How they voted

McCain is being congratulated on his ability to ‘come back from the dead not once but twice’ (with two different marketing teams) and on having provided textbook examples of marketing techniques of not giving up. First time was early during the Republican primary season, McCain was strong at the beginning and then died off. But he rematerialised successfully and won the GOP nomination. This was mainly due to effectively stopping immigration being an issue and framing the war on Iraq as a success story and not least by the economic budgeting of the McCain marketing team (some were working double shifts and they produced extremely cheap TV spots).

The next mission impossible was to prevail over the popularity of Obama. And they have been very clever here: they turned Obama’s biggest strength against him, bringing him down to the level of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears AND they framed issues themselves as something the GOP was dealing with, whereas Obama was framed as having lost reality in his hunt of stardom. Bringing Palin into the game as McCain’s running mate was the next strike, which to Obama was very surprising: “Look, you have to give them credit: It obviously energized the conservative wing of the party. And that’s worth something in politics.” (Obama in an interview with Eric Bates, Rolling Stone, October 30^th, 2008). And according to Claire Beale, McCain has definitely won the internet search battle by buying keywords that linked to Obama’s campaign. She says in many search machines if you searched for “Obama for president” you got a McCain ad with the headline “Why not learn more about McCain as president”. But what a shame, it seems McCain could not be reborn a third time. Not even by slamming negativity.

Obama on his part has seized the Clinton machine and I think we all know that he has changed the way elections are being performed forever. Back in 2006 he was considered a long shot and now he seems unbeatable, not too bad for an African-American first-term Democratic senator from Illinois. First of all he learned from Howard Dean four years ago, turning down public fundraising of his campaign and though taking a tough risk the amounts raised are breathtaking. On advertising alone he outspent McCain 3:1. Last week, Obama was running over 3000 ads per 24 hours, twice as many as McCain. This allowed him to make it possible that tonight people in traditionally Republican states will vote Democrat.

Secondly, next to ‘old fashioned political ground organisation’ Obama utilised and innovated the use of the new media. He connected to citizens by using the latest social networking developments. He hired one of the founders of Facebook and created my.barackobama.com, which has momentum, appealing to people on an intimate level i.e. by sending them personalised emails every day. And that Joe Biden was chosen as his running mate, Obama texted to three million mobile users. That was a huge novelty.

Moreover, Obama got the youth vote, according to his campaign manager David Plouffe, two-third of the people caucusing in Iowa had never caucused before. Obama has also been boosted by A-listers who endorsed him, TV stars, actors, musicians. And last but not least, the campaign of Obama has acted like a category leader with a slow but methodical approach. Not rushing out for excuses when for example the Ayers accusations came up or excessively trying to make a strong position in the financial crisis, but being consistent, awaiting the situation and reacting thoughtfully, which made McCain look like an idiot. To round off, Advertising Age called Obama’s campaign as having a design “that should shame many national brands” and is “close to a level of design strategy from a great brand like Nike or Target”.

The way this year’s presidential elections in the US have been conducted will probably change political campaigning forever. And even stronger, these articles assume Obama’s campaign will be a blueprint for political advertising AND a lesson for marketers in all businesses.

http://content3d.omroep.nl/9e5bc6714ea083a5698e8ed202f8b3d1/490ebf2c/nos/journaal/NOS_Journaal_VODcast_std_2-11-2008_20_01_07.mp4

Also for the dutch-speaking among you, tonight the NOS shows two nice programs concerning the elections:

Ned2 : NOVA New York (22:15) and ‘The Choice 2008: the fight over the White House’ (23:00).

In the senate, Elisabeth Dole (R) of North Carolina got in some trouble because she suggested her opponent doesn’t believe in god. The opponent, Kay Hagan (D), accuses her of bearing false witness against a fellow christian, and thus breaking the ninth commandment. “Cat fight” It makes it extra interesting because Dole is the wife of the 1996 republican candidate for president and her seat has been republican for 35 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuS342L22QI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Yug8HcPSwQ

The senior senator of Alaska Ted Stevens, who held his seats since 1968, has been accused of taking bribes. Unfortunately for the republican party it is to late to change the ballots. Changes are that this seat will be won by the democrat. Or will the Alaskan people rather vote for a convict.

In Minnesota a comedian is on the ballot for the democrats. Al Franken is a stand-up comedian, talk-radio host and used to be part of the TV Show Saturday Night Live. Norm Coleman, the republican incumbent has only a small lead in the polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/senate/mn/minnesota_senate-257.html

In New Hampshire John Sununu (R) might be another victim of the anger towards Bush. He’s son of another famous republican with the same name. And this might interest some backward thinking people in Ohio: he’s an arab.

I couldn’t find any sitting democratic senators in trouble. The big question of the night will be: can the democrates conquer 60 seats or more in the senate. This means that the other party won’t be able to filibuster. Filibuster?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#United_States

Other elections of interest: in San Franciso there are a lot of propositions on the ballot. Proposition R is about renaming the Oceanside water treatment plant into the George W. Bush Sewage plant. This ofcourse meant as a big F.U. to the president. http://www.newsdesk.org/archives/005694.html#r

Proposition 8 in the entire state of California is about eliminating the right for same-sex couples to marry. In latest poll it is 50-47 in favor of gay-marriages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

My predictions: Obama will win. The senate and house will be dark blue and turn red two years from now. And Bush’s name will be given to the sewage plant in SF.

BTW this CNN map is great when you want to know which state will be next to close the polls. Print it out for election night and don’t forget the six hour time difference: http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/poll.closing/

There has something happened. From the very beginning, I was a Obama supporter. He has the charm, he has the change that the world needs so badly. But then, this week something happened. I went to a meeting from a political youth party, and there it was : my first serious doubts..about if Obama has to be the next president. I debated with a lot of acquaintances, and the most people there thought McCain was the right choice. The right choice for our European economy ( because Obama focusses really upon the American Economy and this is not necessarily in favour of our Dutch or European economy), and they argued that we never should started the war in Iraq, but once we did, we have to take our responsibilities and stay there until it is finished.

Of course, you can look at this opinion both ways, because a lot of people think if we stay there, nothing is ever solved because the people there are living under a regime that is just abusing their powers and full of tiranny, so the civilians are used to it and do not like the American invaders and the American army at all. They never want to be a democracy. But on the other side, there is a point in saying : can we actually leave after all the damage we caused and act that irresponsible?

This is just one example of the debate of that evening which changed my view a little bit. Also, I saw a rather objective documentaire on the public network about Mc Cain, 2 days ago, and I noticed that all the newsgathering I did, like the paper I coded (NRC = in favour of Obama), the news i followed, the media i chose, definitely are all somewhat favourable to Obama. And because of my judgemental approach, I select unconscious the newscoverage in favour of Obama.

Maybe you could all help, because even I am not that unsteady, it certainly crossed my mind that we are all biased and that we only can make a deliberate choice and verdict if we are aware of both sides equally.

And, if you did not see the full programs ( which I hope we all díd

already):

For more information see the programms of Obama:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/and of course the programm of McCain:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/greetings

From my point of view, Democrats could gain more sympathy and credibility when Biden would be more in the spotlight. So why should they take more advantage of Biden?

Joseph R. Biden Jr., born on November 20 1942 in Pennsylvania, started his political career at age 25 as a councilman in New Castle County (Delaware) and after four years got first elected to the United States Senate. His life has been marked by ups and downs, from the fatal car accident of his (first) wife and daughter to the somewhat surprising nomination as Barack Obama’s running mate on August 23, 2008.

Joe Biden is probably best known as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, where he emphasises diplomacy but, simultaneously, shows ambitiousness and will to make progress. Somewhat minor points are his impulsive speeches – which are regularly criticised – and the fact that he voted in favour of the Iraq invasion in 2003, which he severely regrets – especially because he often does not agree with the mode of conduct.

From the four main characters, he is the one that comes across as a man of the street (as he is from an average American background), decent, trustworthy (not involved in any severe scandals like Palin and McCain), solid and experienced. In my opinion, these strongly favourable characteristics easily outweigh some of his minor aspects.

Of course, Biden has been campaigning all over the country since he became Obama’s running mate, and he probably has reached many (possible) voters. But despite all the favourable qualities and all his hard work, he is still not really in the picture.

As for media, it is quite logical that someone like Biden has less news worthiness than Palin. With such a background, a proper medical record and so much experience, what could be a motive for the Democratic party to keep Biden out of the spotlight? Or do they (and we) think Biden does not need any extra attention and especially will gather trust and credibility, thus voters, by keeping out of sight?

There are all sorts of strategies, and different ways to run a campaign. But key to a convincing campaign is it’s solidness and it’s uniformity. Different issues but the same point of view taken, one path chosen, one leader and one right hand to lead the campaign and support the leader when needed. Difficulty can arise by trying to serve and attract different stakeholders, pressure groups and different audiences all together.

A political campaign should be about the political issues. But while trying to serve an audience as large as possible, not all strategies will hold. McCain chose to address his wanted audience as “my friends”. His “friends” are all people who are Republican or to an even broader extent all people who love their country and are able to vote. He’ll be the nice man, the grandfather, who’s been there, who can tell you the stories, who knows how to protect you and is ready to take a lead. Barely paying attention to his opponent, who struggles with his “inexperience” being young, and wanting to become the first non-white American president. An opponent who is not up to his (McCains) standard, “that one”. His campaign is strong because of his personality and experience.

Yet, something went wrong. It started when picking Sarah Palin as his right hand. An ambitious young lady, less educated than his opponent Obama and less experienced than Obama’s right hand Biden, but strong and appealing to a large audience.

Just as the “inexperienced” Obama, Palin got a lot of media attention, being the most appealing and interesting one to a large audience. Obama gets the most worldwide coverage it seems, compared to McCain, and has even become a celebrity, an idol! He grew and felt stronger and speeches like he’s Martin Luther King himself.

Palin too, struggled with all that media attention and her new star-persona. She had to accept her stardom, and her coverage grew to be larger than her boss’ McCain. She seemed to have developed star-like airs and she doesn’t agree with the grandfather anymore. No she wants to change tactics, she wants to play hardball. She feels that McCain needs to change his campaign tactics into negative campaigning! Come on, we can’t have a person with relations to Al-Qaida become the president if America!! Unfortunately this is not a great tactic when it’s not you running for presidency. It makes you loose your credibility as a party and decreases strength of the leading party campaign.. Sarah doesn’t want to be running mate, she wants to be the captain herself. Two captains on one ship, as we would day in Dutch, never worked before. You have to be able to sail in one direction to get somewhere.. However, the race isn’t over yet and what happened to Sarah and her star-like airs might even turn on her great example too.

Obama’s stardom is not increasing his credibility as a future president. It is claimed that he’s not about the issues anymore, he’s just a star not a political actor.

But who knows, it might just work in the States. After all, if Arnold can be taken seriously enough, why Obama can’t be president?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14929.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14891.html

Furthermore, Sarah Palin should have disregard from her advisers of McCain and wanted to do more her own way, whereas others in the Republican-team blaming McCain again for picking Palin as running mate: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14929.html .

So, trouble on the way for the Republicans. If you look back on the Republican campaign, than you could say that the pick of Palin was indeed not a smart choice, nice illustrated by an ad of Obama-supporters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03fcGelz8Hw

But what I’m more and more suprised about now then the Palin-pick, is the fact that McCain became the Republican nominee. It is remarkable as well to see how many Republicans voters moved to the Democrats in the past weeks. Of course, McCain has won the preliminaries, but how do you want to win the elections if you don’t have the true support of the Republican party members? I don’t think Republicans want a maverick, they want a conservative.

It has to be said that the other Republican candidates in the preliminaries were not impressive either or had some clear disadvantages to become presidents, but I guess a real right-winger like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, had at least great support from the conservative religious groups in America and for that reason had more chance against Obama. Those conservative votes did well for Bush in the last two elections.

It seems to me that for the independent voters and even for the true Republicans there’s not really a reason to vote for McCain, beside the reason to vote against Obama.  Two coverage’s of Republican voters in Florida and Alaska (where they still love Palin by the way) illustrated what I mean. See how al the rumors about Obama (drugs-addict, socialist, not an American passport etc…) find their way as the most important reason to vote for McCain: 

http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?ln=nl&fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=6428

http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?ln=nl&fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=6431&selectArchiveDay=7

The PEW research Center investigated the tone of the news coverage of the two different candidates and they found that the coverage of McCain is much more negative than the coverage of Obama (http://journalism.org/node/13307) and nu.nl (http://www.nu.nl/news/1802515/2030/McCain_voornamelijk_negatief_in_het_nieuws.html). THe coverage of Obama is more balanced, a little bit more positive than negative. And another thing is that the coverage started off more negative towards him (after the two conventions) and since he is ahead in the polls the coverage became more positive towards him.

Is the news influenced by the polls or does the newscoverage influence the polls? An interesting question. For further findings see the website. Put more interesting findings in the reactions for further discussion.

What do you think, will the negative coverage of McCain or the positive coverage of Obama have a great influence on the election outcome?

http://www.nrc.nl/buitenland/article2029499.ece/Voorsprong_Obama_slinkt_in_nieuwe_peiling

Are the suddenly changing polls a result of the strong performance of McCain during the debate? Was his already legendary quote: “if you wanted to run against George Bush, you should have run for president four years ago” so outstanding that people changed their vote-intentions overnight? Or maybe Joe the Plumber wasn’t such a bad move after all?!

Whatever may be the cause, the minimal lead of three percent really dangers Obama’s position. What if the by Anna Lena mentioned Bradley-effect is going to occur? With a ten percent lead, this effect could have been compensated, but three percent isn’t gonna do it. Am I the only one worried here? And what do you guys think cause this suddenly change in polls?