Political Communication 6794
Eli F. Bleich
Journal Entries 10-17 – 10-29
Even inside the Republican Party, spokespeople refer to their party as a “Brand”
It will be interesting to see how the fight for the heart and soul of the party unfolds between the Fiscal Conservatives (as represented by the Bobby Jendal and Tim Palenty part of the party) and the Social Conservatives (as represented by Sara Palin). This will be an interesting struggle between these forces for ‘Branding’ rights that I’d like to follow over the next three to four years.
Finally, the Republicans have found a message, and have stayed on it. It is the Economy (stupid). Since it seems to be working for the Democrats, they have simply co-opted it as their own.
It’s also interesting to hear them simply lie (big lie theory again… keep saying it, and people will soon believe it’s true) about Obama by saying “He will raise YOUR taxes”. And stay on it.
I think it is working.
Also, Palin’s speech on Energy was her best. Well delivered. It showed her as knowledgeable, authoritative, and capable. I wonder who wrote it (same person as the convention speech… or did she write it herself)?
The domocrats are nervous. They have peaked just a few days early (Vote early), and have a long history of not quite making it to the finish line.
Obama does not need Ohio, Virginia, Florida, or Missouri. He only needs New Hampshire and Colorado (assuming he keeps PA). Campaigning in all those other states is perhaps meant only to keep McCain on defense. If he wins New Hampshire by more than 6 points… he will win Colorado and the election.
If he wins NH by more than 8 points, he will sweep all those other states.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Political Communication 6794
Eli F. Bleich
Journal Entries 10-3 – 10-16
Information feedback, leads to the influence of information.
It says to people that “It’s OK to ‘think’ that way.” Showing people polling results, tells them where they need to be, to be a part of the mainstream. It also tells them that they will not be there alone.
Pundits tend to analyze an event like a debate (actually pretty well… especially if they are not simply working for one of the campaigns), which should influence (lead) what people think… but…
Expert interpretation doesn’t seem to be influencing focus groups (Is it because focus groups have been polled BEFORE they hear what pundits have to say?)
Then, once the Pundits hear what the people have said, they start discussing those results and begin to analyze the results, instead of the contest. They fall behind the curve, and begin to follow the people (it’s a reverse influence), and start telling the audience why they agree with them.
Two arenas for discussion. Viewers… Pundits.
Debates reinforce perceptions of people already decided. Little effect on others (just don’t loose)
The Swift Boat effect
The campaign is never better than the candidate, but in this case, the candidate is actually better than the campaign.
The campaign of distraction and negative message really doesn’t fit McCain. He got stuck with it when he capitulated to the republican mainstream. Even in 2004, when he caved to the party and agreed to wait his turn as a loyal member (This is in keeping with his not leaving Vietnam before those ahead of him).
Attacks (so far) don’t seem to be working (not because people are not as susceptible as usual), but perhaps because it has been properly ‘framed’ by the Obama campaign this time.
McCain interrupted Obama several times (appeared rude… wouldn’t let him finish)
Went on too long (say what you think and stop).
If tone continues dominating the race. Obama wins
It has been the campaign strategy to raise fear and doubt, but McCain (personally) just can’t do it! When McCain refuted the people who talked about Obama as dangerous… or Muslim… he gained stature. I give him credit for that, and think many watching did too.
The Bradley effect dealt with exit polls of undecided voters, not committed voters. There was a very large number of them. What it shows, if anything, is where the racist vote parks itself. Undecideds generally break the same as the rest of the population, however in the case of hidden factors (like race) they generally break 2 or 3:1 against the hidden factor.
In this election, the undecided vote has shrunk to less than 6% in most key states.
Top number counts.
Take the top number, subtract ½ %, then add 30% of the undecided vote = winner. (If Obama goes into the election with 48.7 % or more, he will win.) Obama now stands at roughly 50% with little time (and no major events scheduled) to change that number.
However, life always has a way of interfering with the future.
If Obama can take New Hampshire and Colorado, he wins.
Virginia, Ohio, etc, don’t matter. If Obama wins those states, it will be because the entire country has ‘trended there’ in other words, his overall support will spill over. But if you want to concentrate on the states that are truly important, those two are where all their effort should be focused.
If he wins, he will either win with 273 electoral votes, or overwhelmingly. Nothing in between.
People always talk about how much is spent in a campaign, but no voter ever cares. It’s the message that they receive as a result of the spending that counts. Period.
Question: Why do people end up voting for the “wrong” person… the candidate not in their own best interest?
Eli F. Bleich
Journal Entries 10-3 – 10-16
Information feedback, leads to the influence of information.
It says to people that “It’s OK to ‘think’ that way.” Showing people polling results, tells them where they need to be, to be a part of the mainstream. It also tells them that they will not be there alone.
Pundits tend to analyze an event like a debate (actually pretty well… especially if they are not simply working for one of the campaigns), which should influence (lead) what people think… but…
Expert interpretation doesn’t seem to be influencing focus groups (Is it because focus groups have been polled BEFORE they hear what pundits have to say?)
Then, once the Pundits hear what the people have said, they start discussing those results and begin to analyze the results, instead of the contest. They fall behind the curve, and begin to follow the people (it’s a reverse influence), and start telling the audience why they agree with them.
Two arenas for discussion. Viewers… Pundits.
Debates reinforce perceptions of people already decided. Little effect on others (just don’t loose)
The Swift Boat effect
The campaign is never better than the candidate, but in this case, the candidate is actually better than the campaign.
The campaign of distraction and negative message really doesn’t fit McCain. He got stuck with it when he capitulated to the republican mainstream. Even in 2004, when he caved to the party and agreed to wait his turn as a loyal member (This is in keeping with his not leaving Vietnam before those ahead of him).
Attacks (so far) don’t seem to be working (not because people are not as susceptible as usual), but perhaps because it has been properly ‘framed’ by the Obama campaign this time.
McCain interrupted Obama several times (appeared rude… wouldn’t let him finish)
Went on too long (say what you think and stop).
If tone continues dominating the race. Obama wins
It has been the campaign strategy to raise fear and doubt, but McCain (personally) just can’t do it! When McCain refuted the people who talked about Obama as dangerous… or Muslim… he gained stature. I give him credit for that, and think many watching did too.
The Bradley effect dealt with exit polls of undecided voters, not committed voters. There was a very large number of them. What it shows, if anything, is where the racist vote parks itself. Undecideds generally break the same as the rest of the population, however in the case of hidden factors (like race) they generally break 2 or 3:1 against the hidden factor.
In this election, the undecided vote has shrunk to less than 6% in most key states.
Top number counts.
Take the top number, subtract ½ %, then add 30% of the undecided vote = winner. (If Obama goes into the election with 48.7 % or more, he will win.) Obama now stands at roughly 50% with little time (and no major events scheduled) to change that number.
However, life always has a way of interfering with the future.
If Obama can take New Hampshire and Colorado, he wins.
Virginia, Ohio, etc, don’t matter. If Obama wins those states, it will be because the entire country has ‘trended there’ in other words, his overall support will spill over. But if you want to concentrate on the states that are truly important, those two are where all their effort should be focused.
If he wins, he will either win with 273 electoral votes, or overwhelmingly. Nothing in between.
People always talk about how much is spent in a campaign, but no voter ever cares. It’s the message that they receive as a result of the spending that counts. Period.
Question: Why do people end up voting for the “wrong” person… the candidate not in their own best interest?
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Political Communication
9-25 – 10-2
On the Debate
Foreign Affairs issues were avoided because of financial events coming to the forefront.
Little focus was put on the question/issue of Obama as Commander in Chief in comparison to McCain.
For what there was, both listed names and places as proof of their understanding of international affairs. Therefore Obama wins for not loosing.
McCain often seemed demeaning to Obama…and angry. Obama always seemed to be in control
The group with whom I watched the debate did not see any of the run-up (we viewed a documentary about the history of debates produced by Jim Trengrove (of the News Hour), and then turned off the television immediately to talk among ourselves.
So we watched the debate absent of any spin (of course through the eyes of a mostly liberal audience however) but their impression too, was that Obama won for not loosing.
When McCain talked about Obama’s reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia, he attacked him for being too slow to act, his statement was that Obama’s “first reaction was to tell both sides to cease hostilities”. His implication was that Obama was unsure of what to do and not decisive. The audience take on this was that that was the first thing that should be done… and that McCain seemed to think that everything should be answered militarily… even before you know what’s really going on. They thought that this was a dangerous approach.
Audience saw McCain as ‘shooting from the hip’… Obama as more ‘statesman like’
All thought that Obama looked like a President… and (since there wasn’t much talk about military issues) had passed the ‘Commander in Chief’ bar.
On the Financial Crises
McCain acted quickly (and often erratically) in an attempt to take control of the dialogue and the leadership role (have Obama respond to him, instead of vice versa). This of course backfired with his announcement of suspending his campaign and threatening to not participate in the debate.
It was a Presidential ploy… something a President would do in a national emergency. There was only one problem… McCain is NOT president.
Obama waited (he does this all the time) and acted in a slower and more considered manner (consistent with his trying to project the image as a reasoned, statesmanlike leader)
Both are on the wrong side of the public on the rescue plan, but neither wants to take a position in opposition to the other… even though both probably think the plan is bad.
Politically better to both be on the same side (looking at the polls as to who’s on each side in the public, and it’s mixed… potentially negative for both candidates… so they are not going to polarize the voters they need by taking one side or the other). This is all very politically safe… but also cowardly.
It’s also VERY complicated, and due to the way in which it was first presented to the public (by Paulson) not easily explainable.
Obama campaign has taken back the argument (by luck) with the attention shifting to Domestic issues and the Economy.
I do not think however, that Obama is moving ahead only because of the domestic issues coming to the forefront, but rather because McCain seems the more risky choice due to his temperament and daily (sometimes erratic) change in positions, while Obama remains steadfast and calm.
Vice President
The Obama campaign has raised expectations for Palin… not letting the McCain side convince the media that if she doesn’t fall down, she wins. The have consistently shown her as an experienced debater (using Alaska clips, etc.) so that the media … and the public… might start to expect more from her performance.
Media has hyped this debate, predicting larger audience for debate. This is self serving. I don’t think the country (other than out of curiosity) really cares much about Palin anymore.
I predict a smaller audience
To “win”, Biden needs only to “answer the questions”
Which audience counts? People or Press
9-25 – 10-2
On the Debate
Foreign Affairs issues were avoided because of financial events coming to the forefront.
Little focus was put on the question/issue of Obama as Commander in Chief in comparison to McCain.
For what there was, both listed names and places as proof of their understanding of international affairs. Therefore Obama wins for not loosing.
McCain often seemed demeaning to Obama…and angry. Obama always seemed to be in control
The group with whom I watched the debate did not see any of the run-up (we viewed a documentary about the history of debates produced by Jim Trengrove (of the News Hour), and then turned off the television immediately to talk among ourselves.
So we watched the debate absent of any spin (of course through the eyes of a mostly liberal audience however) but their impression too, was that Obama won for not loosing.
When McCain talked about Obama’s reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia, he attacked him for being too slow to act, his statement was that Obama’s “first reaction was to tell both sides to cease hostilities”. His implication was that Obama was unsure of what to do and not decisive. The audience take on this was that that was the first thing that should be done… and that McCain seemed to think that everything should be answered militarily… even before you know what’s really going on. They thought that this was a dangerous approach.
Audience saw McCain as ‘shooting from the hip’… Obama as more ‘statesman like’
All thought that Obama looked like a President… and (since there wasn’t much talk about military issues) had passed the ‘Commander in Chief’ bar.
On the Financial Crises
McCain acted quickly (and often erratically) in an attempt to take control of the dialogue and the leadership role (have Obama respond to him, instead of vice versa). This of course backfired with his announcement of suspending his campaign and threatening to not participate in the debate.
It was a Presidential ploy… something a President would do in a national emergency. There was only one problem… McCain is NOT president.
Obama waited (he does this all the time) and acted in a slower and more considered manner (consistent with his trying to project the image as a reasoned, statesmanlike leader)
Both are on the wrong side of the public on the rescue plan, but neither wants to take a position in opposition to the other… even though both probably think the plan is bad.
Politically better to both be on the same side (looking at the polls as to who’s on each side in the public, and it’s mixed… potentially negative for both candidates… so they are not going to polarize the voters they need by taking one side or the other). This is all very politically safe… but also cowardly.
It’s also VERY complicated, and due to the way in which it was first presented to the public (by Paulson) not easily explainable.
Obama campaign has taken back the argument (by luck) with the attention shifting to Domestic issues and the Economy.
I do not think however, that Obama is moving ahead only because of the domestic issues coming to the forefront, but rather because McCain seems the more risky choice due to his temperament and daily (sometimes erratic) change in positions, while Obama remains steadfast and calm.
Vice President
The Obama campaign has raised expectations for Palin… not letting the McCain side convince the media that if she doesn’t fall down, she wins. The have consistently shown her as an experienced debater (using Alaska clips, etc.) so that the media … and the public… might start to expect more from her performance.
Media has hyped this debate, predicting larger audience for debate. This is self serving. I don’t think the country (other than out of curiosity) really cares much about Palin anymore.
I predict a smaller audience
To “win”, Biden needs only to “answer the questions”
Which audience counts? People or Press
Political Communication
Journal Entries 9/18 – 9/24
Public is judging candidates more by demeanor, than specific solution to economy problem
One reserved ,considered. One angry, flailing around.
McCain too Hot
Obama, too Cool(?)
Body language: McCain uncomfortable standing. Doesn’t know what to do with his hands. Obama Tall, good posture. Moves fluidly. Exudes confidence and consideration (but little passion)
This week left an impression that McCain is impetuous and acts too quickly. There is no reason to pass a bill that quickly. One week… two weeks… all within reason.
Obama needs to make that point. A considered response… not shoot from the hip and then shoot again.
McCain, in an attempt to distract and change the focus moves to ‘suspend’ the campaign and return to handle crises (a lot of use of the word crises). This is a rose garden approach. As if he were an incumbent president, needing to return.
Unfortunately (for him) he is not president, and the move seems forced and foolish.
Refusing to debate is also a mistake.
Democrats in congress should delay a final agreement until at least Saturday no matter what… forcing McCain to capitulate and go to debate anyway… or appear stubborn and petulant by missing it. Either way Obama wins.
Palin is fading fast. Repeating the same words when she doesn’t have an answer is making her look foolish and unprepared to be president. She should stay on message, but get off script.
Journal Entries 9/18 – 9/24
Public is judging candidates more by demeanor, than specific solution to economy problem
One reserved ,considered. One angry, flailing around.
McCain too Hot
Obama, too Cool(?)
Body language: McCain uncomfortable standing. Doesn’t know what to do with his hands. Obama Tall, good posture. Moves fluidly. Exudes confidence and consideration (but little passion)
This week left an impression that McCain is impetuous and acts too quickly. There is no reason to pass a bill that quickly. One week… two weeks… all within reason.
Obama needs to make that point. A considered response… not shoot from the hip and then shoot again.
McCain, in an attempt to distract and change the focus moves to ‘suspend’ the campaign and return to handle crises (a lot of use of the word crises). This is a rose garden approach. As if he were an incumbent president, needing to return.
Unfortunately (for him) he is not president, and the move seems forced and foolish.
Refusing to debate is also a mistake.
Democrats in congress should delay a final agreement until at least Saturday no matter what… forcing McCain to capitulate and go to debate anyway… or appear stubborn and petulant by missing it. Either way Obama wins.
Palin is fading fast. Repeating the same words when she doesn’t have an answer is making her look foolish and unprepared to be president. She should stay on message, but get off script.
Political Communication
Journal Entries 9/11 – 9/17
Even with all the hoopla of the conventions, which did bring McCain up in the pools, Obama still leads in PA, CO, MN, and MI. This is happening outside of the noise of the national campaign being fought in the media. If Obama still leads with about 48 or 49% of the vote by the end of the campaign, the election is his.
Obama will start to climb back up as a result of Lehman Bros, as it puts the focus back on one of the issues where he can contrast his position with McCain.
Obama should be more specific. “I would…” The Republicans (Busch/McCain) are the party of no regulation. Look what it got us”
Campaigns are all played out and communicated in the context of everyday events. Some come from outside the campaign (Lehman Bros) others are created inside the campaign in order to position the candidates views against the public’s attention.
Political communication requires events that give the opportunity to demonstrate real proposals and solutions for problems that people can measure against the event.
I find it extremely interesting that the crises around baby formula and milk in China is in the news both here, and in China. This is a huge shift in public policy for China, which has always controlled the message both internally and externally. Why would a government that can control a message allow a negative message like this out?
A problem with Obama’s speeches in relationship to ordinary people is that they lack Pathos. He should be saying “This is not about Wall Street… It is about people, real people who’s life savings have just been cut in half… who’s jobs have been lost… who’s future is now in jeopardy” In other words, making a connection to the lives of the people.
In 1980, we took the Chrysler Bailout and turned it into “This is not about saving big corporations… it’s about saving the lives, and the jobs, of ordinary Americans”
Elections are fertile opportunities for other political messages to tag onto campaign messages in an often subtle and insidious way. API (American Petroleum Institute) which represents Big Oil, continually advertises about using American Oil and Energy, hooking onto, and in turn also supporting McCain’s (and the Republican) position on dirlling and exploitation of resources in the US. Others doing the same are the WE ads, and the Areva ad… which promotes a favorable impression of Nuclear Energy development… without even mentioning what it’s about.
Obama campaign needs to tie McCain not only to Bush, but to the Republican Party. People already know what Republican means (Business, De-Regulation, War, etc.). This will put more focus on policy and direction, and counter the maverick argument.
To the extent that the Obama campaign can continue to make the election about McCain, I think it will find traction (just as the McCain campaign has tried to make it about Obama). They have done well with it this week, calling into question McCain’s understanding of issues, etc.
McCain presents a more Ethos based argument derivative of his experience and age. Obama, if anything, has presented a Logos based argument, which has only served to draw the criticism of his being elitist and intellectual. Americans don’t like people they think are smart(er) than themselves.
California has placed an initiative on the ballot to rescind the Same Sex Marriage ruling of the Supreme Court. This has more to do with bringing out a republican fundamentalist vote than with the issue itself. Remember that in 2004, a ballot initiatve aimed at defining marriage as a union between parties of separate sex was also on the ballot of numerous state… including Ohio. More people came out to vote for that, than for president… although once in the voting booth… they also voted for Bush (South Western Ohio in particular). Watch for states that place similar fundamentalist questions on their ballots to increase Republican turnout.
Obama should also be arguing (pathos again) the relationship between this financial crises and the reduction of the net-worth of millions of Americans as an example of what privatization of Social Security (as supported by McCain) would mean to the income of millions of older Americans… whose checks for the next several months would be much lower… if McCain had his way. “This is why the policies and practices of the Republican Party cannot be trusted to take care of ordinary people.
Biden is going to continue to make mistakes along the way. Live with it. He brings more than he gives away.
Bush’s speech today (Ethos based) showed little Ethos… or impact on the situation. Immediately following its delivery, the market fell 50 points. It was far too short, and inconsequential to allaying fears on the part of Wall Street or Main Street. He also ran away from it (literally) by taking no questions.
It does illustrate, however, the fact that if you give a “one sentence” statement, the media has no choice but to use it exactly as you present it. No selection of what they think most important, or distortion of your meanin
Journal Entries 9/11 – 9/17
Even with all the hoopla of the conventions, which did bring McCain up in the pools, Obama still leads in PA, CO, MN, and MI. This is happening outside of the noise of the national campaign being fought in the media. If Obama still leads with about 48 or 49% of the vote by the end of the campaign, the election is his.
Obama will start to climb back up as a result of Lehman Bros, as it puts the focus back on one of the issues where he can contrast his position with McCain.
Obama should be more specific. “I would…” The Republicans (Busch/McCain) are the party of no regulation. Look what it got us”
Campaigns are all played out and communicated in the context of everyday events. Some come from outside the campaign (Lehman Bros) others are created inside the campaign in order to position the candidates views against the public’s attention.
Political communication requires events that give the opportunity to demonstrate real proposals and solutions for problems that people can measure against the event.
I find it extremely interesting that the crises around baby formula and milk in China is in the news both here, and in China. This is a huge shift in public policy for China, which has always controlled the message both internally and externally. Why would a government that can control a message allow a negative message like this out?
A problem with Obama’s speeches in relationship to ordinary people is that they lack Pathos. He should be saying “This is not about Wall Street… It is about people, real people who’s life savings have just been cut in half… who’s jobs have been lost… who’s future is now in jeopardy” In other words, making a connection to the lives of the people.
In 1980, we took the Chrysler Bailout and turned it into “This is not about saving big corporations… it’s about saving the lives, and the jobs, of ordinary Americans”
Elections are fertile opportunities for other political messages to tag onto campaign messages in an often subtle and insidious way. API (American Petroleum Institute) which represents Big Oil, continually advertises about using American Oil and Energy, hooking onto, and in turn also supporting McCain’s (and the Republican) position on dirlling and exploitation of resources in the US. Others doing the same are the WE ads, and the Areva ad… which promotes a favorable impression of Nuclear Energy development… without even mentioning what it’s about.
Obama campaign needs to tie McCain not only to Bush, but to the Republican Party. People already know what Republican means (Business, De-Regulation, War, etc.). This will put more focus on policy and direction, and counter the maverick argument.
To the extent that the Obama campaign can continue to make the election about McCain, I think it will find traction (just as the McCain campaign has tried to make it about Obama). They have done well with it this week, calling into question McCain’s understanding of issues, etc.
McCain presents a more Ethos based argument derivative of his experience and age. Obama, if anything, has presented a Logos based argument, which has only served to draw the criticism of his being elitist and intellectual. Americans don’t like people they think are smart(er) than themselves.
California has placed an initiative on the ballot to rescind the Same Sex Marriage ruling of the Supreme Court. This has more to do with bringing out a republican fundamentalist vote than with the issue itself. Remember that in 2004, a ballot initiatve aimed at defining marriage as a union between parties of separate sex was also on the ballot of numerous state… including Ohio. More people came out to vote for that, than for president… although once in the voting booth… they also voted for Bush (South Western Ohio in particular). Watch for states that place similar fundamentalist questions on their ballots to increase Republican turnout.
Obama should also be arguing (pathos again) the relationship between this financial crises and the reduction of the net-worth of millions of Americans as an example of what privatization of Social Security (as supported by McCain) would mean to the income of millions of older Americans… whose checks for the next several months would be much lower… if McCain had his way. “This is why the policies and practices of the Republican Party cannot be trusted to take care of ordinary people.
Biden is going to continue to make mistakes along the way. Live with it. He brings more than he gives away.
Bush’s speech today (Ethos based) showed little Ethos… or impact on the situation. Immediately following its delivery, the market fell 50 points. It was far too short, and inconsequential to allaying fears on the part of Wall Street or Main Street. He also ran away from it (literally) by taking no questions.
It does illustrate, however, the fact that if you give a “one sentence” statement, the media has no choice but to use it exactly as you present it. No selection of what they think most important, or distortion of your meanin
Political Communication
Journal Entries 9/4 – 9/10
Watching Palin deliver the same inaccurate (untruthful) message over and over again reminds me of the German Propaganda machine of the 1930s and 40s. The Big Lie, I think it was called. The idea being that if you tell a lie over and over again, it becomes the truth in the mind of the audience.
The skillful change of ‘the question’ by the Republican Party in this election is admirable as a piece of smart political communication. Seeing that Change seems to trump Experience in this year’s rhetoric, (and also seeing that Clinton (H) had begun to cut into Obama’s message (too little… too late) with her “Working Class / Anti-Elitist” message.
Obama seems to have good control of his message… not being distracted by the events of the moment, staying on message with the economy. I believe that in the medium term, the Palin phenomena will fade.
McCain has managed (at least for the moment… and in my opinion perhaps for good) to have untied himself from Bush. He will still have to untie himself from his own record and beliefs, and he will spend every day possible trying to change the argument from ‘issues’ to ‘character’.
McCain’s shift of the question from Experience to Change, and from Record to Character is really smart.
Palin’s selection has reinforced McCain’s credentials as a change agent.
His preemptive strike against the media has also brought them (the media) into the contest as players, instead of objective observers. This has had the effect of frightening the press into being very careful about any vetting or negative reporting against Palin.
This will wear off. The idea that Palin is only ‘a heartbeat away’, I think, will eventually influence a substantial number of voters.
People say Palin will eventually have to meet with the press and answer questions about her views and beliefs… along with showing an understanding of National and International affairs. I think not. They will keep her away as long as possible, expose her only briefly, lowering expectations as to what it is she has to know, and play the injured party whenever she is pressed.
Palin receiving ‘Hillary Voters’ is a red herring. It’s not those democrats that they want, or that they will ever get (except where race is the underlying… unspoken reason).
The shift of women to the McCain Palin ticket comes predominantly from undecided Republican women (who were hanging out because of their dislike of Bush) and Independent women (who were hanging out because of their dislike of Obama).
In the first instance, these women were going to go that way (or stay home) anyway. In the second, race may play an unidentified factor.
Playing to build the base is always a good thing… except that the Republican base has become too small. Nonetheless, there is no other place to go.
It’s also brilliant to run Palin vs. Obama, as it brings Obama down to her level, and if he begins to respond, it makes him look less presidential.
McCain has a record. Obama should run against it.
Democrats have already been placed in the column of Tax and Spend… and Weak on Defense (see my opening comment). Don’t spend the campaign trying to refute that
Don’t play defense. Don’t attack. Deliver the message that works clearly… over and over again.
When McCain says “Obama wants to raise taxes, don’t say “McCain is not telling you the truth about the Democratic tax plan” unless Truth is the issue. This doesn’t mean anything. The message should be “If you earn more than $1,000,000 per year, your taxes will go up. If you earn less than $250,000, your taxes will go down.” Period.
Re-defining the contest as to what kind of change America wants, levels the playing field. Then making the choice as to which candidate has more character (which is very important in the electorate’s mind) moves it into the McCain column.
The idea of reforming Washington (Changing Washington) losses traction when McCains Record is called into question. It is not change in Washington that people want, but rather change in their own lives.
Trying to tie changing how Washington works into changing my life is tricky, and I don’t think will gain much traction.
Change works when it is re-enforced by specifics that people are fearful about… like National Security, and The Economy.
Short of a terrorist attack or scare (that the nation believes to be real) National Security will not trump the Economy.
Obama (and the Democrats in general) are better with the Economy argument every time.
Stay on message. “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?” America is in this unbearable position because of what the Republicans believe. McCain’s record shows that he believes as they do. Here’s what the Democrats believe. And here’s what I believe… and what I will do!
Journal Entries 9/4 – 9/10
Watching Palin deliver the same inaccurate (untruthful) message over and over again reminds me of the German Propaganda machine of the 1930s and 40s. The Big Lie, I think it was called. The idea being that if you tell a lie over and over again, it becomes the truth in the mind of the audience.
The skillful change of ‘the question’ by the Republican Party in this election is admirable as a piece of smart political communication. Seeing that Change seems to trump Experience in this year’s rhetoric, (and also seeing that Clinton (H) had begun to cut into Obama’s message (too little… too late) with her “Working Class / Anti-Elitist” message.
Obama seems to have good control of his message… not being distracted by the events of the moment, staying on message with the economy. I believe that in the medium term, the Palin phenomena will fade.
McCain has managed (at least for the moment… and in my opinion perhaps for good) to have untied himself from Bush. He will still have to untie himself from his own record and beliefs, and he will spend every day possible trying to change the argument from ‘issues’ to ‘character’.
McCain’s shift of the question from Experience to Change, and from Record to Character is really smart.
Palin’s selection has reinforced McCain’s credentials as a change agent.
His preemptive strike against the media has also brought them (the media) into the contest as players, instead of objective observers. This has had the effect of frightening the press into being very careful about any vetting or negative reporting against Palin.
This will wear off. The idea that Palin is only ‘a heartbeat away’, I think, will eventually influence a substantial number of voters.
People say Palin will eventually have to meet with the press and answer questions about her views and beliefs… along with showing an understanding of National and International affairs. I think not. They will keep her away as long as possible, expose her only briefly, lowering expectations as to what it is she has to know, and play the injured party whenever she is pressed.
Palin receiving ‘Hillary Voters’ is a red herring. It’s not those democrats that they want, or that they will ever get (except where race is the underlying… unspoken reason).
The shift of women to the McCain Palin ticket comes predominantly from undecided Republican women (who were hanging out because of their dislike of Bush) and Independent women (who were hanging out because of their dislike of Obama).
In the first instance, these women were going to go that way (or stay home) anyway. In the second, race may play an unidentified factor.
Playing to build the base is always a good thing… except that the Republican base has become too small. Nonetheless, there is no other place to go.
It’s also brilliant to run Palin vs. Obama, as it brings Obama down to her level, and if he begins to respond, it makes him look less presidential.
McCain has a record. Obama should run against it.
Democrats have already been placed in the column of Tax and Spend… and Weak on Defense (see my opening comment). Don’t spend the campaign trying to refute that
Don’t play defense. Don’t attack. Deliver the message that works clearly… over and over again.
When McCain says “Obama wants to raise taxes, don’t say “McCain is not telling you the truth about the Democratic tax plan” unless Truth is the issue. This doesn’t mean anything. The message should be “If you earn more than $1,000,000 per year, your taxes will go up. If you earn less than $250,000, your taxes will go down.” Period.
Re-defining the contest as to what kind of change America wants, levels the playing field. Then making the choice as to which candidate has more character (which is very important in the electorate’s mind) moves it into the McCain column.
The idea of reforming Washington (Changing Washington) losses traction when McCains Record is called into question. It is not change in Washington that people want, but rather change in their own lives.
Trying to tie changing how Washington works into changing my life is tricky, and I don’t think will gain much traction.
Change works when it is re-enforced by specifics that people are fearful about… like National Security, and The Economy.
Short of a terrorist attack or scare (that the nation believes to be real) National Security will not trump the Economy.
Obama (and the Democrats in general) are better with the Economy argument every time.
Stay on message. “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?” America is in this unbearable position because of what the Republicans believe. McCain’s record shows that he believes as they do. Here’s what the Democrats believe. And here’s what I believe… and what I will do!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)