Talking Politics

There's an [interactive graphic] for that

Thu, 03 May 2012 12:19:48 -0400

Okay, I admit, not as catchy as the beloved “there’s an app for that,” but it has a place these days in political communication via internet.

I like to stay politically informed, but often I get caught up in the fast pace of my college life and don’t have time to shift through a large breadth of political coverage to know as much as I would like to about an election. Over the last several months, when searching for information on the current campaigns, I have been pleasantly surprised by the incorporation of interactive graphics into the political coverage of several major news outlets.

While this is likely a case of keeping up with the Jones’ of the media world—-can’t you hear it now, “ The Jones’ put an interactive graphic on their site to help make political coverage more accessible…we need one NOW”—I would like to be optimistic and think that they have incorporated these in order to make consumption of political news and data more accessible to busy Americans.

In this digital age, it is imperative for people to be able to access online, synthesize, and then form opinions on information quickly. These interactive graphics make this possible and easy.

The Washington Post has several graphics that help track spending on advertising (if you’re one of those people who likes to know who is putting money where and how much, this is the place for you), a horse-race journalism style tracker of the Republican Primary, and a Campaign Finance explorer.

Similar to the aforementioned horse-race graphic on the WP sight, the New York Times has a similar delegate tracker. As a side note, The New York Time really does have an app for that.

My personal favorite interactive election graphic is featured on US Election News. It allows the user to chose specifics that they would want to see and about which they would like to learn. This allows people to receive aggregated data about issues or candidates that are important to them personally.

Negativity in 2012

Thu, 03 May 2012 12:18:30 -0400

Negative advertising has shown to be effective in harming the images of candidates and showing what some viewers might perceive as flaws and inconsistencies in candidates’ views but has also shown a correlation with decreasing negative advertising.
According to scholars Wattenberg and Brians, “the intent of most negative commercials is to convert votes by focusing on an issue that the sponsoring candidate has credibility in handling, but upon which the opponent is weak, As John Petrocik argues, each party has issues that they ‘own’and a campaign is a contest to focus attention on issues which favor them.” (Wattenburg and Brians) And this, many times, works.
In the 2012 campaign negative advertising is rampant. According to the Washington Post campaign tracker, shows that $114.9 million dollars has already been spent on advertising during the campaigns thus far. Including advertisements by interest groups and PACs, 72 percent of the ads produced have been negative.
Romney has spent 14.5 million, and 53 percent of his ads have been negative.
Obama has spent 3.8 million, and 38 percent of his ads have been negative.
While negative ads can be effective in influencing voters opinions, it has also been linked to decreasing voter turnout by 5 percent. (Ansolabehere, Simon, Valentino)
It will be crucial for the candidates for this not to occur—at least not to their supporters.
I believe that the already extensively negative leanings of this race will be disillusioning for the electorate. Voter turnout is already predicted to be lower than in 2008 because of less enthusiasm, and I think that, in conjunction with this pre-existing disinterest, the negative ads will contribute to lower voter turnout.

Women at home and in the Public Sphere

Thu, 03 May 2012 12:16:02 -0400

In light of the comments about Romney’s wife not working and the conservative uproar saying the left doesn’t respect stay-at-home moms, I thought I’d take a look at motherhood and conservative politics.

Women have been in conservative politics much longer than I thought. In fact, huge groups of women rallied around the campaign against women’s suffrage before the 19th Amendment was passed, and that was one of the first organizations of politically conservative women on a national scale. They believed that giving women the right to vote would dissolve women’s privileged status and detract from their more important domestic roles as wives and mothers. They couched it in terms of “rights” — the right to be exempt from political affairs, while other women were fighting for the right to have a say in their government.

But conservative women are getting a lot more attention now, largely thanks to the Tea Party. It’s amazing how many leaders of the Tea Party movement, including the national director of activism site ResistNet and several members of the board of several Tea Party organizations, are women. And what’s remarkable is that they are making arguments based on the exact same premise: their roles as mothers.

Sarah Palin, the celebrity woman in the conservative movement, has touted her motherhood as her number one qualification for being in government.

“There’s no better training for politics than motherhood,” she said.

But it’s more than training; it’s more than a job description — it’s the reason Palin, and so many other conservative women, say they’re getting involved.

Concerned Women for America, a deeply religious conservative women’s organization founded in 1979 to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment, advocates for stay-at-home motherhood, saying feminists put pressure on women to be “Superwomen” juggling parenting and careers when childrearing is the role that would make women the happiest. But when asked why they work despite having children at home, leaders in the organization say they have to advocate for other mothers and families who share their beliefs (even though some say there’s no way they could be full-time moms).

This contrasts pretty starkly with the views of most Americans — 73 percent think the shift toward more women in the workforce has been a good think, and 62 percent believe a marriage with both parents employed is a more satisfactory lifestyle, according to a Pew Research Center poll.

Still, CWA and other conservative organizations believe motherhood is the first priority for women, and that shapes and motivates their political participation. Abortion is seen as an abandonment of that duty; same-sex marriage is a betrayal of traditional values, and government-funded childcare is socialism by taking children from their parents and indoctrinating them with secular, liberal ideas about America.

So yes, the Tea Party has given spotlight to women in leadership roles, and many of them mothers: Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin both have five. But the close ties between religion, conservatism and motherhood are nothing new.

The only surprising thing to me is that in today’s economy, anyone can be a stay-at-home mom like Mrs. Romney.

Biography on Obama: Good or Bad?

Thu, 03 May 2012 12:12:36 -0400

A new biography of Obama is coming out in June, and Obama’s campaign staff is worried about it, according to a POLITICO article this morning.

You see, Obama has created a powerful story with his two memoirs — one of hope and transcendence of race and class boundaries, one that encapsulates Obama as the epitome of America in this moment of tension. America is mixed and financially struggling and, frankly, a little lost, much like Obama was for the majority of his life.

POLITICO says that the biography reveals Obama’s ambition, and implies that ambition can be damning for a president.

Particularly dangerous is this quote by Genevieve Cook, who Obama described only as his “New York girlfriend” in his own book, when she wrote directly to his in her journal that she had “a sense of you [Barack] biding your time and drawing others’ cards out of their hands for careful inspection — without giving too much of your own way — played with a good poker face. … I feel that you carefully filter everything in your mind and heart — legitimate, admirable, really. … But there’s something also there of smoothed veneer, of guardedness …I’m still left with this feeling of … a bit of a wall — the veil.”

So, obviously, Obama has a veil with America. He’s not going to reveal all of his personal details to the public (unless this biographer does it for him), and some of his guardedness with Cook may have been reservations about her as a girlfriend. After all, he ended up marrying Michelle.

But the real story here is about ambition and creating a story — who creates politicians stories and how do Americans want to see them? Why is ambition bad, especially when it comes to the person in the Oval Office?

Alexander talked about politics as a performance, and creating a narrative that shapes your image to the public fits in with that model. Obama was not the first to write an autobiography before entering the White House, JFK did the same. It’s a useful tool, especially for young politicians, to sculpt their identities in American minds without much outside influence.

Another book I’ve cited in these posts, Theodore White’s rehashing of the Kennedy/Nixon race, talks about ambition. Both candidates had ambition, he said, but he had never seen anyone revel in the power and responsibility of the presidency like Kennedy. My high school teacher always gave that title to FDR, but the point is that ambition is a necessary quality for a president. You have to want that kind of power to get there and make use of it.

It may be good in terms of democratic discourse that Obama’s narrative won’t be solely crafted by him anymore. The new book, by a skilled former Washington Post reporter, will certainly give a new and more objective look at the President, offering insight to the public on the man who signs our laws. But I think it will do a disservice to political discussion if ambition on Obama’s part is seen as a character flaw.

Ambition is the concrete stuff that makes hopes and transcendence a reality. If Americans see Obama as a metaphor for the nation’s composition and potential, we should want to see in him furious ambition to be the best we can be.

Political Dogs

Thu, 03 May 2012 12:08:37 -0400

Presidential candidates often face questions and inquiries about their families. They don’t often get asked about their dogs. But it’s 2012, and Mitt Romney and President Obama’s dogs have become part of the discourse surrounding this election.
It started when the press latched onto the story of how, on a family road trip in 1983, Romney put his dog’s crate on top of the van roof in order to save some space. The story was first reported in 2007, but it’s become a popular talking point in this year’s election, mostly for Romney critics looking to attack the candidate. The Obama camp has certainly tried to use the story to the president’s advantage, tweeting pictures of First Dog Bo and creating a “Pets for Obama” board on Pinterest. All of this is probably meant to do two things: appeal to pet owners and cement Obama’s status as the more likable of the two candidates.
In their study “Change: How Young Voters Interpreted the Messages Sent During the 2008 Presidential Election Season,” Kenneth Levine et al write that, in addition to party affiliation and platform, people consider how much they like a candidate before casting their votes. A recent Wall Street Journal article said that pollsters say that “the candidate that voters regard as most likable wins his party’s nomination and the presidency.”
Normally, an issue like a candidate’s dog probably wouldn’t be a part of the conversations surrounding the election. But now it is a part of those conversations. People like dogs. People don’t like people who mistreat their dogs. Now Romney’s reputation as a bad dog owner is yet another issue he will have to deal with in order to improve his likability and win the election.

Ron Paul is Taking Over...Well Kind of

Thu, 03 May 2012 12:06:39 -0400

Ron Paul is in a unique place. Because of his philosophy of limited government, his followers are devoted solely to him. While at many conventions Romney backers are split between numerous would-be delegates, Paul has supporters who follow his unique, libertarian leanings and are faithful to him as their potential presidential nominee. In fact, at state conventions around the country his supporters are increasing his support by joining state party committees. Like are acting similar to the Tea Party in the way they are trying to send a message to the greater Republican party leaders. They have come behind Paul and are trying their hardest to give Romney a run for his money. In fact, at the Massachusetts state convention less than half of Romney’s delegates were chosen to go to Tampa for the national convention, Paul’s delegates were chosen instead.

The possibility that the republican nomination will come down to a convention floor fight has been discussed, however at this time it seems unlikely that a brokered convention will occur. I had never heard of a brokered convention before researching for this post. I learned that a brokered convention occurs where there are not enough delegates won during the primary elections. Essentially, a single candidate does not have a majority. There then has to be re-votes and the delegates who had been faithful to one candidate are now allowed to switch their allegiance. I am hoping that it doesn’t come down to this, even though the Washington Post says it’s not likely. The Post also says that really the convention is more of a formality or tradition, and that one ballot is held, choosing the nominee who had already been decided during the primaries.

Although Paul has been having success in state caucuses, such as in Louisiana, where he dominated had favor with four of the six districts, tying in the fifth, he still only has 80 delegates while Romney has 847.

Goliath vs. An even bigger Goliath

Thu, 03 May 2012 12:04:06 -0400

Throughout the primary election season Mitt Romney has been the “Goliath in a field of Davids. He is wealthier, more organized and more experienced than all of his challengers. But now, he is shifting his focus to the president. Now that he has all but won the nomination, his mind can shift from defeating little Davids, to defeating an incumbent president; no big deal. Obama’s campaign in 2008 was revolutionary. He changed the way elections will look from here on out, branded himself in a way no president before him had. He’s pretty intimidating to run against, I’m quite sure!

On Friday Obama’s campaign team released a video that was designed to raise questions and doubts about Romney’s ability to handle a national security crisis. On Tuesday Obama was in Afghanistan on the one year anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death. No one wants to feel like they are being put in danger and no one wants to have to worry about whether or not their country’s leader can handle a crisis situation, such as a breach in national security. John McCain, a supporter of Romney and former POW, defended Romney with the video was released on Friday and criticized Obama saying that he was trying to score political points on an issue that should be bipartisan.

It was strategic timing for Obama to release the video about Romney a few days before his secret trip to give people just enough time to process the content, and then announce the day of that he would be giving a speech at a military base in Kabul. He is definitely positioning himself as the hero, and what can Romney do to top that? The Obama campaign knows how to win an election, and now that Romney is the unofficial Republican nom, I would anticipate more ads like this.

Although Obama’s campaign team is intimidating, Romney is not without resources. His campaign is made up of veteran political operatives with millions of dollars at their disposal. And to their advantage, Obama is going to have to win back the affections of our nation who has become disenchanted with slow-moving economic recovery.

White House Correspondents Dinner

Thu, 03 May 2012 12:02:35 -0400

On April 28, government officials, members of the press and celebrities gathered for the annual White House Correspondents Dinner. The dinner is meant to recognize excellence in journalism and allow the press and the president to interact in a friendly and entertaining environment.
The evening provides several opportunities for an incumbent candidate such as President Obama. Traditionally, presidents engage in some self-deprecating humor in addition to laughing along to jokes at their own expense. For Obama, this fits into what Jeffrey Alexander would argue is his performance of being a fun and likable guy who doesn’t take himself too seriously. People like Obama. Despite wavering approval ratings, he has continued to score well on likability throughout his term. And studies show that likability can be important to a candidate’s success, so the Obama camp will be happy to take part in something that endears the president to voters.
The president can also use the dinner to push an agenda. In the past, President Bush used the dinner as an opportunity to drum up support for the war in Afghanistan; other dinners have been used to send messages of encouragement and support to victims of natural disasters and school shootings. This year, Obama took his speech at the dinner as an opportunity to remind us of last year’s successful raid against Osama bin Laden, probably to improve confidence in his foreign policy and national security tactics.
The evening can also help the president maintain a positive relationship with the press. Indeed, the dinner has been criticized for being a measure of just how cozy the press and White House often are. In his now-famous 2007 op-ed “All the President’s Press,” New York Times writer Frank Rich cited this as one of the reasons for both his own distaste for the dinner and the paper’s decision to stop attending it. So while others may balk at this display of the deep connections between the press and the White House, the White House is probably just fine with it.
Another opportunity for Obama is the chance to curry favor with wealthy influential people. The dinner has become more and more of a celebrity function, with past guest including stars such as Sandra Bullock, George Clooney and Matt Damon in attendance. This year Fox News is bringing Kim Kardashian. And though these celebs aren’t really part of the press, they can be valuable for the president because a) they’re rich, and b) they get a lot of media coverage. That means they have the potential to become big campaign donors and spread the message that they support the president to thousands of their fans. So the celebrities get the honor of attending and (maybe) meeting the president, and the president gets the honor of support. It’s a win-win.

Hillary Clinton’s Newfound Popularity

Thu, 03 May 2012 12:01:15 -0400

by Hannah Davis

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is enjoying something of a renaissance these days. The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows her approval rating at an all-time high of 65 percent. Texts From Hillary has become a wildly popular website and meme; the posts paint Clinton as powerful, funny and admired by both politicians and celebrities. Photos of Clinton drinking and dancing in Cartagena made the blog rounds. Clinton even fielded a request by Jason Segal to appear on his sitcom “How I Met Your Mother” (Clinton declined.) Suddenly, Hillary Clinton is cool.
All of this is in direct contrast to how the media portrayed Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign. During a 2008 episode of MSNBC’s “Tucker,” Tucker Carlson said “There’s just something about [Hillary Clinton] that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary.” Carlson’s comments were typical; many in the media described Clinton as nagging, cold and mean.
The media treated Clinton much the same way it did other female candidates for higher office. In “Women for President: Media Bias in Nine Campaigns,” Erica Falk writes that coverage of female candidates is subject to sexism, and that female and male candidates do not receive equal coverage. Studies have found that stories about Clinton more often referenced common female stereotypes (such as her appearance) or delegitimized her as a candidate by referring to her with informal terms and by her first name (Uscinski, Joseph E., and Lily J. Goren, “What’s in a Name? Coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton During the 2008 Democratic Primary.” Political Research Quarterly 64.4 (2011): 884-896.)
Studies of past campaign coverage of Clinton indicate that the secretary of state probably wouldn’t have enjoyed such favorable press had Texts From Hillary or the Jason Segal offer arose during the 2008 campaign.

Sacred and Non-Sacred Rhetoric

Thu, 03 May 2012 11:59:42 -0400

This article details two speeches made by Romney and Obama in Washington, D.C. The speeches were made two days apart and outlined “their visions for the nation’s future.” With careful inspection, one can see the different rhetorical styles the two candidates employed.

Following Morgan Marietta’s ideas in this article, Romney was using sacred language. Characterized by absolutist, non-consequential, non-negotiable ideas, sacred language applies “established principles and boundaries to a given situation and then privileges these principles over the consequences.” This sacred language can be seen in Romney’s condemnation of “the government takeover of health care.” Limited governmental power is an established principle within the Republican party and Romney’s policies. Romney also spoke of restoring “values of economic freedom, opportunity, and small government”, which are a focus on the “moral ends”. He takes an absolutist view when saying, “this is not the time for President Obama’s hid and seek campaign,” giving no leniency to the consequences of this type of campaign.

In contrast, Obama took a more consequentialist approach to his rhetoric and focused on facts and outcomes, instead of relying on principles. This included his discussion of Romney’s support for The Ryan plan and its consequences of destroying a $2 trillion cut in the federal deficit. He elaborated on the facts and possible consequences of the GOP House budge plans. Finally, he made an extremely consequentialist comment and said. “there has to be some balance. All of us have to do our fair share.” According to Marietta, non-sacred political rhetoric does not deny the legitimacy of compromise. It embraces it if the consequences will be better.

These two speeches align with Marietta’s ideas of sacred and non-sacred communication. Within her article, she also states, “the Republic form of rhetoric emphasizes boundaries, protected values, and the citation of authority. Democratic candidates on the other hand, tend to prefer the logic of consequences and bounds.” These two speeches clearly demonstrate this concept.

Amendment One: The Final Countdown

Wed, 02 May 2012 22:21:43 -0400

With just days until the May 8th primary election, the controversy over the proposed North Carolina Amendment One is heating up, or should I say becoming even more heated than it has been, which is saying something. I would venture to say that this is the most divisive and highly contentious issue on the ballot.

According to a recent poll, 55 percent of North Carolinians intend to vote “yes” on the amendment, which would state,

I have been following both the media and social coverage of the Amendment.

Through this tracking I have found that most news sources are talking about the complications that might arise from the amendment (i.e. view of domestic partnerships, possible threat to overturn domestic violence convictions, families losing health care). Most of the news articles and the output from the vote against campaign has focused on the possible greater implications that the amendment could have for single parents, victims of domestic violence, children, and unwed heterosexual couples rather than the actual banning of gay marriage. I would argue that this is a brilliant strategy in what is a rather socially conservative state. The editorials that I have found have cautioned against passing the amendment due to the complications that might arise. Even the New York Times weighed in on and spoke against this amendment proposal. I have also found there are many vocal opponents that voice their opinions via social media sites. Since roughly February, I have not gone a week without seeing a Facebook post or tweet advocating voting against the Amendment.

However, despite what seems to be an abundance of editorials and personal statements against the amendment, there is a strong contingency that adamantly supports the amendment. The majority of the support for the amendment seems to come from religious and conservative voters.

NC Amendment one fits into a national context of political discourse. Gay Marriage is a highly debated issue in both state and national politics.

In 2006, a Gallup poll stated that while roughly 3 in 5 Americans still oppose the legalization of gay marriage, nearly 50 percent of Americans oppose a constitutional amendment outlawing it.

Currently, according to a Pew Forum poll, 47 percent of Americans are in support of gay marriage.

Whether or not the amendment passes, it will be a landmark in both the state and national political scene.

*Links advocating voting against Amendment one:

http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/article/225626/57/Understanding-Amendment-One

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/04/27/3205729/no-one-is-hurt-by-gay-marriage.html

http://www.newraleigh.com/articles/archive/the-snap-vote-against-amendment-one/

Where to go from here?

Wed, 02 May 2012 22:15:25 -0400

The most common question that seems to come up around the end of the primary season is ‘where will the candidates go from here?’ What I mean is how will the policies change to cater to a larger general electorate now that the primary season is winding down. It is a very well known and common practice among candidates; normally a candidate chooses more radical policies during the primary election to appeal to their party base and the switch to a more moderate stance to appeal to the median voter in the general election.

The Huffington post has a great article highlighting just this. It looks at where Romney and Obama will go from here. The article argues that these next few months are extremely important for Romney to rebrand himself as a moderate candidate in order to gain the support of a larger base. It will be difficult, but every candidate faces the same problem. I know it will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

It is really difficult to forget the Etch-A-Sketch comment that Romney’s campaign made earlier in the primary season. Even if the comment is true, a candidate needs to avoid looking like a flip-flopper to the general electorate. This comment along with the allegations against Romney’s change of heart dealing with his past comments about Osama Bin Laden and hunting down terrorists could end up hurting his general election campaign

The general election is already heating up for Romney and Obama, and it is guaranteed to be action-packed. The fun is just beginning!

Brand Identity and Political Loyalty

Wed, 02 May 2012 21:43:13 -0400

I have been focusing on the brand identity of political candidates for most of my posts because I feel that a candidate needs to establish a certain personal brand in a political campaign. I think that a political candidate should be marketed just like a business when it comes to his or her constituents. It allows potential voters to learn more about the candidate than just their policies, which are very important but only part of the equation. Political marketing theory is a style of “marketing designed to influence consumers about political issues, particular candidates for public office, or public issues. Although political marketing uses many of the same techniques that of other forms of marketing, it is actually used to promote a concept or an idea, rather than a specific product or service, and to motivate people to vote for that idea.” It is also really important to look at the marketing of political parties.

Catherine Needham wrote a great article about political brands and how political parties play into them. She argues, “A barrier to loyalty in politics, as in a marketplace, is the proliferation of new products. Consumers and voters have more choice than in the past.” It is difficult for new candidates to convince voters that they are the best choice in the market, and that is where political parties and party leaders can help. Most voters have a party affiliation because it matches their core set of beliefs, and in each new election cycle voters need to research the candidates to determine the ones that best match their ideals. Political parties help voters by eliminating as much individual research as possible.

“All political parties face the challenge of fostering an attractive brand, but there are distinctive challenges for incumbent parties. Incumbent parties are under pressure to sustain their winning coalitions from within office in order to secure ‘repeat purchases.’” Needham argues that political parties need to maintain a relationship with voters throughout the election cycle and beyond to increase repeat votes.

It is extremely important for political parties to have a strong relationship with voters because that is the best way to win elections. Needham suggests that if a political party takes the time to successfully brand itself, then when it comes time for voters to choose a candidate, they will be more likely to choose one from a prominent political party. For example, the United States has a two-party system but allows room for other party choices. Voters are more likely to choose a candidate from one of the major parties because he or she would have a higher chance of winning. That shows that the two major political parties in the US have successfully branded themselves as reliable. It is important that voters can count on political parties to deliver, which is why it is very difficult for a third party candidate to make it to the ballot.

Campaign office openings and party strategies in N.C.

Wed, 02 May 2012 20:07:50 -0400

North Carolina, as a battleground state in the presidential election, has been a hot topic in the media as both the democrats and the republicans make their case for who would best serve as commander-in-chief. One of the most recent political figures to toss around the Tar Heel State’s name was Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Priebus declared North Carolina to be “‘ground zero’ in the fight for the White House,” according to WCNC, a local news station based in Charlotte, N.C. The question remains, now that Romney’s campaign has focused its attention on the general election, how are Obama and Romney gearing up to compete for North Carolina?

North Carolinians have not experienced being a battleground state in a presidential election for many years. Even presidential primaries do not often affect North Carolina, as the state’s primary date is considerably after when most primary seasons realistically have determined a party’s nominee. However, it appears the 2012 general election will rebel against this norm.

The Obama campaign has 15 offices across the state and the republicans are opening four “Victory headquarters” in North Carolina. Each party is implementing a strategy to sway N.C. voters and as the campaigns swing into full-gear, the specifics of each approach are becoming clearer.

The democrats have maintained a presence in North Carolina since 2008. Additionally, their decision to hold September’s Democratic National Convention in the state has been discussed as a strategic decision based on the idea the convention will “mobilize volunteers and supporters,” according to an article in the Charlotte Observer.

Priebus said the republicans have pledged to “match them and surpass them,” referring to the Obama campaign’s North Carolina efforts, according to the article.

Based on President Obama’s track record of visiting North Carolina and the republicans’ goal of exceeding his spending and presence, it is safe to presume the Tar Heel State will be seeing a lot of both candidates and their advertisements during this election season.

Candidate appearances and marketing strategies have long been linked to winning outcomes in elections, as Joandrea Hoegg and Michael V. Lewis explain in “The Impact of Candidate Appearance and Advertising Strategies on Election Results.” Their research examines many variables that will come into play in the battle for North Carolina. Likely of particular importance in the upcoming election is the effect of the perception of candidate personality, gathered from campaign appearances, that are taken into consideration alongside marketing strategies and campaign spending.

When the situation in North Carolina leading up to the general election is examined through the lens of Hoegg and Lewis’ research, it can be suggested the candidate who presents himself most strongly and visits most will win over the state’s important electorate.

Beth Peterson

Romney and Social Media

Wed, 02 May 2012 20:03:34 -0400

Does Mitt Romney need to step up his social media game? Based on this Mashable article, it definitely seems like it. In a look at the “social showdown” between President Obama and Romney, it’s clear Obama has the edge. His Facebook fan page is immensely more popular than Romney’s, as is his Twitter feed (15 million followers to 500,000), Google+ page, and YouTube channel.

Considering how influential social media and the Internet was in the last election, the Romney campaign would do well to take some cues from the Obama camp. In 2008, Obama excelled at using social media to connect with and inform voters, and it’s clear the same effort will be made up through this November. (This infographic reports that he’s on pace to spend $35 million in online money, a sharp increase from his $16 million in 2008.) Edelman, a top PR firm, released a report on this use of social media called “The Social Pulpit: Barack Obama’s Social Media Toolkit.” The research pointed to Obama’s ability “to weave the Internet into the fabric of his campaign,” and used it “to give ordinary Americans access to resources usually reserved for professional campaign operatives.”

It’s clear that social media’s importance to election outcomes shouldn’t be downplayed. Sites like Facebook can help make participation in campaigns easier and help voters to feel more engaged in the democratic process. Also, as “What is a Social Network Worth?” by Christine Williams and Girish Gulati points out, “As traditional civic associations decline, we see in these networks a new frontier for cultivating social capital.” Networking sites are a prime opportunity for candidates to interact with voters and promote their message; they also make voter-targeting feasible for various demographics.

Additionally, Williams and Gulati’s article found that “Facebook support is an important additional indicator of candidate electoral success that is independent of traditional measures like expenditures, media coverage and organizing activities as represented by campaign events.” The article cited Romney (and John McCain) as examples where Facebook support was non-significant in 2008 because it was not fully integrated into the campaign strategy.

While I think it’s unlikely that Romney will be able to use social media to the same success as Obama, an increased emphasis on sites such as Facebook or YouTube would only help his chances come November. Even simple steps, like updating his Twitter feed more regularly would help to integrate a social media strategy more fully into his campaign. Having days between Tweets seems unwise, especially as the site has been proven as a “platform for political deliberation” that “reflects voter preferences” and allows for “parties to plausibly reflect many nuances of the election campaign (Andranik Tumasjan’s “Predicting Elections with Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal about Political Sentiment).

The Mashable piece also points out that interacting with voters through social media sites could help Romney change the public’s perception that he is “too rigid.” Ann Romney has begun using Pintrest, something the article says shows “the more playful side of Mitt and his family.”

Looking forward, it will be interesting to see whether the Romney campaign increasingly draws on social media to help unite and engage voters. To have a chance at beating Obama in November, they would be wise to do so.

- Melissa

Campaigning with the First Lady

Wed, 02 May 2012 19:44:51 -0400

By Kasey El-Chayeb

Like many other presidential spouses, Michelle Obama has helped to evolve the role of First Lady. Over time, the duties of this position have changed from being White House hostess to far more; a campaign surrogate and an advocate for specialized causes. Being a first lady is one position in politics that changes to fit the woman who holds it. This week, the First Lady headed to key Midwestern states to campaign for her husband. Spouses have become popular representatives of their wives or husbands during important elections.

Michelle Obama visited Colorado and Arizona on Monday as part of a four state tour (CNN). Last year the Obama campaign briefed reporters on their strategies to focus on a “Western” path and a “Florida” path to victory. In regard to the “Western” path, campaigners argued the importance of battleground states like Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico- all of which the First Lady will be visiting. One factor that will be pertinent in the fight to win Arizona is the state’s significant Latino population, a demographic with whom the president has almost a 50 point lead over Romney. According to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, Latinos make up 12% of Arizona voters. This is a 23.2% increase since 2008. This population is the fastest growing in the United States and Latino voter turnout has been steadily increasing.

According to CBS News, recent polls have suggested Romney and Obama both have a “slim edge” over Arizona. This has created extra incentive for the Democrats to pursue the “Western” path. As First Lady, Obama will spend much of her time attending campaign events in these states and giving speeches. A study called “Spouses as Campaign Surrogates: Strategic Appearances by Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates’ Wives in the 2004 Election” analyzes use of wives in campaigning and shows that wives are often used strategically, being sent to battleground states and making more appearances closer to election day (MacManus & Quecan, p.346).

Historically, presidential wives have helped win elections by highlighting specific issues and helping to reach select portions of the electorate. In addition to helping in campaigns, First Ladies have pioneered important causes and gained respect as being influential spokeswomen. This biography of First Ladies highlights how Betty Ford fought for the Equal Rights Amendment and was a voice for breast cancer awareness, how Nancy Reagan campaigned against drug abuse, and how Hillary Clinton was appointed to chair a committee on health care reform just days after her husband’s inauguration.

Mrs. Obama has chosen to spend the last four years supporting her husband’s policy decisions and promoting healthy living, organic food, and a reduction in childhood obesity. In speeches at events across the country she has focused on support of military families, helping working women balance career and family, and encouraging national service. Her interests in organic food and health led to the creation of a national campaign to end childhood obesity called “Let’s Move!” Due to her efforts in these areas, her personal style and charisma, and her impressive resume, Michelle Obama has become extremely popular with the public. Her “approval ratings eclipse her husband’s and stand at nearly 70 percent.”

Through her impressive rise in popularity it is obvious that Michelle Obama is an excellent representative for the Obama Campaign. The “Spouses as Campaign Surrogates” study also poses the idea that “the ability of their [candidates] spouses to act as surrogates” is of considerable importance and can even be compared to the position of vice president, which is a position that has increasingly come to rely on the selection of a running mate who would serve as a good surrogate on the campaign trail. In approaching the “Western” path by sending Michelle Obama, one of their most popular surrogates, the Obama campaign has made it clear that they believe they can win these states and that the First Lady will help them to do so.

N.C. Business and DNC Digital Media

Wed, 02 May 2012 14:31:06 -0400

National party conventions garner extensive media attention and require a significant amount of resources and planning in order for the event to be considered successful. And despite the changing role of conventions, research suggests they are still an important element of modern presidential campaigns. Conventions still have the power to sway voter opinions in favor of a candidate and provide a platform for presidential nominees to reach a large, demographically diverse audience.

Glancing behind the scenes into the planning process for party conventions can verify the perceived new role of modern party conventions.

In North Carolina, the state hosting the 2012 Democratic National Convention, political figures aren’t the only thing posed to benefit from the gathering in early September. Local businesses are also profiting from the DNC taking place in Charlotte. While this can be anticipated, it is an examination of which businesses stand to benefit most that sheds light on the intentions and aspirations of convention planners.

A start-up company in Raleigh, Business Empire Consulting, recently won the contract to design and host the Democratic National Convention’s website, according to an article in the Charlotte Observer. The company competed against 11 other firms for the job and now stands to dramatically elevate its portfolio with the addition of the high profile client.

While this is certainly good news for the 28-month old company and for the small business environment in North Carolina, the interesting political communication impact of this announcement pertains more to the product the Business Empire Consulting has been asked to produce. The DNC is heavily emphasizing its online presence and increases to its digital audience.

This emphasize exemplifies two important considerations with regard to the convention. First, new media is of high importance to DNC planners. This is evidenced by the desired improvements to the website as well as Business Empire Consulting’s plan to integrate and highlight social media in the site’s design, as is discussed in the Charlotte Observer article.

“The goals are to really focus on interactivity, to bring the conversation into your living room so anyone in the country, any American, can interact and be a part of the conversation as it is going on,” Matt Laster, chief information officer for Business Empire Consulting told the Charlotte Observer. “We will rely on a lot of social media.”

Second, the DNC aims to draw national attention and serve as an education and persuasion tool more than it is set up to be a deliberative body. This is also clear because of the planners’ focus on the website and social media. If the convention were primarily serving its traditional purpose of selecting the democratic nominee for president, fewer resources would be directed to mediums that act as outreach mechanisms for the general public.

Party conventions have changed audiences and shifted purposes but are still a necessary part of the election process. Leading up to the DNC in Charlotte, North Carolina this September, it is clear this is the new reality of conventions when examining what local businesses have won contracts for in preparation for the event.

Beth Peterson

More than a Slogan

Wed, 02 May 2012 14:20:56 -0400

“Change we can believe in” or simply “Change.” These words mark one of the memorable political campaign slogans in our nation’s history. It wasn’t memorable simply because it was associated with the first African American presidential hopeful or because it was attached to a larger than life character. It was because Barack Obama became the agent of change. The slogan was more than a rallying cry; it was an idea that was captured and embodied by one man and a nation.

According to Noriko Hirabyashi in 2008, the branding of Obama as the agent of change was successful for three reasons. “(1) the dominant tone of positivism, (2) clear distinctions from his rivals as well as from politics as usual in Washington, accompanied with well-performed brand management, and finally, (3) the contextualization or packaging of each of the messages in an appealing American story,” (120).

Looking at these reasons more closely it can be seen why these made an impact on Obama’s campaign. First, change can be seen as a positive or a negative thing. The fact that Obama was able to brand this as an overwhelmingly positive word with no negative connotations was important. There was definitely unhappiness with the Bush administration and he used change to playoff of that sentiment and create thoughts of what could be if he was elected. Second, it was important to use his inexperience in Washington as a good thing. Change encompassed that by showing that if he was elected it wouldn’t be “more of the same” it would be a fresh start in Washington and wouldn’t be politics as usual. This showed he was a different politician than others already in Washington and he would change the way business is done as well. Finally, he placed change in context of the American story. He combined the idea of a positive change and being an outsider to create a new era in politics if he were to be elected. This new era would be more representative one and a government that worked instead of the one that was falling apart because of the Bush administration. By packaging all this into change and making him the one person that could create that change is what made the slogan so effective in 2008.

Since Obama released the new video Forward there has been speculation that this could be his new slogan for 2012. The video is seven minutes long and contains all of Obama’s achievements from the past years in office and ends with the idea that there is still more to do.

This is similar to change in that it evokes a positive connotation of progress or improvement. Other than that it is a very different campaign strategy than his last. President Obama has to run off of his record in office this election season which is important to note when discussing how this new slogan will be marketed. Can Obama be an agent of forward? Looking at the strategies that made Obama an agent of change the Obama campaign might have to alter these a bit to find the perfect way to market the new slogan. It does have a dominant tone of positivism because progression is mostly seen as a good thing that helps society. As far as making a distinction between Obama and other politicians in Washington this slogan doesn’t easily make that claim. He has to use what he has done in office and a lot of the public that supported him in 2008 isn’t happy. He is going to have to convince them he still is different than others in Washington. One way this was done earlier this week was through Former President Bill Clinton. He made a comment that, Romney “basically wants to do what they (Bush) did before, on steroids,” Clinton said, “Which will get you the same consequences you got before, on steroids.” This angle sets Obama apart from Romney because it shows that he will be doing something better in his second term rather than if Romney was elected it would be a step backwards. Finally, Obama can frame forward in the American narrative. He can talk about times when America was failing or having a rough time and how it moved forward through the rough time and ended up better on the other end. It will be helpful to use these same techniques as in 2008 to market forward, although they might need to be tailored more towards this word to transform Obama into an agent of forward.

It will be interesting to see this Saturday if this is the official campaign slogan for 2012 and exactly how this word will be used to frame the campaign. President Obama will probably continue to use the marketing and branding techniques he used in 2008 and apply them to this new campaign since they were so effective. Can forward be as big and effective as change?

Hillary Clinton's New Image

Wed, 02 May 2012 14:13:26 -0400

Yesterday, the hot topics on the home page of Politico were Marco Rubio, Bob Woodward, the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, and… Jason Segel.

It’s not that the TV star is running for office — the reason Segel made headlines was that Hillary Clinton wrote him a personalized note to decline appearing with him on the big screen. She said she was, as one might imagine, “a little occupied at the moment.”

On its own, the note doesn’t seem particularly important, but when it’s considered alongside other recent news stories that have featured a funny, relatable Clinton, the rejection letter takes on a new significance. From meeting the creators of a Tumblr featuring “texts” from the Secretary of State to her time dancing and drinking in Cartagena, Clinton’s press coverage of late has been more light-hearted and positive than usual.

The promotion of these news stories ties in nicely with the idea of image and the media, as well as with Shanto Iyengar’s analysis in The Media Game: New Moves, Old Strategies. Although Clinton’s not currently running a campaign, the effects of unmediated news coverage can still be seen. A focus on these light-hearted stories swings attention from Clinton’s role as Secretary of State to her personal life. Like in campaigns, this shift means that “substantive questions of public policy are relegated to back-stage status.” Instead, more attention is paid to the “more entertaining facets” of Clinton’s day-to-day life, and it seems like an instance of Iyengar’s claim that “stories that ‘sell’ are inevitably preferred over those that may be more substantive but lacking in audience appeal.”

The Clinton camp likely isn’t bothered by the coverage, though, considering her difficulties in connecting with the public during the 2008 campaign. In “The Performance of Politics,” Jeffrey Alexander discusses how she, at times, failed to connect with voters, and faced media criticism that suggested a “phony performance and deceived audience” (36). Clinton struggled to put forth an image that required her to be “competent, show just enough emotion, be real, and be independent” (Netta Avineri’s Language and Gender: The Mass Media’s Portrayal of Two U.S. Presidential Candidates, 2009).

Now, these new stories make Clinton seem down-to-earth, in touch with pop culture, and ultimately more relatable (especially to younger individuals). It seems likely to me that these actions have been attempts to change how the public views her — something the American Prospect talks about in this article. According to the author of the piece, Clinton has gone from an embodiment of “everything tired and uncool about the Democrats” to being “an icon of D.C. cool.”

This semester, we’ve talked about how staged publicity events often backfire, or seem disingenuous to the public, but here, I think Clinton does a nice job side-stepping that. The Segel letter and Tumblr example are both responses to others’ actions, which makes them seem more natural and less pointed.

In any case, the attempts to change her image seem to be working: Her favorability rating has hit a 20-year-high, something that’s a “dramatic turnaround since 2008, when her favorable-unfavorable was 44 percent-54 percent.” Perhaps it’s too early to speculate on whether Clinton is gearing up for a 2016 presidential run, but it certainly seems like she’s trying to appeal more broadly to the public and rehabilitate her image.

- Melissa

Romney Reaches out to Women

Wed, 02 May 2012 13:34:37 -0400

Recent polls show that women favor Obama to Romney 58 to 38 percent, so it’s no surprise Romney is now reaching out to the ladies in attempt to gain favor among this specific demographic. His approach in doing this is interesting, but there is no proof just yet that this approach is going to be successful.

Romney is using “war on women” rhetoric against Democrats, a phrase originally coined by Obama, and is arguing that it is not Republicans who are waging war on women, but, due to failed economic policies, the war against the farer sex is being head up by the president. Romney claimed that 92 percent of jobs lost under Obama have belonged to women. This fact is currently being called into question. It’s fascinating that Romney is twisting the same expression as his opponent has used into an angle that fits his and his party’s views, respectively, on the way the president has handled economic issues. Obama first used the phrase “war on women” in conjunction with Republican’s views on contraceptives and it seems like a stretch to say that Obama, the leader of a party who is very pro-women’s rights on many different levels (how many feminist Republicans do you know?), is waging war on women by the way he is running the economy. While Romney is trying to reach out to women, he is also able to insert his platform on multiplying jobs when he claims that Obama is waging war because of his economic failure, and stay away from divisive social issues such as Planned Parenthood and contraceptives that would harm his standing among women.

In another instance Romney had his wife, Ann, as a top surrogate for reaching out to women. Instead of loving this, the public criticized his approach saying that he was pushing women’s issues off to his wife. Romney has several women surrogates representing his campaign, two of which voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Act, an act that provides women with more legal channels through witch to seek and secure equal pay. When Romney representatives were asked if Romney supported the bill, the representative answered that he would have to get back to them on that. Later a Romney aid said that Romney supports equal pay and will not be repealing the bill. Romney’s reps’ failure to respond immediately gave Democrats just enough time to circulate a letter of disappointment from Ledbetter herself.