1. If “swing voters” elected Clinton and “inactive conservatives” elected Bush (as is speculated in Applebee’s America), what demographic will swing this election? Is it “inactive democrats” like young people, African American voters and the Hispanic population as Dr. Strother suggested when he first talked to us? If so, is this really Obama’s election to lose or can McCain activate a unique demographic of his own?
2. According to the PEW last week McCain is gaining on Obama on the issues (and holds a lead on terrorism and national security that rivals Bush’s lead over Kerry).
http://people-press.org/report/450/presidential-race-remains-even
However, the same report finds that
“As has been the case throughout the campaign, Obama's strong suit is in being seen as the candidate most likely to bring about change. And Obama's biggest weakness continues to be the widespread belief he is not as qualified as McCain. Fewer than half of voters (47%) say the trait "well-qualified" applies to Obama, compared with 75% who say it describes McCain.
In this and other respects, voters' assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates have been stable for much of the campaign. Far more voters view Obama as inspirational and down-to-earth than say these traits apply to his opponent. Far more voters view McCain as patriotic than say that about Obama.”
Is change a gut value connection? Is patriotism or experience? Can Obama win by being the “change” candidate even if he can’t convince America that he can keep them safe from terrorists? What do you think Sosnik, Dowd and Fournier would say?
3. Obama released a 2 minute ad that he is running in battleground states. Watch the ad:
a. Is this ad core? What is the “commander’s intent”?
b. Is this idea sticky?
c. Did Obama burry the lead (change) or is the lead the economic crisis?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
PS: look at the ad shoot through Dr. Strother's eyes. Notice the rectangle and the points of focus? It was almost all I could think about as I was watching the spot.
When I look at this one through Ray (not sure when he was burdened with the doctorate) Strother's lense, I see one decent aesthetic aspect -- the rule of thirds, which he discussed. There isn't much else, as far as image aesthetics go, in this ad. After his presentation last week, I talked with Strother for a minute about Ansel Adams's three famous (to photographers anyway) books, "The Camera," "The Negative," and "The Print," which, in my sometimes-not-quite-as-humble-as-some-may-prefer opinion, should be required reading for anyone making political ads. It would be nice if some of those Hollywood Democrats would jump in and do a decent Obama spot that actually does include some decent aesthetics.
This ad is all verbal, except for the URL that flashes up in the lower right corner half-way through, which actually distracts attention AWAY FROM the verbals. It might as well have been on the radio. It's also very "spacey," which is bad (although it does leave room for the aforementioned URL). The bright light in the upper left corner over his shoulder is a photography/videography no-no too, as is the weird triangle of something-or-other (is that a freaking lamp!?) in that same zone.
I really think this clip exemplifies Obama's mastery of what I call the "Gore Curse," - all substance and no show. That appeals to the base, but I don't know that it does much for those folks that Obama needs to sway between now and Judgement Day (Nov. 4).
Oops! Make that Judgment Day - no "e". Just a lot of "oohs" and "ahhs."
As someone with a broadcasting and journalism background, I find the ad boring. But it might also be refreshing to viewers in battleground states, who have been inundated with flashy attack ads. I actually prefer ads that feature disco balls, but that might not work for everyone.
The crux (i.e., lead) of this ad is that the economic crisis hit Main Street long before Wall Street. He doesn't mention change until 37 seconds into the ad. Of course, McCain has recently borrowed (perhaps co-opted) the "Change" message. Perhaps Obama's agency has been undermined, and his abstract "Change" message is getting less traction.
I think that you sort of answered your first question, Ben. I suspect that the big unknown factor in this race is how many young people and black voters show up to the polls.
Your second question is intriguing. I do think experience and change are both gut values, and that a couple of women in a Michigan Applebee's might have a strong opinion about the candidates (particularly Obama) without being able to justify it. I think it's too early, though, to say how it'll play out. If the economy continues to fail and scandals make the front page, Obama's change message will gain more momentum especially in light of McCain's admissions that he knows nothing about economics (which to me is like a "Read my lips" moment).
I really agree with Eddie about the new ad. Obama is depending on logic to reach voters. Moreover, his message could be shorter (simpler) and more concrete. The fact that I haven't seen many people talking about it in the media is probably a good sign that it hasn't stuck much.
Post a Comment