As the On Call blog reported, last night's debate started with sign wars.
It may look stupid, but the goal is to ...
1. Give your candidate momentum when he or she shows up, and
2. Get your sign on TV (thereby creating the impression of momentum ...)
So how did the Dem candidates get people there? According to On Call, there are three ways:
1. Have the "it" candidate. Sen. Barack Obama's South Carolina staff has spent the last week corralling Obama supporters at nearby campuses. And -- how to say this -- South Carolina State University at Orangeburg is a majority African American campus. So it probably was not a huge challenge to turn out Obama supporters.
2. Pay them. The rumour du jour is that Hillary Clinton's campaign, or some consultant affiliated with the campaign, paid students at nearby Clafin College to come hold large "Clinton Country" signs. One Clinton sign-holder did indeed volunteer to us that she was being paid, but she wouldn't say by whom. A Clinton spokesman denies that the campaign has paid anyone to attend.
3. Bus them in. John Edwards did a bit of that, we're told. (Busing in, not paying). Edwards allies seemed to have arrived late. We caught Edwards's director of advance -- he's the guy with the telephone to his ear in the picture below -- telling the other end of the line that "We need more signs!". Indeed: Chris Matthews's first guest was Elizabeth Edwards. About two dozen Edwards supporters materialized a few minutes later, but they were too late: the only room for them was on the fringes of the piazza.
Today's Blogometer makes an interesting point that, in terms of style, at least, Barack Obama is the most Reaganesque of the presidential contenders. Blogometer also points out that, while Reagan was both nice and optimistic, he was also a tough competitor who wasn't afraid to attack his liberal opponents (all of which is true):
The Blogometer would not be the first to compare Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) to Ronald Reagan, and if Obama continues to warm even conservative critics, we won't be the last. As gifted a politician as Obama may be, however, there's still room for improvement. And the netroots just may be the folks who help him get there. Following Rudy Giuliani's claim that "America will be safer with a Republican president," Obama chastised Rudy for taking "the politics of fear to a new low" and claiming, "America's mayor should know that when it comes to 9/11 and fighting terrorists, America is united." The netroots liked that Obama hit back at Giuliani quick, but they wish he would have been more combative: stressing how Dems would protect America better instead of focussing on 'unity.'
Reagan may have benefitted from a sunny optimism, but he also never missed a chance to remind Americans he'd better protect them than Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale. Maybe Obama can take a suggestion from the netroots and move past his 'new politics' to make the argument that he's the candidate who can best secure the country.
In short, they are suggesting that, in order to become a better candidate, Obama needs to get tougher.
Anyone who cares about policy would point out that Reagan and Obama couldn't be more different. But few real voters make up their minds based on policy -- they instead make up their minds (on candidates) based on likability and perception. For this reason, Barack Obama is a very dangerous candidate.
"The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process."
-Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson, 1956 "Television is no gimmick, and nobody will ever be elected to major office again without presenting themselves well on it."\ -Television producer and Nixon campaign consultant Roger Ailes, 1968 Presidential Campaign Commercials from 1952 - 2004. Pretty cool.
I got this video of Mitt Romney last night at the Frontiers of Freedom dinner. What I want you to pay attention to are his hand gestures. First, by using his hands, he keeps the audience engaged. But also, note the way he does not point at his audience. He uses a lot of open-handed gestures -- and he never points. He's a master at this ...
I've got a column up over at Townhall.com about dealing with tough weeks on the campaign trail. I think it's good advice for anyone running for office ...
What is spin? Give me a lemon and I'll make lemonade. The Democrat candidates are doing a good just that. Each is making the case that they did well in fundraising. Here's a quote from the WaPost:
Almost all of the leading candidates found a statistic or two on which to claim success: Clinton had the most cash on hand of any candidate, thanks to a $10 million transfer of funds from her Senate campaign. Obama pointed to more than 100,000 donors as a sign of grass-roots energy. Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) noted that he raised almost twice as much this quarter as he did four years ago, although he finished well behind Clinton and Obama.
"Physical fitness, and especially aerobic fitness, are tightly tied with intelligence," the abs guru continued. "There are studies that show a direct link between fitness and mental energy, fitness and efficiency, fitness and leadership. The physical manifestation impresses others because they know that a fit man is a sharper man."
And here's another reason:
Presidential campaigns are physically taxing, demanding long hours on the road and in the air. They require a candidate, at each event, to go all out, as Joe DiMaggio did, because, as he said, the person watching might be seeing him for the first time.
I would argue that now days, all campaigns are physically taxing -- whether you're running for president or state senate ...
Today's Hotline features an interview with Democrat Duane Baughman, pres. and creative dir. of The Baughman Company. Here's his take on negative campaigning:
This is one area that so many people misunderstand: the best negatives aren't mean, nasty or personal. They're funny. Meant to embarrass, reveal or shame. If you've got voters laughing at -- not with -- your opponent, you've dealt a serious blow to their credibility that they're unlikely to recover from.
If you're managing a campaign, make sure to put together a cheat-sheet for you candidate. For example, it might be a good idea to know how much gas costs.
In another fawning Style section article, today's WaPost discusses Nancy Pelosi's "sartorial modesty."
But dispite this -- the story does go on to make some important points about the importance of clothes ...
Everyone has tools they rely on to help them look as dignified as they feel. Take away those aides and it can be more difficult to maintain one's bearing.
Clothing can evoke authority, but at the most basic level it is an expression of control. Prison coveralls wrest autonomy from convicts. School uniforms attempt to level the playing field so that no clique can dominate the student body. In both cases, individuals fight to reclaim a sense of self, whether by shortening the hem of a skirt or accessorizing the body with tattoos.
Whether you're running for state senate or president, you can never allow yourself to slack off. Here's a prime example of what happens when you do:
Mr. McCain's aides said his problems arose because contributors, staff members -- and perhaps Mr. McCain himself -- had been lulled into complacency after a year in which they had systematically portrayed his nomination as inevitable.
Newt's not the safe choice for Republicans to make, but he may be our Goldwater. Sure, the "adults" won't like him -- too much personal baggage from his speakership in the 1990s and his bombastic congressional career before that. They will tell you to take your vitamins, open a savings account, get good grades and vote for one of the big three. The adults will tell you that this election is "the most important election in history," and after all, "the next president will likely get several Supreme Court picks."
This Washington Post is about the "decoy effect" in campaigns. I'm not sure if I buy the theory. What do you think?
Here's a good response from a reader who thinks the article is bogus:
In marketing, we find that people compare large numbers of products in twos in order. So if you are laying out ties, you want to gradually increase the quality and price of ties. then people will keep going upwards. (a friend got a PhD in business with this as his thesis research) The correct marketing strategy is a steady but incremental progression in quality and price. In other words, the next tie is a little bit better and only a little more pricey.
But if you ever break the steady progression (either the price-performance curve goes sharply up or down) then people purchase at that point. So if you have a MUCH more expensive tie, as the next tie, people will tend to purchase the cheaper tie. OR if the next tie isn't as good (basically the same thing), then people will purchase the better tie.
But in politics, there is neither a clear price-performance metric (for voters, there clearly is for activists) nor are there clear lines of progression.
Digg This | 
Facebook | 
Technorati
Subscribe