Dole-Hagan "Hagan is Godless" Commercial

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.

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.

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

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/

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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?

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?

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.”

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

Politico's Top 10 Worst Commercials - Daisy Ad 2?!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14899.html

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 Minnesota 6^th District House race. RealClearPolitics.com calls this race a “toss up,” but after Bachmann’s comments on October 17, this may be changing. Incumbent Michelle Bachmann appeared on Hardball and one way or another said the following:

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 America may either have been a result of Bachmann’s interview, or may have caused Bachmann to make the statements she did on national television. With the outpouring of support for challenger Tinklenberg, it would stand to reason that the arguments of Senator Joe McCarthy have not worked and will never work in America. Calling someone anti-American is not only wrong, but it can obviously cost a candidate their lead in the polls, and their respect in the public’s eye. What are your thoughts?

References

Aquino, J. (2008). Bachmannn's comments spur opponent's fundraising spur. Minneapolis Star Tribune: October 20, 2008.

Doyle, P. (2008). Tuesday: Bachmannn: 'I made a misstatement'. Minneapolis Star Tribune: October 22, 2008.

Sweet, L. (2008). Rep. Michele Bachmannn tells Chris Matthews on "Hardball" media should probe Congress for "anti-America" views. Transcript. Chicago Sun Times: October 18, 2008. URL: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/rep_michele_Bachmannn_tells_chr.html

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.

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

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. 

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.

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."

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]

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":

Asking the experts

They do great research over at Politico:
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?

Discussion Questions for October 8, 2008

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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

Do you think the images in these ads are conveying what the Slattery campaign hopes to convey? If yes, what makes them work? If no, what message do these ads send and why are they in conflict with the message of the Slattery campaign? Also, where is the line in campaign advertising? How do we know when a campaign has crossed it? On which side of the line was the “Daisy Ad” that Mr. Strother showed us?

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

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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?

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.

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)?

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?"

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?

North Carolina race gets personal

We talked briefly about the North Carolina race in class this week between Elizabeth Dole and Kay Hagan, and I remembered seeing this article about her campaigning strategy. It is several months old, but thought it was interesting.

http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20080619/NEWS/760425484

The AP reports that Hagan was throwing campaign parties around North Carolina for her supporters in which they decorated red ruby slippers in an attempt to give a message to Dole to go back to Kansas.

Do you think this is effective? Of course a lot of campaigns involve ridiculing of opponents, but do they usually do this so blatantly? One of my professors at Emporia State constantly repeated to us that if a company produces a commercial focused negatively on a competing product, the consumers will almost always think of the competitor over the product advertised. Perhaps this does not same affect on a campaign, but do you think it is the most effective way to advertise?

Perhaps I am wrong seeing that the latest polls have Hagan neck in neck with Dole, if not slightly above.

Also, here is a link to the list of vulnerable Senate seats that we were talking about for anyone who hasn't seen it. It's from the Cook Political Report, which I am not very familiar with, but was referenced on the official Kay Hagan web site.

http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/senate/raceratings.php

That's all for now. Happy reading!