dole saying... "Republicans are outnumbered in registrations, so you can't win without Democrats," she said. "I've had people tell me they voted Obama-Dole." I wonder how many other down ticket races are seeing the Republicans candidate deploy similar strategies to distance themselves from the top of the ticket in the waning moments of this campaign.
Link to the Wall Street Journal article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122557136327590909.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Coal - New Stump Speech Addition
In Ohio today, Palin jumped on what she claims was a "hidden" San Francisco Chronicle audio tape that alludes to Obama's intent to "bankrupt the coal industry." The actual audio suggests that new coal plants would go bankrupt under a cap and trade scheme unless "new technology" were introduced that substantially reduce new plant C02 outputs.
In the struggle for framing, the republicans and even the SF Chronicle have accepted the framing of the audio as Obama's plan to "bankrupt the industry" instead of the actual audio that indicates NEW coal plants are the target. It should be mentioned that these plants are owned by UTILITIES not the "coal industry."
The next step in the spin game is to link the SF chronicle into the liberal media. This article: article indicates just that, when Palin asked her audience "why this audio is just now surfacing." The overwhelming crowd response: "Liberal media"
She also suggested that there is something about San Francisco that is like a "truth serum" when she made a connection to this interview and Obama's "guns and religion" comment.
Coal is an important resource with much symbolic power for the populations of eastern swing states. I would be willing to bet that this new campaign tactic will gain just enough media coverage to turn (or suppress) some voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The question is whether the monday before the election is too little too late.
This year, we have witnessed how new revelations about Bill Ayers and Rev. White etc. have the ability to reduce support for Obama in the polls. Even if the reduction is minor, McCain has been gaining in the polls the last week, momentum builders couldn't hurt his campaign in close races in these swing states. When this type of negative uncertainty is raised about a candidate, the offended campaign needs time to rebuild their candidate's character. I'm interested to see what will happen in the next 24 hours with this particular issue with both campaigns.
Obama's response is already canned "This is a non-issue, it's a distraction from what is hurting real Americans. McCain advocates cap-and-trade, and Obama obviously would not want to bankrupt the 'coal industry.'"
Brian's Fair and Balanced Blogging:
http://newsbusters.org/node/25829?q=blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry
Script:
Let me sort of describe my overall policy.
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
In the struggle for framing, the republicans and even the SF Chronicle have accepted the framing of the audio as Obama's plan to "bankrupt the industry" instead of the actual audio that indicates NEW coal plants are the target. It should be mentioned that these plants are owned by UTILITIES not the "coal industry."
The next step in the spin game is to link the SF chronicle into the liberal media. This article: article indicates just that, when Palin asked her audience "why this audio is just now surfacing." The overwhelming crowd response: "Liberal media"
She also suggested that there is something about San Francisco that is like a "truth serum" when she made a connection to this interview and Obama's "guns and religion" comment.
Coal is an important resource with much symbolic power for the populations of eastern swing states. I would be willing to bet that this new campaign tactic will gain just enough media coverage to turn (or suppress) some voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The question is whether the monday before the election is too little too late.
This year, we have witnessed how new revelations about Bill Ayers and Rev. White etc. have the ability to reduce support for Obama in the polls. Even if the reduction is minor, McCain has been gaining in the polls the last week, momentum builders couldn't hurt his campaign in close races in these swing states. When this type of negative uncertainty is raised about a candidate, the offended campaign needs time to rebuild their candidate's character. I'm interested to see what will happen in the next 24 hours with this particular issue with both campaigns.
Obama's response is already canned "This is a non-issue, it's a distraction from what is hurting real Americans. McCain advocates cap-and-trade, and Obama obviously would not want to bankrupt the 'coal industry.'"
Brian's Fair and Balanced Blogging:
http://newsbusters.org/node/25829?q=blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry
Script:
Let me sort of describe my overall policy.
What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Signs that campaigns are changing...
Perhaps everyone else has already seen them, but while walking through Lawrence the other day I noticed a sign with Obama's name on it and the official Obama logo. Above it read "Si se puede" which means "Yes we can" in spanish. My mom reported seeing one in Emporia as well, where there is a heavy hispanic population.
After I saw the sign it struck me that this was the first political campaign piece of paraphernalia that I have ever seen not in English. Obama has hit on a group not usually targeted by campaigns, reinforcing his idea that he will bring change.
It made me wonder if Luntz's Words that Work can be translated into other languages and be just as successful. Thoughts?
After I saw the sign it struck me that this was the first political campaign piece of paraphernalia that I have ever seen not in English. Obama has hit on a group not usually targeted by campaigns, reinforcing his idea that he will bring change.
It made me wonder if Luntz's Words that Work can be translated into other languages and be just as successful. Thoughts?
Ted Stevens not done redecorating? Convicted AK senator still pushing for reelection
So Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (R) had a good thing going for him, being the longest-serving Republican Senator in history and then this happened a few months ago:
I didn't know they were from an oil company...
And then this happened a few days ago:
Like none of you have ever accepted tens and thousands in gifts and services from corporations you're supposed to be protecting the people from
So what was a lock became a tight race with Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) and what was a tight race became advantage Begich, who is up 10 percent on Real Clear Politics. But not everyone says that Stevens is out, least of all Stevens himself:
Drill, baby, Drill. Spend, baby, Spend.
One has to wonder how this will play out on election day. Stevens thinks he's innocent enough to stay in the senate, and counting on voters to agree. After all, who wouldn't let their friend keep a gas grill or two at their house?
I plan on taking a deeper look at how each candidate is campaigning in the eleventh hour given this hot-button issue. Makes for tricky territory. I'll also keep you posted on how the stuff falls on Tuesday. Could be a new era for the AK senate seat.
It goes without saying that I don't expect much of an up-ballot bump for Obama even if Begich does pull things out. NPR has McCain/Palin up 15 percent in the state. If anything, Stevens might enjoy some help from the lipstick pitbull.
I didn't know they were from an oil company...
And then this happened a few days ago:
Like none of you have ever accepted tens and thousands in gifts and services from corporations you're supposed to be protecting the people from
So what was a lock became a tight race with Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) and what was a tight race became advantage Begich, who is up 10 percent on Real Clear Politics. But not everyone says that Stevens is out, least of all Stevens himself:
Drill, baby, Drill. Spend, baby, Spend.
One has to wonder how this will play out on election day. Stevens thinks he's innocent enough to stay in the senate, and counting on voters to agree. After all, who wouldn't let their friend keep a gas grill or two at their house?
I plan on taking a deeper look at how each candidate is campaigning in the eleventh hour given this hot-button issue. Makes for tricky territory. I'll also keep you posted on how the stuff falls on Tuesday. Could be a new era for the AK senate seat.
It goes without saying that I don't expect much of an up-ballot bump for Obama even if Begich does pull things out. NPR has McCain/Palin up 15 percent in the state. If anything, Stevens might enjoy some help from the lipstick pitbull.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
North Carolina gubernatorial race
Elsewhere on this blog we have discussed the tight senate race in North Carolina. The gubernatorial race in that state also appears close. The candidates in this race are the Democratic Lt. Governor Bev Perdue, and the Republican Mayor of Charlotte, Pat McCrory. Currently Democratic candidate Bev Perdue has a very slight lead, according to Pollster.com. This might be quickly dismissed as merely part of national mood that favors Democrats. Upon closer examination, the narrative of this race is more interesting.
Perdue has tried to appeal to North Carolina's rural voters. This violates the notion of rural Republicans and urban Democrats, but Perdue has a few advantages on this. For instance,Andy Griffith offers his endorsement in one of her television commercials. More important, Perdue has the advantage of background. Her campaign Web site highlights her small-town roots, along with her accomplishments as a state senator and lieutenant governor. McCrory is in his seventh term as mayor of North Carolina's biggest city. His campaign Web site lists several impressive accomplishments, such as bringing light rail to Charlotte and encouraging mixed use development.
McCrory's disadvantage is that he been successful on issues that probably won't resonate with rural voters. Perdue has seized upon this, but she has also been charged with criticizing Charlotte, rather than just attacking McCrory. Given McCrory's longevity in Charlotte's city government, it may be difficult for her to separate the two. McCrory has suggested that Perdue is only critical of Charlotte while speaking in rural areas. One Democratic-leaning poll shows a significant lead for McCrory in Charlotte, which accounts for 20 percent of voters statewide.
So essentially we are seeing a Republican who has a natural advantage in the state's largest city. If we believe the notion that Democrats do best in urban areas, then this race would seem difficult for Perdue. Yet she is doing well. Perhaps campaigning in rural areas is not a waste of time for Democrats.
Perdue has tried to appeal to North Carolina's rural voters. This violates the notion of rural Republicans and urban Democrats, but Perdue has a few advantages on this. For instance,Andy Griffith offers his endorsement in one of her television commercials. More important, Perdue has the advantage of background. Her campaign Web site highlights her small-town roots, along with her accomplishments as a state senator and lieutenant governor. McCrory is in his seventh term as mayor of North Carolina's biggest city. His campaign Web site lists several impressive accomplishments, such as bringing light rail to Charlotte and encouraging mixed use development.
McCrory's disadvantage is that he been successful on issues that probably won't resonate with rural voters. Perdue has seized upon this, but she has also been charged with criticizing Charlotte, rather than just attacking McCrory. Given McCrory's longevity in Charlotte's city government, it may be difficult for her to separate the two. McCrory has suggested that Perdue is only critical of Charlotte while speaking in rural areas. One Democratic-leaning poll shows a significant lead for McCrory in Charlotte, which accounts for 20 percent of voters statewide.
So essentially we are seeing a Republican who has a natural advantage in the state's largest city. If we believe the notion that Democrats do best in urban areas, then this race would seem difficult for Perdue. Yet she is doing well. Perhaps campaigning in rural areas is not a waste of time for Democrats.
N.H Senate - 7 days out
I'm signed up for the candidates email updates and, naturally, I got an email message encouraging me to give that final push toward victory from both candidates. Shaheen has widened her lead to +8.6 according to RealClearPolitics. There is another debate between the candidates tomorrow night, so that should be interesting given the contentious nature of the first debate.
Back to the emails, Shaheen sent a video message from her campaign manager:
https://jeanneshaheen.org/contribute/7days
in which the manager thanks all of Shaheen's supporters for their help and encourages a final push toward the end. There is also a brief mention of the 'negative attacks' perpetrated by the other side. I find it interesting how dressed down the manager is. I would imagine they are going for an inclusive/casual vibe, but it almost comes off as too staged for me, especially given the background of the shot with its sort of 'down-home' vibe.
The Sununu email has the following exerpt:
"Out of State Union supporters of Jeanne Shaheen are luring rally attendees by offering tickets to a New Hampshire Fisher Cats game. It speaks volumes about what Shaheen has to do to inspire anyone, and we cannot let it work."
I don't really think I need to analyze this exerpt, although it is interesting that this forms a significant part of the email, given how little of the Shaheen video is focused on anything other than warm fuzzies.
Also interestingly, the Sununu campaign has been heavily touting the debate(s), while the Shaheen campaign has not. Does this mean that Sununu was clearly the winner? I couldn't honestly tell you, as, from watching the debate I thought both did well (if a little agressive). But it's interesting to see which campaign is touting it and which is ignoring it.
Back to the emails, Shaheen sent a video message from her campaign manager:
https://jeanneshaheen.org/contribute/7days
in which the manager thanks all of Shaheen's supporters for their help and encourages a final push toward the end. There is also a brief mention of the 'negative attacks' perpetrated by the other side. I find it interesting how dressed down the manager is. I would imagine they are going for an inclusive/casual vibe, but it almost comes off as too staged for me, especially given the background of the shot with its sort of 'down-home' vibe.
The Sununu email has the following exerpt:
"Out of State Union supporters of Jeanne Shaheen are luring rally attendees by offering tickets to a New Hampshire Fisher Cats game. It speaks volumes about what Shaheen has to do to inspire anyone, and we cannot let it work."
I don't really think I need to analyze this exerpt, although it is interesting that this forms a significant part of the email, given how little of the Shaheen video is focused on anything other than warm fuzzies.
Also interestingly, the Sununu campaign has been heavily touting the debate(s), while the Shaheen campaign has not. Does this mean that Sununu was clearly the winner? I couldn't honestly tell you, as, from watching the debate I thought both did well (if a little agressive). But it's interesting to see which campaign is touting it and which is ignoring it.
Kansas a Blue State?
Probably not, but Democrats are certainly making strides in the state. It appears that Democrats have outraised/outspent Republicans by 2 to 1 in Kansas. Finance reports have been made public, and here is a summary of the information (this is state accounts only--not federal accounts).
DEMOCRAT ACCOUNTS:
Cash Available for this period:
State Party: $926,868
Senate Democrats: $155,645
House Democrats: $167,274
KS-01: $21,244
KS-02: $22,412
KS-03: $97,589
KS-04: $75,522
Bluestem PAC (Sebelius PAC): $622,217
Democrat total: $2,088,771
==========
REPUBLICAN ACCOUNTS
Cash Available for this period:
State Party: $364,082
Senate GOP: $252,109
House GOP: $247,367
KS-01: $9,414
KS-02 : $8,933
KS-03: $158.16
KS-04: $26,394
Senate Leadership PAC: $155,219
Republican total: $1,063,676.16
~~~~
Obama's campaign has also been focusing some resources in the state, even though his chances of winning it are slim to none. It seems that the Democrats are doing their best to make inroads in traditionally Red States so that some time down the road, Democrats have a better shot at getting elected.
Stuck in the middle
Documentarian Errol Morris offers a brief history of political advertisements that use "real people." Keep in mind that he is a liberal and is working on behalf of Obama.
http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/people-in-the-middle/?8dpc
http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/people-in-the-middle/?8dpc
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Objective journalism is dead!
And it's all Obama's fault, according to this piece.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/letters/view/2008_10_28_Election_2008:_Objective_journalism_the_loser/
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/letters/view/2008_10_28_Election_2008:_Objective_journalism_the_loser/
Kentucky Senate race
On first glance the Kentucky senate race does not seem very interesting. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is actually facing a challenge in his re-election bid. Real Clear Politics gives him a slight advantage (3.6 percent), but the race remains a toss up. This tight competition has caused McConnell to spend a good deal of time on the campaign trail. In fact, he even skipped a debate last night to campaign in western Kentucky.
Democratic challenger Bruce Lunsford is certainly not riding Obama's coattails. Real Clear Politics shows McCain leading by 12.4 percent in Kentucky. However, there does seem to be some dissatisfaction with Republicans there. Two years ago a five-term Republican congress woman was voted out. She is now trying to regain her former seat. The Louisville newspaper says she faces an "uphill battle," and one recent poll shows her trailing by 16 points.
Of course, this congressional district includes urbane Louisville. So one could simply dismiss it as Democrats consolidating power in metropolitan areas. If that were the case, then McConnell would not have too many worries. However, Republicans have also lost statewide elections in Kentucky. Clinton won the state twice. The Republican governor was recently voted out by a large margin. (See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/senate/ky/kentucky_senate-917.html.)
I think the last two presidential elections have led us to believe that Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans are creatures of the past. The Maine senate race has been discussed elsewhere on this blog, showing that moderate Republicans are still viable candidates in the north. I wonder if we are too quick to assign partisan labels to states based on the results of presidential elections.
Democratic challenger Bruce Lunsford is certainly not riding Obama's coattails. Real Clear Politics shows McCain leading by 12.4 percent in Kentucky. However, there does seem to be some dissatisfaction with Republicans there. Two years ago a five-term Republican congress woman was voted out. She is now trying to regain her former seat. The Louisville newspaper says she faces an "uphill battle," and one recent poll shows her trailing by 16 points.
Of course, this congressional district includes urbane Louisville. So one could simply dismiss it as Democrats consolidating power in metropolitan areas. If that were the case, then McConnell would not have too many worries. However, Republicans have also lost statewide elections in Kentucky. Clinton won the state twice. The Republican governor was recently voted out by a large margin. (See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/senate/ky/kentucky_senate-917.html.)
I think the last two presidential elections have led us to believe that Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans are creatures of the past. The Maine senate race has been discussed elsewhere on this blog, showing that moderate Republicans are still viable candidates in the north. I wonder if we are too quick to assign partisan labels to states based on the results of presidential elections.
NC update, Hagan still leading, candidate ads mix it up
The latest Public Policy Polling in the North Carolina senate race continues to show Democrat challenger Kay Hagen leading. As of Monday, Oct 27 Hagan was up +3 over the Republican incumbent Elizabeth Dole. Below is a link to the pdf of the full press release with polling questions and summary retrieved from Real Clear Politics.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_1027484.pdf
For anyone interested I’ve included links to a pair of ads from the North Carolina senate candidates. The Kay Hagan ad reminds me quite a bit of Ray Strother’s famous Social Security ad, the one we watched in the study group session with the lonely walk to an empty mail box. This Hagan ad relies heavily on a series of similar emotional appeals to middle class voters and values.
Hagan ad: http://www.kayhagan.com/tv/our-second-ad-level
Dole ad: http://www.elizabethdole.org/ click on “Watch Our New Ad” tab
Dole’s official campaign site: http://www.elizabethdole.org/ has a section called “smear meter” which claims Kay Hagan’s campaign has spent “Now, $20,000,000” on negative ads using smear tactics against Dole. The site also boasts a banner ad at the bottom of the page which says… “Volunteer now and win a dinner with Senator Elizabeth Dole.” I question this move, I think this makes the candidate sound more like a wacky morning radio DJ than the highly respectable incumbent Senator from North Carolina.
The Dole spot linked above is a very interesting take on the “straight talk” appeal. The ad begins with the candidate’s approval of the message and continues as a direct address appeal throughout. A few dramatic images are edited in briefly, but I think this strategy is powerful and effective. Dole is down 3 in the polls and her campaign has talked a lot about Hagan’s negative tactics, making it difficult to run spots too similar in strategy to the ones they’ve objected to. This ad is remarkably simple and puts the candidate’s ethos front and center, but the ad doesn't acknowledge Hagan directly.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NC_1027484.pdf
For anyone interested I’ve included links to a pair of ads from the North Carolina senate candidates. The Kay Hagan ad reminds me quite a bit of Ray Strother’s famous Social Security ad, the one we watched in the study group session with the lonely walk to an empty mail box. This Hagan ad relies heavily on a series of similar emotional appeals to middle class voters and values.
Hagan ad: http://www.kayhagan.com/tv/our-second-ad-level
Dole ad: http://www.elizabethdole.org/ click on “Watch Our New Ad” tab
Dole’s official campaign site: http://www.elizabethdole.org/ has a section called “smear meter” which claims Kay Hagan’s campaign has spent “Now, $20,000,000” on negative ads using smear tactics against Dole. The site also boasts a banner ad at the bottom of the page which says… “Volunteer now and win a dinner with Senator Elizabeth Dole.” I question this move, I think this makes the candidate sound more like a wacky morning radio DJ than the highly respectable incumbent Senator from North Carolina.
The Dole spot linked above is a very interesting take on the “straight talk” appeal. The ad begins with the candidate’s approval of the message and continues as a direct address appeal throughout. A few dramatic images are edited in briefly, but I think this strategy is powerful and effective. Dole is down 3 in the polls and her campaign has talked a lot about Hagan’s negative tactics, making it difficult to run spots too similar in strategy to the ones they’ve objected to. This ad is remarkably simple and puts the candidate’s ethos front and center, but the ad doesn't acknowledge Hagan directly.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Is Maine Senator Susan Collins pulling an Obama?
As I indicated in a previous post, Maine's Junior U.S. Senator Susan Collins was once thought to be the most vulnerable Republican in the upper chamber this year. However, Collins is now apparently doing so well that she is invading Democratic territory. The Lewiston Sunjournal reported today that Collins is trying hard to accomplish her dream of winning Maine's second largest city, Lewiston. This is quite the challenge: 47% of the city's registered voters are Democrats, while just 17% are Republicans. Though Collins lost Lewiston by just two points in 2002, her new opponent, Tom Allen, is far more popular with voters. Yet, Collins suspects that key endorsements by Lewiston's Democratic mayor and the region's political elite will be enough to tip the scales. Though the secret recipe to her success, Collins reports, is really something simple: her pragmatic and bipartisan politics.
Moderate Republicans tended to get trounced in the 2006 midterm elections. Why might Collins's moderate status be helping her this year? Why is Tom Allen having such a hard time making comparisons between Collins and Bush stick?
Moderate Republicans tended to get trounced in the 2006 midterm elections. Why might Collins's moderate status be helping her this year? Why is Tom Allen having such a hard time making comparisons between Collins and Bush stick?
hope after all?
Senator Ted "the internet is tubes" Stevens is convicted on several felony charges of lying to cover up a quarter million dollars in bribes. Something about Seward's icebox inspires politicians to abuse their power up there. Any ideas on either how or whether the Obama campaign will try to link this to Palin's spotty record ala Troopergate?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102702557.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102702557.html
Maine politicians experimenting with YouTube
I always forget how rural my home state of Maine is until I venture back and try to log onto the internet. Wireless is just starting to get big there, internet cafes are few and far between, and DSL lines are still being added in the state's biggest cities. Nevertheless, Maine's two candidates for the U.S. Senate are following national trends by looking to YouTube to target voters. Lewiston's Sunjournal recently covered the issue.
Both campaigns have uploaded more than 50 videos each. So far, the spots vary in seriousness. Susan Collins has posted campaign ads and scenes from the trail, but her campaign has also added some of her more humorous moments occurring over the last year. Tom Allen, too, has used humor to refute rumors that he is the most boring man alive.
Viewers are not flocking to the videos quite yet, as both campaigns report only between 0-2000 hits for each YouTube spot. However, the move raises a few interesting questions: 1) What demographic do campaigns target with YouTube videos? 2) What kinds of factors limit the success of campaigning through YouTube? Is it worth the effort in rural states?
Both campaigns have uploaded more than 50 videos each. So far, the spots vary in seriousness. Susan Collins has posted campaign ads and scenes from the trail, but her campaign has also added some of her more humorous moments occurring over the last year. Tom Allen, too, has used humor to refute rumors that he is the most boring man alive.
Viewers are not flocking to the videos quite yet, as both campaigns report only between 0-2000 hits for each YouTube spot. However, the move raises a few interesting questions: 1) What demographic do campaigns target with YouTube videos? 2) What kinds of factors limit the success of campaigning through YouTube? Is it worth the effort in rural states?
Republican incumbent Susan Collins is running away with Maine Senate race
At the beginning of the election cycle, it was widely reported that Maine Senator Susan Collins was one of the most vulnerable Republicans in 2008. Interestingly enough, however, Collins, who is running against the popular Congressman Tom Allen from the state's southern district, has coasted to a double digit lead for quite sometime now. A Critical Insights poll, for instance, recently found that Collins was up by 14 points.
In a rather lengthy expose, The New York Times set out to discover why Collins may now be one of the safest candidates in a race once thought to be competitive. Despite Allen's strong reputation and fundraising talents, as well as widespread disdain for President Bush, Collins appears to be coming out on top because of her image as a moderate. As the state's co-chairwoman for the McCain campaign, Collins made news by critiquing her party's nominee for raunchy attack ads and automated calls. She is also considered bipartisan by the majority of Maine voters, which has made her especially appealing to moderates and independents. In addition to her moderate status, Collins has been praised by some media outlets for taking her opponent seriously by campaigning early.
A few questions: 1) Should we consider this one in the bag for Collins? Can someone catch up from a 10 point deficit with only days remaining? 2) Could Collins be getting a boost from Clinton supporters excited and mobilized to elect other qualified women for office? 3) If the Collins-Bush connection is not sticking for Allen, what other issues or strategies might he depend on in the closing days?
In a rather lengthy expose, The New York Times set out to discover why Collins may now be one of the safest candidates in a race once thought to be competitive. Despite Allen's strong reputation and fundraising talents, as well as widespread disdain for President Bush, Collins appears to be coming out on top because of her image as a moderate. As the state's co-chairwoman for the McCain campaign, Collins made news by critiquing her party's nominee for raunchy attack ads and automated calls. She is also considered bipartisan by the majority of Maine voters, which has made her especially appealing to moderates and independents. In addition to her moderate status, Collins has been praised by some media outlets for taking her opponent seriously by campaigning early.
A few questions: 1) Should we consider this one in the bag for Collins? Can someone catch up from a 10 point deficit with only days remaining? 2) Could Collins be getting a boost from Clinton supporters excited and mobilized to elect other qualified women for office? 3) If the Collins-Bush connection is not sticking for Allen, what other issues or strategies might he depend on in the closing days?
More discussion questions - 10/22
1. Mrs. Walsh was invited to the study group, Mr. Strother told us, to present a behind-the-scenes perspective of how the news is made. Quite frankly, I was very surprised by how strongly Mr. Strother denied the presence of media bias. After Jack Germond called Fox News and shows hosted by Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann pure junk, it makes me wonder if Mr. Strother would retract, or at least qualify, his argument. Was Mr. Strother correct? Did Dan Rather not pursue a personal agenda in the 2004 campaign when he failed to check his sources on the infamous story about Bush's service in the U.S. National Guard? Does he mean to say that Fox News is really fair and balanced? Are our own terministic screens not biases? Are those Democrats pursuing a renewal of The Fairness Doctrine acting irrationally?
2. At the beginning of his book, Luntz claimed that the 2008 election is more about optimism than about change. What is the difference between these two concepts? If McCain is supporting many of Bush's major policy decisions (the war, the surge, tax cuts, etc.) and Obama, in the challenger's role is crying foul, why is the public not seeing McCain as the optimist?
3. In establishing his ten rules of successful communication, Luntz claimed that credibility and consistency are of utmost importance. He cited Kerry's "I voted for it, before I voted against it" statement as an example to illustrate how changing positions can ruin political campaigns. But Obama has escaped thus far when he changed positions on offshore drilling, the success of the surge in Iraq, and campaign finance reform. Why might that be? What guidelines would you give a candidate regarding when and how to change positions in the middle of a campaign?
2. At the beginning of his book, Luntz claimed that the 2008 election is more about optimism than about change. What is the difference between these two concepts? If McCain is supporting many of Bush's major policy decisions (the war, the surge, tax cuts, etc.) and Obama, in the challenger's role is crying foul, why is the public not seeing McCain as the optimist?
3. In establishing his ten rules of successful communication, Luntz claimed that credibility and consistency are of utmost importance. He cited Kerry's "I voted for it, before I voted against it" statement as an example to illustrate how changing positions can ruin political campaigns. But Obama has escaped thus far when he changed positions on offshore drilling, the success of the surge in Iraq, and campaign finance reform. Why might that be? What guidelines would you give a candidate regarding when and how to change positions in the middle of a campaign?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
McCain's Multivariate Image
A recent NYT Article "The Making (and Remaking) of McCain" is a must read. The article attempts to respond to the questions raised in our discussions about the shifting nature of McCain's attempts to win the image battle in the media and the minds of his voters.
Here's a nice hook to lure you in:
“For better or for worse, our campaign has been fought from tactic to tactic,” one senior adviser glumly acknowledged to me in early October, just after Schmidt received authorization from McCain to unleash a new wave of ads attacking Obama’s character. “So this is the new tactic.”
Here's a nice hook to lure you in:
“For better or for worse, our campaign has been fought from tactic to tactic,” one senior adviser glumly acknowledged to me in early October, just after Schmidt received authorization from McCain to unleash a new wave of ads attacking Obama’s character. “So this is the new tactic.”
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Best of the Worst
"Hosed" ad makes the top 10 of worst this season. I guess it didn't quite have what it takes to nudge cleaning up after dogs or "Daisy" the sequel...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14899.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14899.html
Politico's Top 10 Worst Commercials - Daisy Ad 2?!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14899.html
Friday, October 24, 2008
The use of 'in group' rhetoric
After the Linkugel lecture and the discussion of the use of rhetoric to frame (or re-frame) groups, I find the article below to be fascinating:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/mccain-palin-and-the-luci_b_136572.html
The author discusses the rhetoric of the McCain campaign and the framing the campaign uses to portray Obama as not part of the 'in group' in order to play on the fears of voters. The article is pretty obviously partisan, but, I think she raises some interesting points.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/mccain-palin-and-the-luci_b_136572.html
The author discusses the rhetoric of the McCain campaign and the framing the campaign uses to portray Obama as not part of the 'in group' in order to play on the fears of voters. The article is pretty obviously partisan, but, I think she raises some interesting points.
Further Discussion Questions for 8/22
A few more things to consider
1) The stated goal of Mr. Strother having Mary Walsh speak was to dispel the myth of the 'liberal media.' Is it possible that a dedication to 'objectivity' and 'non-partisanship might unwittingly play a role in establishing a bias? As authors such as Luntz and Lakoff have made clear, the frame or words that accompany your message are often more important than the underlying facts or policy. When the media uncritically reports on a campaign, they often make references to advertisements, speeches and other campaign communications using the same language as the candidates. This process of repetition has a political impact because it reinforces the underlying frame inside of the message, despite the expressly stated value of objectivity. This phenomenon has been studied before in the context of the Johnson administration during the Vietnam war. Desire to 'report' the news and not 'interpret' meant that the media was uncritically relaying what the administration was telling them about the war, which was often lying about facts on the ground. How might this same phenomenon be repeating itself in media discussions of campaign communications?
2) Mary Walsh gave a brief discussion near the very end about some of her frustrations surrounding her experience with bloggers and some of the difference between the blogosphere and 'formal media.' One of her central frustrations related to the fact that bloggers essentially had nothing to lose. They don't have to worry about the quality or validity of their evidence or whether their arguments are unwarranted or unfounded. They don't have to fear a Dan Rather scenario of losing their job over false evidence. As Walsh's example point out, they don't ascribe to journalistic norms of respecting 'off the record' comments. They feel free to say anything about anything because there is so little accountability. The question I have is whether the popularity of blogging as a news source can be understood through the context of living in a 'microtargeting world.' The Applebee's book lays out the profound changes that have occured as consumerism has merged with all facets of life (personal, social and political). In this world, news must conform more and more to what the audience wants to hear. Bloggers, being free of restraints that have traditionally served as important checks on journalistic quality and accuracy, can cater to this need because they mesh so well niche interests and perspectives. Does this explanation of the popularity of blogs seem plausible? If so, what does this portend for the future of media? Cable news has eroded the importance of Broadcast networks as a primary source for information, but does the increasing power of blogs threaten to undermine the idea of objective reporting in its entirety? Does this problem even resonate with consumers of blog news, or do they simply like to hear things that fit their frame without regard to evidence or integrity?
1) The stated goal of Mr. Strother having Mary Walsh speak was to dispel the myth of the 'liberal media.' Is it possible that a dedication to 'objectivity' and 'non-partisanship might unwittingly play a role in establishing a bias? As authors such as Luntz and Lakoff have made clear, the frame or words that accompany your message are often more important than the underlying facts or policy. When the media uncritically reports on a campaign, they often make references to advertisements, speeches and other campaign communications using the same language as the candidates. This process of repetition has a political impact because it reinforces the underlying frame inside of the message, despite the expressly stated value of objectivity. This phenomenon has been studied before in the context of the Johnson administration during the Vietnam war. Desire to 'report' the news and not 'interpret' meant that the media was uncritically relaying what the administration was telling them about the war, which was often lying about facts on the ground. How might this same phenomenon be repeating itself in media discussions of campaign communications?
2) Mary Walsh gave a brief discussion near the very end about some of her frustrations surrounding her experience with bloggers and some of the difference between the blogosphere and 'formal media.' One of her central frustrations related to the fact that bloggers essentially had nothing to lose. They don't have to worry about the quality or validity of their evidence or whether their arguments are unwarranted or unfounded. They don't have to fear a Dan Rather scenario of losing their job over false evidence. As Walsh's example point out, they don't ascribe to journalistic norms of respecting 'off the record' comments. They feel free to say anything about anything because there is so little accountability. The question I have is whether the popularity of blogging as a news source can be understood through the context of living in a 'microtargeting world.' The Applebee's book lays out the profound changes that have occured as consumerism has merged with all facets of life (personal, social and political). In this world, news must conform more and more to what the audience wants to hear. Bloggers, being free of restraints that have traditionally served as important checks on journalistic quality and accuracy, can cater to this need because they mesh so well niche interests and perspectives. Does this explanation of the popularity of blogs seem plausible? If so, what does this portend for the future of media? Cable news has eroded the importance of Broadcast networks as a primary source for information, but does the increasing power of blogs threaten to undermine the idea of objective reporting in its entirety? Does this problem even resonate with consumers of blog news, or do they simply like to hear things that fit their frame without regard to evidence or integrity?
Ashley Todd, Race-Baiting, Fox News
AP ARTICLE October 24, 2008:
Pittsburgh police say a McCain campaign volunteer made up a story of being robbed, pinned to the ground and having the letter “B” scratched on her face in a politically inspired attack. Maurita Bryant, the assistant chief of the police department’s investigations division, says 20-year-old Ashley Todd is being charged with making a false report to police. Todd, of College Station, Texas, initially said a black man robbed her at knifepoint Wednesday night and then cut her cheek after seeing a McCain sticker on her car.
Brian:
Is it nonsensical to ask whether someone put Ms. Todd up to this task? Yesterday John Moody, the Executive VP of Fox news, wrote a periodical asserting that if the Todd incident is proven factual, voters will immediately link the event to Obama and begin to question his candidacy, if proven a hoax McCain will lose. Here is an excerpt from the article:
If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee. If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting. For Pittsburgh, a city that has done so much to shape American history over the centuries, another moment of truth is at hand (Moody, 2008).
The front page of foxnews.com has now posted an article titled “McCain Campaign Volunteer Admits Alleged Attack Was a Hoax” (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/24/mccain-campaign-volunteer-admits-alleged-attack-hoax/).
The police are still treating her as a victim, so the verdict is still out on whether she intentionally orchestrated the event or if she really was mugged. To say the least, my eyebrows are raised on whether this was organized with more than just Todd and close friends. An event of this matter has a “stickiness” appeal to it for our national media. Airwaves are always filled with those recent “missing child” non-societal level news segments. A race related hate crime to a McCain supporter on the 10 days out from the end of this election would have just the spice to last for the next few days. If I were a McCain supporter and I wanted to rock the election boat this may be just an event that could shock the racial fears underlying our society into action, or inaction at the polls if you will.
My second daily thought deals with McCain’s recent negative advertisement that alters Biden’s voice to make him sound like a serial killer or a terrorist:
The typed text is a throwback to the iconic serial killer movies that we all know, love, and fear. You will notice the crying girl. I was immediately reminded of the LBJ Daisy advertisement. “These are the stakes, vote for McCain or suffer from widespread chaos and terrorism.” If nuclear war were a credible threat to the American public at the moment, a Nuclear bomb exploding could have been a perfect cherry to top this bowl of ice cream.
Pittsburgh police say a McCain campaign volunteer made up a story of being robbed, pinned to the ground and having the letter “B” scratched on her face in a politically inspired attack. Maurita Bryant, the assistant chief of the police department’s investigations division, says 20-year-old Ashley Todd is being charged with making a false report to police. Todd, of College Station, Texas, initially said a black man robbed her at knifepoint Wednesday night and then cut her cheek after seeing a McCain sticker on her car.
Brian:
Is it nonsensical to ask whether someone put Ms. Todd up to this task? Yesterday John Moody, the Executive VP of Fox news, wrote a periodical asserting that if the Todd incident is proven factual, voters will immediately link the event to Obama and begin to question his candidacy, if proven a hoax McCain will lose. Here is an excerpt from the article:
If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee. If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting. For Pittsburgh, a city that has done so much to shape American history over the centuries, another moment of truth is at hand (Moody, 2008).
The front page of foxnews.com has now posted an article titled “McCain Campaign Volunteer Admits Alleged Attack Was a Hoax” (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/24/mccain-campaign-volunteer-admits-alleged-attack-hoax/).
The police are still treating her as a victim, so the verdict is still out on whether she intentionally orchestrated the event or if she really was mugged. To say the least, my eyebrows are raised on whether this was organized with more than just Todd and close friends. An event of this matter has a “stickiness” appeal to it for our national media. Airwaves are always filled with those recent “missing child” non-societal level news segments. A race related hate crime to a McCain supporter on the 10 days out from the end of this election would have just the spice to last for the next few days. If I were a McCain supporter and I wanted to rock the election boat this may be just an event that could shock the racial fears underlying our society into action, or inaction at the polls if you will.
My second daily thought deals with McCain’s recent negative advertisement that alters Biden’s voice to make him sound like a serial killer or a terrorist:
The typed text is a throwback to the iconic serial killer movies that we all know, love, and fear. You will notice the crying girl. I was immediately reminded of the LBJ Daisy advertisement. “These are the stakes, vote for McCain or suffer from widespread chaos and terrorism.” If nuclear war were a credible threat to the American public at the moment, a Nuclear bomb exploding could have been a perfect cherry to top this bowl of ice cream.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Discussion Questions for 10/22
1. During the study group last night, Mary Walsh mentioned repeatedly that one of the most important things to keep in mind when composing a news segment was “distilling information”. I find this very interesting in light of both Luntz’s Words that Work book and Heath and Heath’s Made to Stick book, which both emphasize the simplicity of the message being a key component of, well, making it stick, I suppose. So, all this rambling leads me to the question: Do we distill information too much in the media by parsing everything down into 500 words or 1.5 minutes? And can news organizations cover political news in all its variety when they are distilling news down from messages already simplified by candidates (assuming that they are following the Luntz model, which he says we all should).
2. Also, as was mentioned last night in the study group, the subject of media bias has come up (again). McCain supporters have (again) accused the “liberal media” of attacking him unnecessarily. But Mr. Strother has mentioned repeatedly his assertion that the media is unbiased and Ms. Walsh backed him up on that account. But, as Luntz points out, there are some messages that seem to transcend the campaigns themselves, such as, to use an old example, “I like Ike”. Given how well Obama’s message of change seems to have worked in comparison to McCain’s rather fluctuating message, can the media avoid being biased when they cover the two campaigns? If Obama’s message is so pervasive and McCain’s so changeable, how can the media avoid covering Obama’s message more thoroughly, especially given the succinctness that a good message gives to a news story, which, as I mentioned in the last question, needs to be parsed down into 1.5 minutes. So, can the media really be unbiased given the messages being released by the campaigns?
3. I also found the discussion about news segments using a ‘surrogate’ for the viewer to be an interesting one. This goes back to some of the earlier articles where politicians use a surrogate to spread their message and also ties in to, for instance, Sarah Palin being used as a surrogate for John McCain or Hilary Clinton being used as a surrogate for Barak Obama. To an extent, and again relating to media bias, can the media be unbiased, given that they are, even outside of stories about airplanes, acting as surrogates for the viewers to an extent? The viewer may wish to ask a particular candidate a question, but, outside of town hall meetings, never have that chance. The media can, however. So, given this, should the media simply report the facts or should there be some analysis of the facts, given that they are presenting this information to the viewers as a surrogate who has been in an area where the viewer cannot go?
2. Also, as was mentioned last night in the study group, the subject of media bias has come up (again). McCain supporters have (again) accused the “liberal media” of attacking him unnecessarily. But Mr. Strother has mentioned repeatedly his assertion that the media is unbiased and Ms. Walsh backed him up on that account. But, as Luntz points out, there are some messages that seem to transcend the campaigns themselves, such as, to use an old example, “I like Ike”. Given how well Obama’s message of change seems to have worked in comparison to McCain’s rather fluctuating message, can the media avoid being biased when they cover the two campaigns? If Obama’s message is so pervasive and McCain’s so changeable, how can the media avoid covering Obama’s message more thoroughly, especially given the succinctness that a good message gives to a news story, which, as I mentioned in the last question, needs to be parsed down into 1.5 minutes. So, can the media really be unbiased given the messages being released by the campaigns?
3. I also found the discussion about news segments using a ‘surrogate’ for the viewer to be an interesting one. This goes back to some of the earlier articles where politicians use a surrogate to spread their message and also ties in to, for instance, Sarah Palin being used as a surrogate for John McCain or Hilary Clinton being used as a surrogate for Barak Obama. To an extent, and again relating to media bias, can the media be unbiased, given that they are, even outside of stories about airplanes, acting as surrogates for the viewers to an extent? The viewer may wish to ask a particular candidate a question, but, outside of town hall meetings, never have that chance. The media can, however. So, given this, should the media simply report the facts or should there be some analysis of the facts, given that they are presenting this information to the viewers as a surrogate who has been in an area where the viewer cannot go?
N.H.: Youngest member of the Senate having a rough time.
As has been mentioned in class, one of the Senate seats that is up for grabs is the N.H. seat currently held by John E. Sununu. He is being challenged by Jeanne Shaheen, who he also ran against, and defeated, in 2002. However, given the current somewhat anti-GOP climate, Sununu has been struggling in the polls, with double digit deficits mentioned in some of the articles I've been reading. However, RealClearPolitics puts Shaheen's lead at around 6 at the moment, with polls ranging from +1 - +6.
As most Democrats seem to be doing, Shaheen is hitting hard on the economy and health care, and also tying her opponent with President Bush. Her campaign website currently has an ad about health care:
http://jeanneshaheen.org/splash/stop_complaining
The focus of this ad is a clip of Sununu saying to "stop complaining about health care costs". Another ad focuses on the economic crisis and mentions that Senator Sununu has voted with President Bush to raise the national debt and oppose regulation.
Interestingly, because these are the same two candidates from the last election, both candidates seem to be willing to bring up old issues. Sununu has an ad with a clip from one of Shaheen's press conferences in the 2002 saying that she would stand with President Bush on disarming Iraq as well as his taxcuts:
http://www.teamsununu.org/Multimedia/details.aspx?id=34
Along with this, Sununu has been attempting to distance himself from President Bush, as has been the theme for most Republicans at the moment. He has also attempted to cut into the traditionally more Democratic issue of energy by supporting offshore drilling, which Shaheen has opposed. Additionally, he's supported McCain's ticket heavily, holding a rally featuring Palin last weekend. McCain won New Hampshire in the primary and has campaigned heavily in the state.
The article below brings up an interesting point, that New Hampshire ended 'straight ticket voting' which basically allowed voters to pull a lever to vote along party lines. With Obama leading pretty heavily in NH (9 pts or so) that would have been bad news for Sununu had the practice continued into this race.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/us/politics/22sununu.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics
Lots of pundits seem to have given up on this seat, but the polls at the moment aren't too far away and Sununu has been trying to reframe the energy debate and ease his links with President Bush. Given the contentious nature of this race (a televised debate was held on October 20th and it was very combative, with the candidates talking over one another), it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
As most Democrats seem to be doing, Shaheen is hitting hard on the economy and health care, and also tying her opponent with President Bush. Her campaign website currently has an ad about health care:
http://jeanneshaheen.org/splash/stop_complaining
The focus of this ad is a clip of Sununu saying to "stop complaining about health care costs". Another ad focuses on the economic crisis and mentions that Senator Sununu has voted with President Bush to raise the national debt and oppose regulation.
Interestingly, because these are the same two candidates from the last election, both candidates seem to be willing to bring up old issues. Sununu has an ad with a clip from one of Shaheen's press conferences in the 2002 saying that she would stand with President Bush on disarming Iraq as well as his taxcuts:
http://www.teamsununu.org/Multimedia/details.aspx?id=34
Along with this, Sununu has been attempting to distance himself from President Bush, as has been the theme for most Republicans at the moment. He has also attempted to cut into the traditionally more Democratic issue of energy by supporting offshore drilling, which Shaheen has opposed. Additionally, he's supported McCain's ticket heavily, holding a rally featuring Palin last weekend. McCain won New Hampshire in the primary and has campaigned heavily in the state.
The article below brings up an interesting point, that New Hampshire ended 'straight ticket voting' which basically allowed voters to pull a lever to vote along party lines. With Obama leading pretty heavily in NH (9 pts or so) that would have been bad news for Sununu had the practice continued into this race.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/us/politics/22sununu.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics
Lots of pundits seem to have given up on this seat, but the polls at the moment aren't too far away and Sununu has been trying to reframe the energy debate and ease his links with President Bush. Given the contentious nature of this race (a televised debate was held on October 20th and it was very combative, with the candidates talking over one another), it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
I thought Joe McCarthy was from Wisconsin, not Minnesota
One of the races I have become intrigued with since Michelle Bachmann’s (R) now infamous appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews is the
I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views. That's what the American people are concerned about. That's why they want to know what his answers are. That's why Joe the plumber has figured so highly in the last few days…What I would say -- what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an expose like that. (Sweet, 2008)
If you would like to see the entire transcript of the interview visit the following link:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/rep_michele_Bachmannn_tells_chr.html
After Bachmann’s comments the flood gates opened, not only on MSNBC and EVERY program that has aired since then commenting on the interview, but also in the RNC and the DNC. Reports came in of the RCCC pulling their ads for Bachmann from the race a few days later. In fact, after the interview aired on October 17, the Tinklenberg campaign received a massive fundraising boost of $450,000 from approximately 9,000 donors (Aquino, 2008). To date, the Tinklenberg campaign has received over $1 million in new funding in less than a week since the Bachmann interview (Doyle, 2008). Bachmann has since said that she was “tricked” into making this comment on Hardball and that she “had never watched the show before” (Doyle, 2008). However, the damage had already been done. As a result of this new funding new ads have been created, which you can view through the links below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q740nXMu0ZI
http://www.tinklenberg08.com/ad.html
The impact of Bachmann’s comments is interesting and compelling due to the nature of the “strategy” we have seen from the McCain campaign in the recent weeks. Dubbing Senator Obama as a “socialist” or someone who does not share the views of small-town
References
Aquino, J. (2008). Bachmannn's comments spur opponent's fundraising spur.
Doyle, P. (2008). Tuesday: Bachmannn: 'I made a misstatement'.
Sweet, L. (2008). Rep. Michele Bachmannn tells Chris Matthews on "Hardball" media should probe Congress for "anti-America" views. Transcript.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The clothes make the candidate?
Here's an interesting commentary on Palin's somewhat (?) pricey wardrobe.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/campbell.brown.looks/index.html
It's not going to convince me not to dress up as Eleanor Roosevelt for Halloween as I'd planned, but it does bring up an interesting point about the double standard for women in the public eye.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/campbell.brown.looks/index.html
It's not going to convince me not to dress up as Eleanor Roosevelt for Halloween as I'd planned, but it does bring up an interesting point about the double standard for women in the public eye.
Obama charging media for access
Obama is charging upwards of $900 for access to his election night activities...thoughts?
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=31483&seenlt=1
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
George Orwell and political language
The assigned reading thus far has taken a very similar approach to political language - keep it simple and memorable. However, I think most of these authors have either denied or ignored a major part of political language. This is a part best described by George Orwell in his essay "Politics and the English Language", which Luntz praised in his writing. Anyway, there are two ideas covered in this essay that I would like to introduce. First, the use of words with personal definitions. "The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice, have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. in the case of words like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. it is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hear to think he means something quite different". For me, this not only seems dishonest, but it strikes at the very heart of Luntz's argument - that it's not what you say, it's what people hear. Isn't his whole approach based simply off this concept? Secondly, Orwell speaks to the nature of political language. "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the country side, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification...The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms." To me, it seems what Luntz is doing is replacing the long words and exhausted idioms with short, "clear" language that gives the impression of truth. Instead, it seems to represent a new form of political language that moves beyond vagueness and into the realm of false clarity. As mentioned in the first point, his language depends on the listener creating the meaning, which can actually hind the actual truth or meaning in the statement.
Monday, October 20, 2008
N. Carolina Senate race leaning towards Hagen
A few weeks back Dole Institute guests Jerry Austin and Whit Ayres spent a considerable amount of time discussing the impact and appeal of negative ads. This New York Times article explores Elizabeth Dole’s Senate race in North Carolina and discusses the impact of negative ads and campaign financing which have conspired to put Dole’s incumbency in jeopardy. Real Clear Politics latest polling data shows Dole’s opponent Kay Hagen up by 3.3 points, 46.8 Hagen, 43.5 Dole as of October 15th.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/us/politics/16dole.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
The article also brings up an interesting question connected to this Senate race regarding residency for elected officials. One of the strategies that Dole’s opponent Kay Hagen has been successfully lobbing her way is that Dole is “an absentee” who “doesn’t leave Washington.” The article quotes a Poli-Sci professor at UNC who says… “…there is a sense in the state capitol that Mrs. Dole had been disengaged, but it’s hard to know how much of this sinks in to the general public, the general voters.” Obviously this is a strategy that only plays if it’s covered in the press, but I’m curious what others think about a candidate based on the amount of time they spend in their state. In the internet era, how have our expectations and perceptions changed on this issue?
The article does a fairly tidy job summarizing the campaign thus far. With the election closing in it would appear the momentum is continuing to move towards Hagen.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/us/politics/16dole.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
The article also brings up an interesting question connected to this Senate race regarding residency for elected officials. One of the strategies that Dole’s opponent Kay Hagen has been successfully lobbing her way is that Dole is “an absentee” who “doesn’t leave Washington.” The article quotes a Poli-Sci professor at UNC who says… “…there is a sense in the state capitol that Mrs. Dole had been disengaged, but it’s hard to know how much of this sinks in to the general public, the general voters.” Obviously this is a strategy that only plays if it’s covered in the press, but I’m curious what others think about a candidate based on the amount of time they spend in their state. In the internet era, how have our expectations and perceptions changed on this issue?
The article does a fairly tidy job summarizing the campaign thus far. With the election closing in it would appear the momentum is continuing to move towards Hagen.
This Washington Post article discusses Democratic gains in the "exurbs," or far-flung suburbs. This article made me think about two things: 1) the notion of a rural-urban divide; 2) Luntz's suggestion that politicians use aspirational language.
The notion of Rural Republicans and Urban Democrats has been pounded into our heads, repeatedly. I've always wondered where suburbanites fit into the picture. When I worked as a reporter a congressional candidate provided an easy answer to this question. This was during the 2000 election. He won that election, and all subsequent elections. He suggested that they belonged on the rural side of the divide. His commercials, including those currently running, highlight his rural upbringing.
I personally view the suburbs as a liminal space. Perhaps during the best economic times, their vote is guided by positions on social issues. These positions might be more consistent with a rural, rather than urban, electorate. But the economy seems to disrupt this. When times are bad, they become more cognizant that they live in a suburban, rather than subrural area.
Luntz believes that effective politicians speak to their audience's aspirations. I suspect this is especially true for those people who move to the periphery of metropolitan areas. These people are seeking good schools, safe neighborhoods, three-car garages, etc. Oftentimes, they move into recently developed areas with untested educational systems and public services. The potential of the new frontier always seems better than what already exists.
Right now, my unscientific impression is that Obama is using more aspirational language. However, it seems like a different type of aspirational language than we've heard in recent years. Rather than saying "every can get rich," Obama seems to say "things will be all right."
The notion of Rural Republicans and Urban Democrats has been pounded into our heads, repeatedly. I've always wondered where suburbanites fit into the picture. When I worked as a reporter a congressional candidate provided an easy answer to this question. This was during the 2000 election. He won that election, and all subsequent elections. He suggested that they belonged on the rural side of the divide. His commercials, including those currently running, highlight his rural upbringing.
I personally view the suburbs as a liminal space. Perhaps during the best economic times, their vote is guided by positions on social issues. These positions might be more consistent with a rural, rather than urban, electorate. But the economy seems to disrupt this. When times are bad, they become more cognizant that they live in a suburban, rather than subrural area.
Luntz believes that effective politicians speak to their audience's aspirations. I suspect this is especially true for those people who move to the periphery of metropolitan areas. These people are seeking good schools, safe neighborhoods, three-car garages, etc. Oftentimes, they move into recently developed areas with untested educational systems and public services. The potential of the new frontier always seems better than what already exists.
Right now, my unscientific impression is that Obama is using more aspirational language. However, it seems like a different type of aspirational language than we've heard in recent years. Rather than saying "every can get rich," Obama seems to say "things will be all right."
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Political Video Game Advertisements?
For all you technology scholars out there - Obama had some money to spare and decided to purchase virtual billboard space in an upcoming video game
[Irony on] The McCain campaign was shell shocked, and has released a statement that they will respond by buying space in soon to be released version of John's favorite game, Pong XVII The Revenge of the Paddles." [Irony off]
[Irony on] The McCain campaign was shell shocked, and has released a statement that they will respond by buying space in soon to be released version of John's favorite game, Pong XVII The Revenge of the Paddles." [Irony off]
MN: Coleman/Franken
It looks like Franken is now pulling ahead of Coleman in the Minnesota Senate race. An interesting indicator to look at is futures markets. In Iowa you can put money on who is likely to win an election. The futures markets have been more accurate in predicting outcomes than the best polls for a while. Here is an article that has Franken ahead in futures markets:
http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2008/10/13/3861/franken_rallies_coleman_tanks_in_iowa_futures_market
Real clear politics also has Franken with a 2 point lead in their average (well within the margin of error but officially making the race a toss-up).
The weighted model on www.fivethirtyeight.com is also leaning Frankin, giving him a 55% probability of winning the election. For those who don't know how these probabilities are figured you can read up on it here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html
It basically goes like this: 538 gives polls a weighting based on the accuracy in previous elections, factors in a regression trend line, does a few other fancy whosits and whatsits, then uses this data to simulate the election 10,000 times and project a winner based on those simulations. According to this model Franken is now slightly more likely to win the election than he is to lose it.
And because we are interested in political advertising, here is an "ad battle":
http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2008/10/13/3861/franken_rallies_coleman_tanks_in_iowa_futures_market
Real clear politics also has Franken with a 2 point lead in their average (well within the margin of error but officially making the race a toss-up).
The weighted model on www.fivethirtyeight.com is also leaning Frankin, giving him a 55% probability of winning the election. For those who don't know how these probabilities are figured you can read up on it here:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html
It basically goes like this: 538 gives polls a weighting based on the accuracy in previous elections, factors in a regression trend line, does a few other fancy whosits and whatsits, then uses this data to simulate the election 10,000 times and project a winner based on those simulations. According to this model Franken is now slightly more likely to win the election than he is to lose it.
And because we are interested in political advertising, here is an "ad battle":
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Asking the experts
They do great research over at Politico:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14510.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14510.html
Discussion Questions for October 8, 2008
1) I first have a set of technical questions related to Luntz’s book. It seems that Luntz’s book is part memoir. We’ve learned that Jon Stewart has ridiculed him, and a man with tattoos once threatened him. I seriously wonder about the rationale for including this level of personal detail. Is he trying to defend himself against past attacks? Is he promoting his firm’s services? Is something else going on? And, does it help or hurt the book overall? On a related note, who do you believe is the target audience for Luntz’s book?
2) Luntz includes a lengthy section on etymology. How do you believe it factors into his larger argument? Do you believe he sufficiently explains why some labels (e.g., Hispanic versus Latino) are more accepted than others?
3) How does Luntz view the electorate? For instance, does he believe voters need to be: a) tricked; b) convinced; or c) brought into the conversation? (Of course, you may also use your own words here.) After establishing Luntz’s view of the electorate, compare it to what you’ve heard from other campaign strategists (e.g., Lakoff, the authors of Applebee’s America, Ray Strother, Jim Kitchens, Whit Ayres, or anyone else with whom you are familiar). Do all strategists seem to view the electorate in the same way, or have you noticed differences?
2) Luntz includes a lengthy section on etymology. How do you believe it factors into his larger argument? Do you believe he sufficiently explains why some labels (e.g., Hispanic versus Latino) are more accepted than others?
3) How does Luntz view the electorate? For instance, does he believe voters need to be: a) tricked; b) convinced; or c) brought into the conversation? (Of course, you may also use your own words here.) After establishing Luntz’s view of the electorate, compare it to what you’ve heard from other campaign strategists (e.g., Lakoff, the authors of Applebee’s America, Ray Strother, Jim Kitchens, Whit Ayres, or anyone else with whom you are familiar). Do all strategists seem to view the electorate in the same way, or have you noticed differences?
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Discussion Questions for October 8, 2008
- Mr. Ayres made mention of something Luntz addresses in his book: The sincerity of the candidate matters. The candidate cannot use “words that work” if the voters don’t think the candidate is being sincere or authentic. Pundits have said that Palin’s use of informal language and colloquialisms is what she’s doing to connect with voters and seem more real or sincere. However, polls have shown a drastic increase in her unfavorables, and as discussed in class, KU students tended to dial her down when she used such language in the debate. Taking all this into consideration, first, I want to know if you think a legitimate link exists between her use of language and unfavorables; and second, if you were advising Palin, how would you address these issues in the few remaining weeks?
- In informal conversations with several of my classmates, I have gotten the impression that most generally have an unfavorable opinion of Dr. Luntz and his book; however, Dr. Lakoff was well-received by most in the class. Even if this was not your opinion, I would like to know, what is the difference between what Dr. Luntz is doing and what Dr. Lakoff is doing? I realize that Dr. Lakoff addresses his partisanship, while Dr. Luntz pretends to be nonpartisan in his work, but are there other significant differences? If not, why does the partisanship issue matter?
- Several of our readings have mentioned the impact an image can have on voters/consumers in conveying a message, and Mr. Strother spoke previously about the impact some of the strongest political ads have had. If you have not already seen Jim Slattery’s latest adds, please view them at the following links:
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhEm2V-VJ8o
o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2-19zEkudM
Friday, October 10, 2008
Troopergate 2008: Power-abusing Palin forced to consider next move
Alaska's bipartisan Legislative Council unanimously ruled this evening that Sarah Palin abused her power in trying to get her brother in law fired from the state police. With the Troopergate scandal resolved within a month to go in the election, how do you think the McCain campaign will respond? Will they brush this off as a witch hunt? Will they use the opportunity to dump Palin for somebody a little more skilled with the media (and the economy)? Oh, the intrigue continues...
Discussion Questions for October 8, 2008
- Since we did not have a lot of class discussion Wednesday, I have been thinking a lot about the dialing/perception technology and what that tells us both as academics and potential voters. Do you think that dialing is not only effective for academic research purposes, but in influencing voters? In other words are voters who watch a debate on a station with moment-to-moment dialing data swayed by the way one group feels or thinks about something that a candidate says during a debate that either peaks or dips their interest?
- In relation to the first question, Dr. Luntz talks a lot about the ten rules of Words That Work throughout the first four chapters of the book. Rule 2: Use Short Sentences stood out to me when thinking both about the debate Tuesday night as well as our previous readings such as the Doctors Heath thinking about ideas and words that stick. There has been a great deal of ribbing and jokes directed at Senator McCain for using the phrase “my friends” more times than I can count (but I am sure someone, somewhere has). Do you think Sen. McCain’s use of the phrase “my friends” is a good or bad thing? Is that phrase sticky? Does the phrase work for all ages and other demographics of the country? If you think it does, why? If you think it doesn’t work, why not?
- Finally, Dr. Luntz in Words That Work says, “Good communication requires conviction and authenticity; being a walking dictionary is optional” (p. 52). Often, Sen. Obama is criticized for sounding elitist through his detailed explanations of issues and of his policies. When it comes to policy there has not been a phrase or slogan that the voters have been able to get behind. It seems that the phrases that have authenticity with Sen. Obama and that have “stuck” with voters are “Yes We Can” and “Change We Can Believe In.” Is this detrimental to Sen. Obama? Should Sen. Obama’s campaign be pushing a message more like “It’s the economy, stupid?” Has Sen. McCain been more effective in giving the voters a sticky/brief phrase that addresses the issues rather than his campaign or personality?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Maybe he'll get elected AND win an Oscar
This should be some interesting TV:
http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=545102
I remember when Perot did this. It was horribly boring. It'll be interesting to see how some of the concepts we've been discussing and reading about are implemented.
http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=545102
I remember when Perot did this. It was horribly boring. It'll be interesting to see how some of the concepts we've been discussing and reading about are implemented.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
New ads from both sides
While watching CNN this morning before class I noticed that the names Charles Keating and Bill Ayers have come up a lot. Perhaps this caught my attention because of the research I did as an undergraduate on the Weather Underground Organization, but it's interesting to me that each side is going to so much effort to bring up these names. Obama has posted a 13 minute long "documentary" on the McCain/Keating scandal from the early 90s. If you haven't seen it, here is the link:
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/
Having little prior knowledge of this scandal (since i was 5 years old when it happened...) I found the documentary to be a little overwhelming. For having put so much effort into a documentary like this, I would think they would want to be able to reach as many people as possible, but I did not feel like it was very effective, with one exception: the visuals. Seeing the images of Keating in handcuffs and then pictures of McCain vacationing with him was a very strong message. Otherwise I feel like they did what Luntz talked about in "Words that Work," they used great SAT words and jargon, but I don't think that was the best way to reach the general American public and persuade them that this was a serious offense.
I also checked out the newest ad from the McCain camp, called "Hypo". Here is the link for anyone who hasn't seen it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIlUaKIB07E
The most interesting thing to me was the beginning shot of the Missouri news cast. McCain offered a link to the full newscast, and here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2p4kohUP3I
This seems odd to me. Should law enforcement be publicly offering support to one candidate over another? Perhaps it is just me, but it seems as though Sheriffs, Chiefs of Police, and others in prominent authoritative positions in states (especially more borderline states like Missouri) should not be allowed to publicly practice partisanship. Granted, the only information I have on this is from that YouTube clip of the newscast, but it struck me as odd that this was occurring without any mention of support for the McCain side. Do the candidates consider these law enforcement officials Navigators (a la Applebee's America)?
http://www.keatingeconomics.com/
Having little prior knowledge of this scandal (since i was 5 years old when it happened...) I found the documentary to be a little overwhelming. For having put so much effort into a documentary like this, I would think they would want to be able to reach as many people as possible, but I did not feel like it was very effective, with one exception: the visuals. Seeing the images of Keating in handcuffs and then pictures of McCain vacationing with him was a very strong message. Otherwise I feel like they did what Luntz talked about in "Words that Work," they used great SAT words and jargon, but I don't think that was the best way to reach the general American public and persuade them that this was a serious offense.
I also checked out the newest ad from the McCain camp, called "Hypo". Here is the link for anyone who hasn't seen it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIlUaKIB07E
The most interesting thing to me was the beginning shot of the Missouri news cast. McCain offered a link to the full newscast, and here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2p4kohUP3I
This seems odd to me. Should law enforcement be publicly offering support to one candidate over another? Perhaps it is just me, but it seems as though Sheriffs, Chiefs of Police, and others in prominent authoritative positions in states (especially more borderline states like Missouri) should not be allowed to publicly practice partisanship. Granted, the only information I have on this is from that YouTube clip of the newscast, but it struck me as odd that this was occurring without any mention of support for the McCain side. Do the candidates consider these law enforcement officials Navigators (a la Applebee's America)?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Race, Age, Gender and an ugly American culture
I'd really like it if you would comment on prejudice in the current political discourse. How is it underlying what is going on right now? What are the implications? I'm more interested in the academic implications here. It may or may not be strategic, it may or may not help win elections, but what are the more important conclusions to be drawn about the American public culture? Do those who speak to us and for us appeal to the worst in us? If this campaign starts looking ugly is it reflecting an ugly part of America that we don't want to acknowledge? Can those who speak to us and for us make America more ugly with these base appeals or are they merely taking advantage of what is already there?
Get a load of what a Democratic strategist said about Palin's new attacks on Obama:
"It's a giant changing of the subject," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. "The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don't send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don't take Sarah Palin seriously."'
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hLxEMDD-UlNa6HUrozE6ZkGYPTqAD93KFB700
When someone calls an argument sexist the typical response is to disprove with counter-example. One might say that Palin is a unique case and nobody would call Clinton a fluffy bunny that is not to be taken seriously. This may be true, but gender is still being used here as a smear in the unique instance of Palin. She is being demeaned and discounted and gender is part of the strategy.
Also check out this ad that calls McCain "erratic."
Is erratic a jab at his age? I think the argument that McCain is unstable or erratic can be read outside of the context of his age and i don't think it is obvious agism like the little bunny comment is sexism, but I do think it trades in the currency of prejudice against the elderly. Agism is one of the most ignored forms of discrimination going today. People treat older Americans very poorly and it often isn't even viewed as off color or inappropriate.
Finally, I believe the strategy to portray Obama as "too risky," "not one of us" and "among terrorists" is a play on the latent feelings of prejudice many American's have about Obama. As Strother said, "I just don't know enough about him" is probably a code for "I don't trust a black man to run the country." I know most of the class agrees with my fierce partisanship and probably doesn't have much problem calling McCain's campaign racist. Step outside of the partisanship for a moment though and ask yourself, as an academic, do you think calling Obama "too risky" and "radical" is an attempt to trade in the currency of latent prejudice?
Here is more from the AP article cited above:
"Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?
In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.
Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.
The fact is that when racism creeps into the discussion serves a purpose for McCain. As the fallout from Wright's sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America's promise to treat all people equally.
John McCain occasionally says he looks back on decisions with regret. He has apologized for opposing a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. He has apologized for refusing to call for the removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina's Capitol.
When the 2008 campaign is over will McCain say he regrets appeals such as Palin's?"
Get a load of what a Democratic strategist said about Palin's new attacks on Obama:
"It's a giant changing of the subject," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. "The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don't send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don't take Sarah Palin seriously."'
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hLxEMDD-UlNa6HUrozE6ZkGYPTqAD93KFB700
When someone calls an argument sexist the typical response is to disprove with counter-example. One might say that Palin is a unique case and nobody would call Clinton a fluffy bunny that is not to be taken seriously. This may be true, but gender is still being used here as a smear in the unique instance of Palin. She is being demeaned and discounted and gender is part of the strategy.
Also check out this ad that calls McCain "erratic."
Is erratic a jab at his age? I think the argument that McCain is unstable or erratic can be read outside of the context of his age and i don't think it is obvious agism like the little bunny comment is sexism, but I do think it trades in the currency of prejudice against the elderly. Agism is one of the most ignored forms of discrimination going today. People treat older Americans very poorly and it often isn't even viewed as off color or inappropriate.
Finally, I believe the strategy to portray Obama as "too risky," "not one of us" and "among terrorists" is a play on the latent feelings of prejudice many American's have about Obama. As Strother said, "I just don't know enough about him" is probably a code for "I don't trust a black man to run the country." I know most of the class agrees with my fierce partisanship and probably doesn't have much problem calling McCain's campaign racist. Step outside of the partisanship for a moment though and ask yourself, as an academic, do you think calling Obama "too risky" and "radical" is an attempt to trade in the currency of latent prejudice?
Here is more from the AP article cited above:
"Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?
In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.
Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.
The fact is that when racism creeps into the discussion serves a purpose for McCain. As the fallout from Wright's sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America's promise to treat all people equally.
John McCain occasionally says he looks back on decisions with regret. He has apologized for opposing a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. He has apologized for refusing to call for the removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina's Capitol.
When the 2008 campaign is over will McCain say he regrets appeals such as Palin's?"
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Discussion Questions from Oct 1
1. We have discussed “community” during the past couple class meetings, but I think it merits more attention since it is such an important element of the book. In Applebee’s America, the authors talk about many types of communities including fantasy sports leagues, video gamers, etc, but they don’t talk much about the political implications of such groups. As we are more able to carefully choose our groups and fill out time with very specific communities, do we lose our connection to communities that might be more political in nature?
2. The authors of Applebee’s America seem very optimistic of the “9-11 Generation,” mentioning their high levels of civic engagement. However, one of the examples they site is that many young people have worn a bracelet to support a cause or have signed an online petition. My question then is, is this really civic engagement or is it merely trendy to have a cause? We mentioned in class that you can buy Obama shirts at Urban Outfitters and it makes me wonder how sustainable or how real youth involvement really is. Is it merely a fashion statement with little real political engagement, thought, or action behind it?
3. Many in class are less than satisfied with American politics. Voters seem to care more about image than issues, and the media and politicians seem more than happy to cater to this trend. The book gives examples of people voting for Bush because he made them feel safe, even thought they disagreed with many of his policies, and people voting Republican because most of their neighborhood did. Considering what we have learned about the need for community and a “Gut Values connection” how can we realistically reverse this trend? Is there a way to create community, establish a Gut Values connection, AND get people to vote on the issues above image? Are these things mutually exclusive? Where do we start to change this, in schools, in campaigns, in the media, in our communities?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
