Talking Politics

By Britton Alexander

Last Tuesday, President Barack Obama visited Chapel Hill. In front of a crowd of 8,000 people, he spoke of higher education and student loans. From many individuals’ points of view, the speech was just about policy and his campaign to extend legislation that lowered student-loan interest rates. With Chancellor Holden Thorp and student Dominique Garland introducing the speech with talks of higher education affordability, who could think the president would have any other goal than to educate and garner support from his listeners on the issue?

But according to this article written by James Druckman, Lawrence Jacobs, and Eric Ostermeier, candidates almost always have a second agenda when discussing policy: image management. According to the authors, “image and issue priming are not mutually exclusive strategies – issues and images are linked” (1184). With this in mind, we can see that Obama was not only expanding on his policy preferences but also promoting his image as a strong individual and the right candidate for president. 

The four traits that the authors view as most appealing to the public are competence, strength, warmth, and trust, and it would be difficult to say Obama did not characterize all of these traits during his speech. Early on, he spoke of his prediction that UNC would win March Madness, and this immediately developed a level of warmth and amiability with the public. He then spoke about holding colleges accountable and investing in things that will help students in the future. “No matter how many obstacles that may stand in our way, I promise you North Carolina, there are better days ahead,” Obama said. Because of the certainty in these statements, North Carolinians saw Obama’s strength. In the eyes of the viewers, Obama will make a difference and we can trust him to better America’s future. Finally the statement “in America, WE don’t quit” shows his competence and dedication. 

These speech excerpts show that although it may appear that Obama was only trying to garner support for extending lowered student-loan interest rates, the president was strategically priming his image. He wants voters to see him in a positive light and to dismiss any negative characteristics that may be associated with him. To do this, he will continue to combine his issue and image priming during speeches, appearances, and more. 

Iyengar’s writing “The Media Game” was of special interest to me, given mass communication theories I have learned at UNC. I have always heard of the media as the “gatekeeper” and its role in the agenda setting theory. The media acts as a gatekeeper by controlling, to a certain extent, which stories/groups get their message out. Similarly, the agenda setting theory states that while the media does not tell the public what to think about certain issues or stories, media does have a great influence as to what stories they do think about. For example, although the media cannot tell people what to think about a candidate’s new hair style, it is because the media picked the story up that it is now being talked about.

Iyengar challenges this model in which the media holds dictatorial power to a certain extent, about what stories and angles are covered. One way in particular that campaigns disrupt the agenda-setting model is the “Adwatch” phenomena. For example, the swift boat veterans ad in 2004 was only shown in one tiny West Virginia media market, but was picked up by the media as a news story. In fact, Iyengar notes that in a period preceding the election, there were more stories about the swift boat ad than on the war in Iraq. In this manner, the Bush campaign (or its unofficially affiliated group) became the agenda setter for the media.

In this scenario, the underlying message is that the media is losing to campaigns and political organizations in the power struggle to control and dictate what gets reported. In the recent republican primary, the new political groups, called Super PACs stole headlines by themselves and with the ads they created.

However, although through Iyengar’s lens, stories such as the NPR one are indicative of groups dictating to the media, I would argue that there is deeper meaning than simply that. The Citizens United ruling was a landmark decision that holds deep consequences for how the American political process unfolds— certainly a newsworthy issue. I argue that this is not simply a case of Super PACs dictating to the media, but rather the ongoing media investigation of the consequences of the Citizens United ruling.

Regardless, Iyengar offers at the very least an interesting counter to traditional media models that is rooted in tangible results throughout election season. There is always a battle between PR people and reporters to define and angle news coverage, and this battle is especially well documented in the political arena. This election season will be intriguing to see which ad sets the agenda and frames debate, and how different media outlets accept, modify or frame content from campaigns.

When it comes to marketing a political candidate like a business, President Obama paved the way for future political candidates running for president.   Political marketing theory focuses on showing candidates the benefits to using traditional brand marketing techniques in their political campaigns.  The theory works really well to help candidates establish a set identity with their constituents and promote a certain brand.

The 2008 campaign for President Obama used many of these techniques to win over voters, and he is well on his way to doing the same for the 2012 Presidential election.  In 2008 Obama utilized many online resources along with traditional ones.  One of the most important aspects of his campaign is his use of social media to help brand him as a tech-savvy and easily-reachable candidate.

The Barack Obama Campaign from 2008 is best known for its new approaches to online resources such as social media sites and revolutionary campaign websites.  Social media is a great new way for companies to promote their brands to their consumers.  It can establish a two-way avenue of communication between the company and the consumer.  Companies need to always be aware of how consumers view their products and the Internet established a new form of instant feedback.  Most companies now have social media departments that scan the Internet all day for signs of problems with their products.  These issues are then handled to prevent a problem from going viral, which can be similar to bad publicity in a political campaign.

Staci Zavattaro wrote a great article about how Obama’s campaign advisors branded him a certain way in the 2008 election, which has become the way to market a candidate to the “Web 2.0” generation.  She looks at how he used social media, images, messages and many other resources to develop his elaborate campaign stance.  For example Zavattaro points out that the images his campaign used are now well-known and link Obama to his idea of change.  She also shows that because President Obama’s campaign strategy was so effective that, in the future, campaigns will focus on the candidate more than the platforms. 

The 2008 campaign for Obama was most effective because it utilized a similar theory to what businesses use to market their products. The political marketing theory relies on that premise and the Obama campaign shows that it can work for political candidates.

Obama is well on his way to branding himself again for the 2012 presidential election.  He visited UNC Chapel Hill on Tuesday, April 23, 2012 to speak to students about student loans and interest rates.  He did a great job relating to students who need financial aid to attend college by sharing stories about his experience with student loans.  He is branding himself as relatable and an average Joe.  It is a great strategy to reach his target audience.  I am excited to see how he chooses to brand himself this election cycle.

UNC Chapel Hill was extremely busy last week preparing for the President’s visit on Tuesday April 23.  The events included a speech by the president and a special guest appearance on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.  I was given a great opportunity to work as a press volunteer for the event, which pretty much meant that I helped keep the press contained in their designated area until the conclusion of the speech.

I did get the chance to listen to President Obama’s speech about student loans and interest rates.  His full transcript can be found here.  The one thing I noticed about his speech was how he presented it to his target audience of college students in need of financial aid.  It relates to Jeffrey Alexander’s book since he argues that a political candidate should use things from the civil sphere to relate to a target audience.  The civil sphere is the cultural ideas people have about democracy.  Alexander argues in his book that candidates should use them to convince the general public that they are honest, authentic, reasonable, critical, and equal.

President Obama used the speech on student loans and interest rates to prove to his target audience, young voters, that he is authentic and reasonable.  He specifically points out in his speech that both him and Michelle Obama took out student loans to pay for school and that neither of them were from a privileged background.   Alexander would point to this as a way to develop authenticity with his target audience.  He is trying to motivate younger voters to vote for him by showing a connection.  Obama is branding himself as an average Joe who has been through similar experiences.  It is a great way to develop an air of authenticity and relate to potential voters.

This is where the reasonable part of the civil sphere comes into play.  He used quotes in his speech that show how unreasonable Republican Congressmen are being about the subject of student loan interest rates.  He quoted a Republican Senator saying that she had “very little tolerance for people who tell [her] they graduate with debt because there’s no reason for that [and that] students who rack up student loan debt are just sitting on their butts, having opportunity ‘dumped in [their] lap.’”  This quote does a great job in pointing to how reasonable President Obama looks in relation to the other side of  this subject.  He has successfully displayed to young voters that he cares more about their student loans and debt than Republicans. 

Jeffrey Alexander’s argument in his book The Performance of Politics: Obama’s Victory and the Democratic Struggle for Power shows that candidates need to maintain their image in public by demonstrating how they will act when elected.  It is important for political candidates to remain on message and not be caught changing their ideals.  The speech President Obama gave on Tuesday was a great example of staying on message and motivating a target audience.  Overall, it was an effective message for its target audience of young college-age students that will need financial aid.

In an article for the Daily Beast, famous author Stephen King jumped on the Buffet Rule bandwagon today, announcing his thoughts on why the wealthy should pay more in taxes.

It’s been about two weeks since the Buffet Rule was tabled, but the Democrats have vowed to bring it up again later, so King’s article is a nice reminder that the bill is not dead and neither is the greater push for decreased inequality.

He responds to Governor Chris Christie’s assertion that if Warren Buffet wants to pay the government more in taxes he should just “write a check and shut up.”

But this fails to address the nation’s problem, says King. Those of the 1 percent who are charitable could not assume the responsibility of investing in all of America’s needs if they wanted to. Charity helps, but it’s not enough because a lot of wealthy people don’t give to charity, he says. Investing in the nation should be the responsibility of all Americans, and he even goes on to suggest that he and others with similar levels of wealth should be paying 50 percent of their incomes in taxes.

King’s article is quite a strong endorsement for the idea that the wealthy should pay higher effective tax rates and in terms of political communication, it begs the question, what is the effect of a celebrity endorsement of a political matter on public opinion? In my mind, the fact that another wealthy person has come out in support of the Buffet Rule only lends to its credibility, and it doesn’t matter that the person happens to be Stephen King. Fans of Stephen King, however, might see it differently and may be influenced to change their minds.

To help answer this, I found this article: “The Oprah Factor: The Effects of a Celebrity Endorsement in a Presidential Primary Campaign,” by Andrew Pease and Paul R. Brewer.

It discusses the issue of whether or not Oprah’s endorsement of Obama during the primaries influenced public opinion of him. The article does not present quite the same situation, but it should give good insight into whether or not people can be swayed by the celebrity mystique.

According to the authors, exposure to the news that Oprah was endorsing Obama did not make people hold more favorable attitudes toward Obama or change their opinions of his likeability. However, reading about the endorsement did lead participants to see Obama as more likely to win the nomination and to say that they would be more likely to vote for him. These findings, say the authors, suggest that celebrity endorsements may have effects on voters’ assessments of candidate viability. This is significant, say the authors, because we vote based on our own preferences and based on our assessments of how likely a candidate is to get nominated.

For the Buffet Rule, this suggests to me that while people will likely not change their views about the fairness of the rule, they might consider the viability of the rule for the first time, if only for a second. Or maybe they will see the rule as more likely to get passed based on the opinion of others. I imagine this as a kind of softening in opinion toward the rule, as if those who oppose it will eventually see its inevitability and succumb, but only if they’re fans of the endorser. Personally, I find it hard to imagine that a celebrity’s opinion could change someone else’s on a matter like this. But, maybe for people whose political beliefs are not particularly strong, a celebrity endorsement could have a sizeable effect.

Bailey Chu

In a segment of “Meet the Press,” last Sunday, David Gregory asked the roundtable who Romney will pick as his vice presidential running mate, and the roundtable gave answers that generally reflect the long-term notions about how candidates choose their VPs. This is basically their analysis of each potential candidate.

Marco Rubio—Too green and not emotionally ready, though, he could help Mitt Romney with Hispanics, but polls show he hurts numbers in Florida. Consensus: he probably won’t be the running mate

Paul Ryan—His budget is too polarizing, but some think he sends a message of being serious about the budget. He could provide Romney with more credibility with conservatives. Consensus: probably not

Bob McDonnell—He could be seen as boring, which won’t help balance the perception that Romney is boring, but he could help win Virginia, a swing state. Consensus: Maybe

Portman— Also too boring to counteract Romney’s boringness, but would reassure middle ground voters. Romney may be tempted to balance the ticket with a more conservative mate, but this would be a mistake. He needs to appeal to the middle. Portman’s years in the Bush administration are “baggage.” Consensus: Maybe

Kelly Ayotte—Would balance the ticket along gender lines. She was appointed attorney general by a democratic governor, so she has experience and could balance the ticket. Consensus: Maybe

The above analysis would suggest that presidential candidates choose running mates based on qualities that most balance their own, helping them to reach new voters within their party, in key states, and even across party lines. Here, the roundtable highlights gender, ethnicity, experience, personality, and state as issues that are seen to enhance Romney’s chances. But, is there any evidence to suggest that their analysis gets to the heart of who will be chosen?

Mark Hiller and Douglas Kriner’s view of the VP vetting process suggests that, yes, candidates must strategically balance themselves with their VP running mates, but not along some of the lines that we traditionally think of.

In Institutional Change and the Dynamics of Vice Presidential Selection, the authors argue that the vice presidential selection process has changed significantly since 1970 with the McGovern-Fraser guidelines and the Eagleton affair. Since the McGovern-Fraser guidelines, primaries, not party leaders, have come to decide party candidates. As a result, balancing the ticket by state has become less important as candidates no longer need to ease tensions among party leaders. Thus, the roundtable’s assertion that Romney might pick McDonnell to win Virginia seems a little off base, according to Hiller and Kriner. However, I find it hard to believe that choosing McDonnell as running mate wouldn’t persuade those in Virginia’s popular electorate. In my opinion, home state still seems a legitimate consideration to be made.

The other change that the authors point to is the one that came about after George McGovern picked a running mate who proved to have excessive baggage that was thought to have hurt the campaign. Since then, presidential candidates have made a big deal out of choosing VPs based on qualifications and the running mate’s ability to take over should anything happen to the president. The authors also go on to show that long-held beliefs about ticket balancing along age, race, gender, and ethnicity still help determine the running mate.

The roundtable’s VP likelihood analysis determined that Romney may choose to balance the ticket along any number of lines including gender, ethnicity, experience, ideology, and general personality. However, Hiller and Kriner did not find evidence that ideology is as important post reform, and they also say nothing about personality traits. Both of these seem odd to me because I would agree with the roundtable that appealing to the middle with someone like Portman is important. Also, it seems that balancing Romney’s boringness could be a major consideration for his advisors.

In my opinion the roundtable correctly accounts for all factors that a presidential nominee thinks about when choosing a running mate, and where Hiller and Kriner fail to find evidence for factors like ideology and personality, their study does not present a complete picture.

By Sonia Alvarez

There are currently around 309 millions of citizens in the US. Around 207 million of them can vote and more than 50 million are under 30 year old. The last group are Mr. Obama’s main target during his 2012 presidential campaign.

Probably one of the most popular presidents in the history of the United States, Barack Obama convinced a considerable percentage (66%) of young voters to support him four years ago, but part that enthusiasm seems to have disappeared since them. 

J. A. Hendricks and R. E. Denton Jr comment in their book Communicator in Chief, How Barack Obama Used New Media Technology to Win the White House that according to polls the youth expected Obama to do a good job with education, the economy, the environment and health care. Looking back now, the economy is still in a very negative situation and health care has been and still is a big issue for the current administration.  

Many of those young citizens who voted for Obama four years ago decided to show their support in social media, and that was great for him, since the Web is the primary source of information for young adults. Many of them saw their friends sharing Obama’s message and were more prompted to listen to it, too. However, that does not mean that the majority of young voters backed Obama. As Hendricks and Denton explain, “traffic on the Internet in general tilts toward the young and the more highly educated, demographics which are associated with more liberal politics”.

According to a recent article by Catalina Camia in USA today, things are not expected to change a lot among young voters, in part because of that liberal tendency that young people usually have, in part because of what history proves. Going back to the 1980 elections, young voters have backed the Democratic nominee for president except in 1984 and 1988, when Ronald Reagan was elected.

Still, Obama needs to take care of this, and that is what he started to do recently with the tour of campus colleges he did last week. But Romney knows he can shorten distances now if he plays well his cards. “I think this is a time when young people are questioning the support they gave to President Obama three and a half years ago,” Romney said in a speech last Monday in Pennsylvania. “He promised bringing the country together; that sure hasn’t happened. He promised a future with good jobs and good opportunity; that hasn’t happened. And the pathway that he pursued is one which has not worked. Young people recognize that and I think that’s why they’re going to increasingly look for a different approach.” 

However, he has not convinced more young voters than McCain did in 2008, yet. 31% of them voted for McCain four years ago, while the last Gallup’s shows that 29% would vote for Romney now. (The change in number for Democrats is 66% in 2008 versus 64% today).

These numbers vary from the ones from The Harvard University Institute of Politics survey of voters ages 18 to 29, which showed Obama leading Mitt Romney 43% to 26%. According to this data, Obama would not be in such a good position as other polls say, but he would be winning by a lot, yet, and up from the 37% to 26% head-to-head matchup in December.

Nothing can be said, yet, and any poll can be completely trusted. But there are some indicators of the battle Obama has ahead of him to keep young voters enthusiastic… and he’d better win that battle if he wants to be re-elected.

By Kasey El-Chayeb

Barack Obama’s advertising efforts stood out during his 2008 campaign for the presidency. In addition to setting record ad sales, the “Campaign for Change” spent approximately $20 million on Latino outreach efforts (Abrajano, p.147). His campaign incorporated multiple efforts to court Latino voters, including advertising on the leading Spanish language network, Univision. According to ABC News, “Obama won 67 percent of the Latino vote in 2008. Most independent analysts say the Republican nominee will need to get around 40 percent of Latino voters in 2012 to win the election.” With the release of several new Spanish language ads in the 2012 campaign, it’s clear the Obama campaign is determined to hold on to those supporters and is on track to doing do. A Quinnipiac University National Poll released on April 19^th  reported that President Obama holds a 64-24 percent lead over Romney among Hispanic voters.

Abrajano’s book, Campaigning to the New American Electorate: Advertising to Latino Voters, documents and studies the advertising efforts of both the Obama and McCain 2008 campaigns toward Latino voters. It’s important to note the difference between the 2008 strategies Abrajano describes and the updated 2012 strategies. In 2008, Obama produced three Spanish–language ads for Super Tuesday. These ads, called “Hope”, “El Nos Entiende”, and “Gutierrez”, each featured a Latino supporter talking about what they have in common with Obama, such as shared minority status or concern over immigration reform. During this time, independent videos made by Latino supporters contributed to the campaign by gaining popularity on YouTube. Also, in the final days of campaigning, Obama aired a 30 minute infomercial on Univision, a key component in reaching Spanish viewers. McCain used some similar tactics in his advertisements by emphasizing “his service in the military as a common thread between him and many Latinos who served in the armed forces (Abrajano, p.154).” Focusing on commonalities and employing identification theory was a key component in this wave of advertisements from both camps.

Fast forward to this year’s advertisements, which will air in battleground states Nevada, Colorado and Florida (ABC News). An interesting difference between 2012 Latino ads and the 2008 ads is an added focus on policy. It is likely that Obama strategists have realized that the commonalities between Latinos and Obama have already been fleshed out and may be well known by now. An added focus on policy could also serve to strengthen the connection Obama has with Latino voters who have questioned his stances on issues central to the Latino community. The new ads specifically focus on Obama’s record on economic and education policies. The campaign is also attempting to emphasize that Latinos for Obama is the largest ever national effort to communicate with Latinos. “Estamos Unidos” (we are united) will be the new national Spanish campaign slogan.

Despite some changes in Latino outreach, one message has largely remained the same. The Obama campaign has held on to an emphasis on Latino voter turnout, underlining the importance of this group throughout both campaigns.  “Just think how powerful you could be on November 4^th if you transfer your numbers into votes (Abrajano, p.154).” Obama shared this message at a National Council of La Raza (NCLR) Conference Speech.  He has repeatedly focused on communicating this point and expressing that Latinos are important to him, and his campaign. I think this message will prove to be extremely effective in helping Obama gain support from Latinos.

With Mitt Romney’s new position as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, much of the discussion on his campaign has begun to focus on potential vice presidential candidates. From New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, the possibilities are extensive. One perceived frontrunner is Republican Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who remains on many short lists of contenders despite his rather vehement denial of interest in the position.

Throughout the semester, we’ve talked extensively on the importance of authenticity in politicians, specifically with regard to Jeffrey Alexander’s The Performance of Politics. To be viewed as fake or as wishy-washy on issues can be a death knell to campaigns — Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid was plagued by this, and Romney recently came under fire for the Etch-A-Sketch comment.

So why, then, is it all right for Rubio to go on record as saying he isn’t vying for the vice presidential candidacy?

The most obvious answer is that there’s precedence for his denial. The Washington Post has referred to the vice-presidential candidate selection process as being similar to Fight Club — you don’t talk about it. Receiving the request to be the vice presidential candidate is seen as an honor: It’s not so much something you run for, as something you’re chosen for. And according to running mate expert Tim Walch, “Every single potential vice presidential candidate says they don’t want to be vice president until the actual courting takes place…I’m quite confident that, were Romney’s people to come to Sen. Rubio and say, ‘You’re our guy,’ he’s going to say yes.”

In a way, though, Rubio’s denial of interest is an attempt at presenting himself as authentic. Instead of making him seem as though he doesn’t know what he wants, his words make him seem trustworthy. Rubio (and the other potential candidates) come off as dedicated and dependable by emphasizing a love for current positions and constituents. If Rubio, for example, were to come on record as wanting the spot, it could be perceived as abandoning his post as senator. As in all politics, “the struggle for power becomes theatrical”; the candidates must somehow remain in the race for the nomination, while trying “to present compelling performances of civil competence to citizen audiences” (Alexander 9).

And although the silence and flip-flopping surrounding the process isn’t uncommon, it is a little surprising, since it stands as a sharp contrast to what happens once the candidate is chosen. According to Richard Slatcher’s “Winning words: Individual differences in linguistic style among U.S. presidential and vice presidential candidates,” once VP candidates have been selected, they’re “significantly more honest in their langue use than presidential candidates” (Slatcher 9). The role of vice-presidential candidate can “the ‘attack dog’ of their respective ticket” which allows them “to be more open and candid” (Slatcher 10). It stands to reason, then, that once Romney’s running mate is chosen, there won’t be any other questions of authenticity.

As the time for Romney’s announcement draws nearer, it will be interesting to watch how Rubio and the other candidates shift their answers. Will there be a softening of denial, or a complete turn around when the offer of candidacy is extended?

- Melissa

By: Jordan Michalik

One of the most sought after tickets for a concert are the backstage passes.  Who wouldn’t want to go behind the scenes of a major concert and potentially get to meet the rock stars themselves?  The Republican National Convention is giving every American the chance to do just that this year as of April 13, 2012, by naming Google & YouTube the official social platform and live stream provider of the convention.  Getting backstage isn’t just about being closer to and meeting those rock stars that seem so distant, it is also about a chance to to get that glimpse of normalcy from them, to see that they are in some way average. Are we going to see this with the politicians as well or is this going to be another guarded performance?  Will this backstage pass give us “access” to the politicians or just be more of the same?

 “Google and YouTube are transforming the political process, providing voters an unprecedented degree of participation and, for the very first time, giving every American who has access to a computer, tablet, video gaming system, interactive television, or video-enabled smart-phone an exclusive backstage pass to the podium of a national political convention,” said convention CEO William Harris.  

As Harris states, this is an opportunity for a new level of participation for Americans and a chance for the Republican National Convention to reach more viewers on basically any platform. The RNC did something similar in the 2008 election cycle.  They streamed the video of the convention using Ustream.  According to Business Wire, “In addition to broadcasting the convention in its entirety, Ustream also provided viewers with an all-access look at what took place behind-the-scenes, including exclusive backstage interviews, unique camera angles, complete press conference coverage and interactive chats with RNC staff and fellow viewers.”  According to Reuters, approximately 7 million people used Ustream to view the RNC.  This is a huge number of people to use an online source to watch especially when approximately 27.7 million people watched the RNC on TV.

The expanded amount of viewers for the RNC is a huge leap for both political conventions and new media.  Although a good portion of these new viewers are drawn in by the fact that they can access the footage on basically any device, there is another portion of viewers that want to see something they wouldn’t normally on TV.  Focusing on these 7 million (possibly more in 2012) new media viewers and the all-access pass one can only question the prospects of scripted and well-timed conversations, set camera angles, and pre-set candid moments of candidates being “natural”.  After all it is to gain votes and any moment not presenting the candidates in the best light would just not be in the script.

Andrew Chadwick in “The Electronic Face of Government in the Internet Age: Borrowing from Murray Edelman” says that, “Political settings are usually staged, contrived and even artificial. They often have a ‘heroic quality’, and are designed to signify ‘massiveness, ornateness, and formality’ to a large audience (Edelman 1964: 96). This allows them to function as extraordinary, dramatic spectacles which are constructed as intrinsically important, though their outcomes may lack any significance for substantive policy” (444).

Looking at the RNC it sounds exactly like what Chadwick is describing.  The national conventions are huge events covered extensively by the media with all the concert-like excitement.   Convention goers create an atmosphere of political excitement.  Just as with any good concert promoter the RNC promotes itself with all the attributes of a good show, t-shirts, buttons, hats and of course the great performances.  The convention is where the platform is announced for the party, there are speeches given by influential party members and there is excitement generated around the candidate for the upcoming presidential election as well as his running mate.  In general this is a big show put on by the party for the public.  With the cameras not only in front of the politicians on stage but also behind the scenes this gives them more time to perform for their audiences.  Instead of the realness that is expected from backstage footage politicians will remain to be the same people they are on the stage, off the stage.

Looking through the behind-the-scenes footage and interviews from the 2008 convention it was more of the politicians such as Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani extending their speeches from the stage onto the video.  This is not what most expect when they hear backstage and behind-the-scenes.  There won’t be cameras catching Mitt Romney with food in his mouth or hanging out looking anything less than picture perfect.  Instead it will be the politicians dressed and perfectly put together saying perfectly planned bits or interacting with people just as they would at any other event.  By telling people they get a “look behind the podium” it gives the public what seems like a sneak peak at the politicians just being average people, but this is not the case.  If the RNC really wanted to allow the public backstage they would show the candidates being themselves (which we rarely see) and would bring the American people closer to their candidates rather than keeping them at a distance.

At the 2012 RNC audiences should probably expect more of the same footage as in 2008.  There will be new viewers that will “tune in” to see the backstage performances and some may feel that what they are viewing is “real” and non-scripted and it is those viewers that the RNC is aiming for.  The idea of allowing the public behind the scenes in general is a great idea.   The backstage feel that concert fans get is one of anticipation in seeing their band just hanging out just maybe they will find in that moment backstage that the rock stars are very much like them. That is what the RNC is striving for with the convention backstage all access pass.  The difference between the rock stars and the candidates is simple, the fans of the rock star are not seeking anything but validation that their idols are what they dream and the political candidate is staging an average citizen on the street performance.   I think the RNC should continue this backstage eye on the candidates in the future.  It is a step in the right direction it just isn’t quite there yet. 

With the increased speculation over Mitt Romney’s choice for vice-presidential candidate, it’s easy to think the media firestorm means the selection will have a significant impact on the election this fall. For example, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio could help Romney increase his appeal to Hispanic voters (though there’s been much debate over Rubio’s actual pull). As an alternative, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman is safe, solid conservative who won’t draw undue criticism (or call to mind 2008’s polarizing choice of Sarah Palin), and might help Romney win a swing state.

There is some literature to support the idea that vice-presidential candidates are crucial in getting presidential nominees votes in whichever region or demographic they are most desperately needed. In their article “The Veepstakes: Strategic Choice in Presidential Running Mate Selection,” Lee Sigelman and Paul Wahlbeck emphasize this importance and argue that presidential candidates will make their selection based on “who will provide the greatest boost to their chances of being elected.”

But while the Republican VP debate will likely rage on until November, there’s a critical question that’s not being asked: Does Romney’s choice actually matter?

There are arguments to be made either way, and some research indicates vice-presidential candidates have significant influence on individuals’ voting preferences — even if they don’t greatly affect aggregate-level voting. But in his article “Requiem for a Lightweight: Vice Presidential Candidate Evaluations and the Presidential Vote,” David Romero argues that this individual influence has been greatly overstated. Instead, he says, “Vice presidential candidate evaluations have no meaningful substantive or statistical influence on the presidential vote” (461).  Romero states that because of voter predispositions — party, presidential candidate preferences, etc. — vice-presidential candidates don’t make an impact on voters. He does admit, however, that it’s possible they have “an indirect influence through presidential candidate evaluations” (461).

While I think Romero is right to dismiss the findings that indicate vice-presidential candidates significantly influence which candidate voters choose, I feel that his caveat about indirect influence is more important than he makes it seem. Throughout the semester, we’ve talked a lot about the public’s perception of candidates, and I think that vice-presidential candidates can be important in affecting this.

It might not be likely that a vice-presidential candidate would cause someone to change their vote from one party to another, but it is possible that it would increase or decrease their overall happiness with the presidential nominee. A smartly chosen vice-presidential candidate can help change the public’s perception of a presidential candidate, and I don’t think that effect should be overlooked. Perhaps President Obama didn’t gain a significant number of votes by selecting Joe Biden as his running mate, but he did add much-needed experience to his ticket. By doing that, he altered his appearance of being too inexperienced, and allowed his youth to be portrayed and perceived as a strength.

Although Romney’s choice for running mate is unlikely to influence the election’s outcome in a significant way, it could help bolster support within the Republican Party. A more conservative VP choice might balance out some of the perception that Romney is too liberal. Likewise, a charismatic candidate who appeals to younger voters might lessen criticism that Romney is too stiff and help him succeed in connecting with the public.

A vice-presidential candidate might not mean additional votes, but additional overall happiness with a candidate isn’t something to overlook entirely.

- Melissa

Lauren Stange

Since it has become clear that Mitt Romney will be the Republican presidential candidate in the upcoming 2012 presidential election, then next big question is who Romney will pick to be his running mate.  As in every presidential election, the press tries to speculate who candidates will pick.  Studies have been conducted that try to pinpoint factors that predict which characteristics candidates look for in running mates; factors such as heritage, religion, and electoral pull.  While these characteristics have likely been taken into account in the past, the most important characteristic in a presidential running mate is stability.

Lee Sigelman and Paul J. Wahlbeck argue that in the current era, choosing someone that will balance the age of the presidential candidate and choosing someone from an influential electoral state are important.  By simply looking at the elections during the past decade, these claims don’t hold true.  Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney and Joe Biden are all from states with only three electoral votes and John Edwards and Dick Cheney are aged within a decade of their running mates. 

Sigelman and Wahlbeck do, however, make one important observation that can likely explain John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate.  The two claim that if the presidential race looks close, the candidates will play it safe and choose an expected running mate.  If the prospects are extremely good or bad, the candidates will choose someone more by preference or choose a dramatic choice in attempt to catch up, respectively.  Already behind in the presidential race with Barak Obama, McCain chose a dramatic candidate in hopes of shaking up the standings. 

McCain’s failed attempt with a dramatic running mate supports the idea that candidates should choose a stable running mate that will not harm the campaign.  Danny M. Atkinson agrees with this idea, stating their findings that “the tendency is for the vice presidential candidate to hurt rather than help the ticket.”   

Both former Vice President Dick Cheney and the current Speaker of the House John Boehner support the idea that a strong, stable running mate is more important than one that ties the campaign to certain constituents.  In regard to characteristics to look for in a running mate, Cheney said that race, gender and geography were insignificant compared to a candidate’s capacity to be president.  “It’s pretty rare elections turn on those kinds of issues,” said Cheney in regard to race, gender and geography.  Boehner mirrored these comments, stating that he thinks “the number one quality is, are they capable of being president in the case of an emergency?” 

In all, factors that could potentially connect constituents to a presidential campaign, such as geography, race, religion and heritage, are not very important characteristics to base the selection of a presidential running mate on.  The more important concern is stability and choosing a candidate that is not likely to harm the campaign. 

By Bailey Chu

On what was probably the best day of my entire life, Jimmy Fallon hosted President Obama for a live recording of his show, “Late Night”, here at UNC. Earlier that day, the president gave a policy speech urging Congress not to let interest rate cuts on Stafford student loans expire. Later, he continued with this message, delivering it at two other universities in Colorado and Iowa over the next day and a half.

Student loans also came up at the Jimmy Fallon event where the president took part in a carefully scripted “Slow Jamming the News” segment that addressed the issue. Throughout the segment, the president remained quite serious despite the humorous tone of Fallon’s remarks. Later during the interview portion of the show, Fallon gave the president another chance to speak about student loans.

With all of this talk about loans, the reason for the president’s visit was quite clear. His remarks and his visit to this campus were strategic, not that I minded one bit.

Kevin Coe and Michael Reitzes discuss Obama’s patterns of communication in their article, “Obama on the Stump: Features and Determinants of a Rhetorical Approach.”

In the article, the authors say that all candidates are strategic in their stump speeches, which are “modified day to day…to reflect the concerns and interests of the particular audience and also reflect a changing major theme of the day.” The authors also point out four “aspects” or “appeals” that Obama used in his 2008 campaign that I think can be applied to most election rhetoric in general. Additionally the authors highlight four possible determinants for how often and to what extent these appeals were used.

According to Coe and Reitzes, Obama used policy, thematic, morality, and factious appeals that were determined by speaking context, state disposition, state competitiveness, and poll position. Obama’s visit on Tuesday certainly seems to support this analysis. First, we can see that Obama and his advisors decided North Carolina would be a good place to start because it was an unexpected swing state in 2008.  Furthermore, his decision to appear at UNC was probably motivated by the school’s history of student protests against tuition increases and by his popularity among young voters. By picking UNC, Obama strategically chose his own speaking context—based on state competitiveness and poll position among young people—for what were mostly policy and thematic appeals.

According to the authors, speaking context affects how much the candidate is able to speak about his issues. The authors say, “In situations in which he (Obama) had full message control, he may have emphasized his preferred themes to a greater extent than he did in situations in which his message was shaped by a moderator or interviewer.”

We can clearly see that speaking context and state disposition affected the degree to which Obama was able to use his policy appeal about student loans. On a larger scale, Obama was able to keep the message on student loans because he was at a state university where the student body was very receptive to his ideas. On a smaller scale, speaking context also affected his use of policy and thematic appeals between events. In the policy speech, Obama talked exclusively about student loans, while on Jimmy Fallon, the focus was less on loans and more on a fun thematic appeal. This, obviously, was the point on a show like “Late Night,” but Obama was very adept at shifting from talking about his dog and his college years to talking about student loans again.

Additionally, Obama related the student loan issue to partisan themes. In reference to Republicans’ opposition to low interest on student loans, Obama slow jammed, “They say we should be doing everything we can to pay down the national debt, well, so long as it doesn’t include taxing millionaires.” Obama was even able to relate student loans to his favorite theme of late, fairness, by asking, “Are we investing in all young people? Are we investing in college? Are we rebuilding America or are we going to have an America where just a few people are doing well and everybody else is struggling?”

The best thematic appeal that Obama used Tuesday is one that I’ll call the “I love UNC” appeal. At the beginning of the show, Obama discussed how he had picked UNC to win the national championship, and the crowd loved it. I would like to think that Obama chose to come to UNC because he loves the school, but this is a prime example of a candidate tailoring his message to his audience.

Lauren Stange

            President Obama’s appearance on the Late Night with Jimmy Fallon show prompted a few news outlets, such as Politico, to mention notable times throughout recent history that presidential candidates appeared on late night entertainment talk shows.  The most memorable moments were not because of a political comment or controversy that occurred on the show, but were instead moments when these candidates non-political personality came through.  

The traditional content and audience of these late night entertainment talk shows allows candidates to reach an audience that is unlikely to seek information from traditional political outlets and allows them to appeal to this audience on a personal level instead of from a policy standpoint. 

              Matthew A. Baum’s article in the American Journal of Political Science supports this argument, stating that “by focusing on candidates’ personal qualities rather than ‘arcane’ policy debates, such as interviews, can appeal to their relatively apolitical, entertainment-seeking audiences.”  Baum states that the entertainment talk show audience is, on average, less educated, less interested in politics and more likely to be young, liberal, and female.   

             Baum concludes that candidates’ appearances on entertainment talk shows makes an impression on individuals that are not predisposed to seek out political information, but has little to no effect on those that are.  He mentions that the candidates use talk shows as a means of putting their political information where “politically unaware” individuals are likely to see it.  This conclusion does make sense, however, I think that Baum does not give enough attention to the likelihood that these individuals are not forming opinions based on the subtle political messages they get from these talk shows.

He notes that many of these “politically unaware” voters are more likely to vote against their affiliated party after seeing these individuals on entertainment talk shows and that hosts of the shows are not likely to ask many policy-related questions.  This supports to the idea that these voters likely gained little, if any, information about the candidate’s policies and more about their personality. 

The previously noted article in Politico, as well as others, cites the most notable appearances of candidates on entertainment talk shows.  These examples are notable not because of the profound political arguments or statements they made, but instead are virtually unrelated comical or interesting things the candidates said or did.  Examples include when Bill Clinton played his saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show in 1993 and in 2000 when George W. Bush told David Letterman, who recently had heart surgery, that it was “about time you had the heart to invite me.”

            One conclusion made by Barry A. Hollander in his study about what late night entertainment does to improve the campaign knowledge of young viewers notes the difference between recall and recognition.  He claims that while “improvement in recognition increases…late-night viewing increases what young people think they know about a political campaign but provides at best modest improvements to actual recall of events associated with the campaign.”

            Putting these ideas together, it can be concluded that “politically unaware” individuals that watch entertainment talk shows are likely to appeal to the personalities of these candidates instead of their policy positions.  However, because some political topics are bound to surface, these individuals feel as though they are more familiar with the candidates’ campaign issues when, in actuality, they are more familiar with their campaign.  This recognition and attraction to personality are likely to be the actual reasons for why these “politically unaware” voters may vote against their affiliated party member.   

I recently had an internship assignment to research the possibility of Facebook advertising for one of our clients. What I uncovered was a highly targeted advertising structure designed to show messages to users that are most likely to engage with them. This approach of showing people what they want minimizes cognitive dissonance and is common throughout online advertising. The main advantage facebook has in comparison to other digital advertising solutions (ex. google, based on browsing habits), is that rather than making inferences about users, Facebook has explicit statements of interest from user profiles.

This hyper-targeted, show-people-what-they-want advertising climate made me think of our class reading “Deep Democracy, Thin Citizenship,” by Philip Howard. He argues that the targeted messaging from campaigns enabled by new media and digital technologies has a detrimental effect on overall political discourse. Specifically, he argues that targeted messaging leads to a fragmentation of the public sphere.

Howard makes a valid point, and a deeper look into Facebook’s advertising system backs this up.

As we all know, Facebook has an incredible amount of personal information about its members and uses this to deliver highly-targeted audiences to advertisers based on specific sets of characteristics. In fact, facebook advertisers can select to filter their target audience using more than 15 categories, such as location, education, language, interests and connections.

This type of targeting is extremely appealing to political campaigns, as they can not only tap into their own databases (ex. Blue State digital), they are now harnessing the power of Facebook’s data pools as well. Take geographic location, where Facebook can target as specifically as zip code. If a campaign’s records show that a district with many friendly voters may have low voter turnout, they can use facebook to target certain districts and polling stations with tailored messaging. Now, let’s go a step further and assume that this campaign has other demographic information on likely-sympathetic voters. By filtering their audience further, by gender or age, campaigns can send a get-out-the-vote message to key locations and the ‘right’ people.

This type of control and targeting is exactly what Howard is referring to when discussing the fragmentation of the public sphere. That while there are more political messages over more mediums, these do not enhance political conversation- the messages go to those with already similarly held beliefs and do not stimulate new debate, rather, they simply reinforce existing views.

in addition to campaign’s preferences to target specific messages, Facebook’s pricing structure drives this as well. Billing is set up on either a cost-per-click or a cost-per-impressions basis. In 2011, 83% of all advertisers used cost-per-click billing. Therefore, it is in Facebook’s best interest to drive engagement as fast as possible in order to show more ads and collect more revenue. It drives engagement by showing messages to already receptive audiences.

Facebook’s ad business is geared towards what it profitable. Rapid engagement is profitable and is achieved through delivering messages to receptive audiences. Therefore, what is profitable for Facebook is what Howard identifies as the way new media and digital technology contribute to a more fragmented political discourse.

Our reading about the Tea Party offers an interesting view on how the Tea Party movement made its mark in and around the 2010 election. It states that activism is the greatest way the movement has influence, and backs up this claim with examples of Tea Partiers having having tangible effects. For example, Republicans in districts with high levels of Tea Party activism did better relative to other Republicans. Furthermore, on votes of Tea Party interest, legislators with high levels of TP activism in their district consistently took stands in favor of Tea Party stances. Finally, it is important to note that the Tea Party movement is a separate faction from the Republican party establishment/elite. After all, they rebelled against many incumbent republicans in the 2010 election.

Now, what was the Tea Party’s effect on the primaries?

First, I think of what Nation Hahn told our class regarding the Amendment One vote, “It’s all about getting your electorate to turn out.” With a tea party-mobilized electorate making their presence felt in the most recent midterm, would this translate to results in the presidential primary as well? With Romney as the establishment candidate and the Tea Party’s tendency to strike against the establishment, would high levels of Tea Party activism be linked to difficulty for Romney?

Surprisingly, no.

Upon examination of primary results, there is little consistency with high tea party activity in any state correlating with winning results from Romney’s competitors. For example, Massachusetts was the site of one of the Tea Party’s greatest electoral victories, with a republican being elected to replace Ted Kennedy. However, Romney took Massachusetts. Granted, Romney was governor of that state, however take South Carolina, a state Romney did lose- but not because of the tea party. Gingrich took South Carolina where per-capita tea party involvement as measured by PBS, was low.

Instead, I believe Romney’s losses were due to a lack of acceptance from evangelicals and far-leaning conservatives and those suspicious of the party establishment. Moreover, these bases were acting independently, rather than under the tea party umbrella.

This is consistent with the conception of a political party introduced at the beginning of the Tea Party reading, which introduces parties as coalitions of interests. This combined with the fact that the Tea Party’s real heyday was in the 2010 election (it does not have as big a feature role), translates into a diminished impact for primary results. No doubt, the Tea Party remains an important interest for the republican party, but the fact remains that despite its widespread coverage, it is still only a single entity among many others in the party- and it is no longer the flavor of the week.

Obama may not be a perfect president but it is clear that he is loved by a lot of people both in the United States of America and abroad.

His 2008 campaign has been studied since then as an example of how to use social media to engage with people and get them to trust a “brand”. In this case, the brand was Barack Obama, the first black president in the history of the United States, someone willing to fight for civil rights and to save the country from one of its worst economic crisis.

And he did engage with people. US citizens, especially the youth, saw in him the sign of change that they were hoping to find, and believed that with their votes he could do great things. He made many promises (some of them he kept, like bringing the troops back from Iraq) but especially made people believe. It is usually said that young people today do not mobilize as they used to do before… but we could see that this is not true. Maybe it is not that the Obama campaign was the only reason for the youth to react, but it was an important push.

We can talk about volunteers, or donors, or votes, but one of the most important changes was  the use of Youtube as a campaign tool. As Harris, Moffitt and Squires comment in his book The Obama Effect; Multidisciplinary renderings of the 2008 campaign, “the Obama campaign was a two-way, interactive communication environment, and supporters and volunteers felt empowered to strike out in new and creative fashions. As but one example, YouTube videos about Obama proliferated and were encouraged”. While the Obama Campaign uploaded around 2000 official videos, there were 442,000 user-generated videos on Youtube by the time of the Presidential Elections in November. The number cannot be compared with previous candidates, since Youtube was born just 2 years before those elections, but what Obama did was something big, not just a coincidence.

Some of the videos that may be better remembered from the past campaign are “1984” (the one based on Apple’s ad but now showing Hillary Clinton), the “I have a crush on Obama” and the “Yes, we can” ad.  Edward Lee, Associate professor of Law at the Ohio State University, wrote in Warming up to user-generated content about Obama’s use of Youtube and commented specifically on those three videos. The first one, made by someone called de Vellis’s had a great impact in March 2007. To put the number into perspective, his video (against Clinton) gained more than three times as many views as all of Hillary Clinton’s official videos on YouTube combined at that time.  And that was something never seen before, not even expected.

This involvement may be partly related with the high degree of personalization that Obama’s initiatives had. As Bennett commented in his article, it is essential for politicians today to care about personalized messages and policies, both for action framing and uses of digital media. And that’s exactly what we are talking about now. How, through Youtube, citizens took part of the 2008 campaign to support Obama. Over the course of the campaign, users spent more than 14 million hours watching more than 1,000 Obama campaign-related videos on YouTube. So they, especially young voters, knew more than ever before what the Campaign was about and what they were voting for. They could identified with the message… and with the person, that man promising changes and better social standards for everybody,

You may like Barack Obama o not. But you need to hear what he says and what he proposes. Today, at UNC, I could sense that he has that “something” that make people get involved with him. There is still a lot of work to do, of course, but big things have already been done, too.

By Kasey El-Chayeb

Republicans who have expressed concern over their party’s standing with Latino voters may have found a new shining star in Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who is a Latino and a first generation American. Rubio served in the Florida House of Representatives from 2000 to 2008 and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010. Recently, Rubio was named one of TIME’s 100 Most Influential People In the World and his name has gained recognition as a potential vice presidential pick (ABC News). 

With the general election fast approaching Republicans need to change rhetoric and strategies to win back Latino voters who were turned off by some of Mitt Romney’s primary season comments regarding immigration. Recent studies, like Melinda S. Jackson’s in Political Psychology, have attested to the fact that Latino voter preferences can be based on social identification and can be changed by a number of factors. Jackson studied the tendency of different socially identified groups to shift allegiances to align with group norms, concluding that in one study “Republican and independents who read an article claiming that a majority of Latinos supported the Democratic candidate in the upcoming 2006 California gubernatorial election, and who identified strongly with Latinos, shifted their candidate preference toward the group norm (p.19, Jackson).” 

Based on these findings, it’s possible that something as simple as positive media coverage of Rubio and coverage of increases in Latino support for the GOP could serve as informational cues that shift voter preferences. Such positive coverage has begun to develop. According to a Politico article, Rubio has begun working with other senators from immigrant-heavy states, like Arizona and Texas, on developing a new DREAM Act and gathering bipartisan support for a new plan to help undocumented children. Republican’s publicizing efforts like this one or their efforts to expand visa rules that attract high-skilled workers and tourists could be the smartest course of action, especially when 51% of registered Latino Voters identify themselves as Democrats, compared to only 16% who identify themselves as Republicans (Pew Research Center, p.19). 

Even with developments like these or a possible Latino pick for vice president, the GOP has a long way to go before convincing Latinos they will get a fair deal if Romney is elected or that other Latinos are supporting the GOP. Still, many senior Republicans have expressed confidence in Rubio’s future and his potential for improving the party’s Latino friendly image. Rubio’s popularity has surged in Florida, and is growing. 

The Jackson study refers to Latinos as the “Sleeping Giant.” I think this title and many of this study’s findings imply that these voters are a key demographic that cannot be ignored. Republicans should be determined to replace destructive rhetoric and create positive media coverage before effects trickle down to the polls in November. 

On April 11, CNN pundit (and Democrat) Hilary Rosen sparked controversy when she told Anderson Cooper that Ann Romney, who is a stay-at-home mom, has “never worked a day in her life,” adding, “She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing…” And though Rosen is not affiliated with either campaign, her comment has raised new questions and concerns regarding Obama and Romney’s efforts to attract female voters. However, I would argue that, despite the increased attention, this dialogue will not benefit women.

 Rosen’s comments fit nicely into Romney’s efforts to curry favor with women; recent polls from USA Today and Gallup show Obama leading Romney among female voters. On April 11 Romney said, “92.3 percent of all the jobs lost during the Obama years have been lost by women” (the claim has since been disputed.) The Romney camp latched onto the quote as a means to appeal to women by arguing that Obama and Democrats are against women. Ann Romney joined Twitter to argue that raising 5 sons was hard work, FOX News pundits went on the warpath, and the Republican National Committee started selling mugs that say “Moms Do Work, Vote for the GOP.” This strategy is shaky for several reasons:

Rosen works for CNN, not the Obama administration or the Democratic Party.

The president and other democratic leaders have denounced Rosen’s remarks across multiple platforms.

The comment was part of a larger critique of Romney using his wife to connect to women on economic issues, not a critique of stay-at-home moms or Ann Romney as a person.

Frankly, none of this “good” for women. Using Rosen’s words to argue that Obama and liberals hate women is misleading and hyperbolic. Republicans are attempting to paint themselves as pro-women despite championing legislation that limits women’s choices.

And by rushing to distance themselves from Rosen, Obama and company actually helped push the quote out of context. When Obama’s campaign manager Jim Messina tweeted “I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize,” he simply reinforced the media’s decision to focus only in the first part of Rosen’s statement. Which in turn helps Republicans their new “liberals hate women” vitriol. It’s an unfortunate cycle that’s benefitting news channels and papers, but certainly not women. 

As the republican primary season winds down, the Obama and Romney campaigns are formulating strategies for speaking to and swaying the electorate. Recent actions and speaking engagements of those associated with the Obama campaign suggest Vice President Joe Biden and others closely associated with the campaign will play an integral role in the run up to the general election.

It’s not news young people have been an important demographic for Obama since his campaign first began gathering momentum leading up to the 2008 election. A POLITICO article published on April 17, 2012 discusses outreach to this demographic through a rally featuring Biden in Washington D.C. The vice president highlighted the successes of the Obama Administration and criticized the GOP for issues like the debates over healthcare and contraception.

On April 18, 2012, Biden participated in an event to support the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which is facing some pushback from conservatives, according to msnbc.com.

Taken together, these events and Biden’s prominent involvement in them, point to the Obama campaign’s efforts to woo its liberal base and key supporter demographics. Using the vice president as the mouthpiece for the campaign on issues, such as those discussed above, is a deliberate maneuver by Obama’s reelection effort.

If Biden speaks to an issue, it brings a certain legitimacy and importance to the subject. The vice president’s voice proves the campaign is concerned about domestic violence protections, contraceptive rights and access to healthcare without President Obama needing to spend much of his political capital and time speaking to the issues.

Biden’s public appearances do not garner the same media attention as those of Obama. The president’s words are more likely to reach apolitical or less engaged citizens and there is more likely to be analytical debate and criticism of his talking points. Both of these realities makes it more practical for Biden to speak to issues that are meant more to mobilize the Democratic Party’s base than sway independent voters.

Mobilizing the party’s base is less about winning votes from a candidate’s opponent as it is about garnering volunteers and turning out issue voters. Those in Obama’s base aren’t going to vote for Romney because he didn’t address domestic violence as thoroughly as they would have hoped, but they might not volunteer for the campaign in the numbers they did in 2008. This is not a risk Obama can take, as this election is likely to be closer than the last and campaign organization will play an extremely important role but high-level campaign officials can likely achieve the president’s mobilization goals. Obama’s role in his reelection efforts should be focused on a different demographic. 

Polarization in American politics is high, just as it has been for the better part of the last decade. What this means for sitting presidents, like President Obama, is those who formed a strong opinion either for or against him during the 2008 election have likely solidified that position and will not change their perspective during this election cycle. Essentially, those who are on your side need to be engaged but probably not convinced. On the other hand, those who were unsure after the 2008 election are more likely to be persuaded to vote for the incumbent than the candidate challenging the president, if all other determining factors are held constant, according to Burden and Hillygus’ research in “Opinion Formation, Polarization, and Presidential Reelection.”

President Obama’s should his own time and political capital to focus on capturing those who were unsure leading up to 2008 but who were more likely to be persuaded by the president’s performance over his first term and the information they have gathered while he has been in office. Leave the base mobilization to those who are less likely to garner widespread media attention but are still closely connected to Obama’s reelection effort in order to make the most of the campaign’s communication and outreach capabilities.  

Beth Peterson