McCain as Nostradamus

This McCain ad is clearly looking to the future. With the state of the country and the economy today that is a huge concern for voters. I don't think there is much effectiveness in the way this ad looks to the future. It feels like a series of predictions, something you might see in a sci-fi movie rather than a presidential election ad. I feel like the voice is straight out of Star Wars. I know that these ads are limited on time, 30-60 seconds doesn't allow you to have much detail about how you plan to make these predictions a reality, but give me some substance.Otherwise I feel like I'm being fed what I want to hear, the typical promises from a politician that can't be fulfilled.



Here is a look at the future from Obama's campaign. I can't say that he gives a whole lot more substance than McCain, but the ad has a totally different effect. He includes the American people as participating in the prosperity of the future. The voice is soothing and confident. He uses the "hands" theme that ties the ad together and links the pride of history to the future. There is a call for collective responsibility to work towards a better future, as opposed to McCain doing it all himself.

He Lied

Somewhere along the lines, I was reading something about McCain's interview on "The View." I believe it was there that one of the women hosting the show used the term "lie" is some form to refer to a statement McCain had made. The author's point (sorry I can't figure out exactly where I read it) was that you wouldn't see this in traditional journalism. Exaggerated the truth, took it out of context, made a mis-statement, those are the phrases you typically hear when a "lie" is being talked about. For that reason, I was a little taken aback when I saw and heard he lied at the end of a McCain ad attacking Obama. That is a powerful and loaded phrase to throw out in an ad. When I say powerful, I don't mean to imply effective because I have a feeling it is quite the opposite, particularly since much of the discussion in the press about lies has been around McCain, not Obama.

The Political Circus

This ad has once again drawn the line connecting McCain and George W. I can't bring myself to take this very seriously. From the circus music to the hokey pictures used, in some way, I feel like it borderlines making a mockery of politics. I think the people who produced the ad (Service Employees International Union) would probably say it is McCain and Bush who have created much of the chaos and circustry (not an actual word) that is present in the political arena. I think I just have a hard time taking them seriously since they don't seem to be taking the election seriously. As our class discussions have certainly shown, there is a place for humor in this election, but I don't think ads is where voters want to see it.

Election Ads

I chose to look at this ad initially because it addresses and important aspect of what we have at stake this election year. On the website it is listed as a Republican ad, but that affiliation isn't clearly spelled out. It is paid for by the Vets for Freedom so we can assume a McCain allegiance but the dramatic end of the ad says "We need to finish the job, no matter who is president." Added to the audio is the visual of seeing the message in writing. It is clearly emphasized and trying to promote a bipartisan idea that it doesn't matter who does it but it must be done.

The other thing that was interesting to me about this ad, was that it reminded me of swift boat ads in 2004 that too aim at Kerry's military record. The choices in how the people each came on screen saying "I served in...I faught in" can be directly parelled with an ad where vets came on and each said "I served with John Kerry." For comparison here is that ad.

Polling Follow-Up

1. I think that it is appropriate to use wikipedia as a reference after our class discussion of it. This is a condensed version of some of the other links I provided in a previous post but it offers an answer to my question about past elections as well. Polls before the 1948 election predicted a landslide victory for Thomas Dewey over Harry Truman. Truman was the incumbent and apparently not very popular at the time. He led from the second votes started coming in, and even then was predicted to lose. I'm not sure how much relevance this has for us because I would assume that polling methods have changed in the last 60 years, but certainly an interesting turn of events.
2. In trying to answer some of the questions I posed in my last post on polls I came across this study. It isn't very recent (published 1993) but it uses the 1988 election as a case study. Dukakis led Bush in the polls by 17 points in the early stages of the general election. We all know what the outcome of that was. Bush was able to change the public's initial perceptions of Dukakis with the Willie Horton and other ads. I would like to concentrate on this conclusion the article makes:

"Finally, journalists should realize that they can report the polls all they want, and continue to make incorrect causal inferences about them, but they are not helping to predict or even influence the election. Journalists play a critical role in enabling voters to make decisions based on the equivalent of explicitly enlightened preferences. Unfortunately, by focusing more on the polls and meaningless campaign events, the media are spending more and more time on 'news' that has less and less of an effect."

I think this statement can be applied narrowly to just the early polls (say just after the conventions and before). The current election and the 1988 one support that polls at this time are not accurate indicators of the outcome and that the general campaiging does matter. We sometimes hear people talking about how people have already made up there minds long before we get to the election, but if polls are any indicator, that is not the case. So, I don't think this conclusion can be applied at all points in the general campaign.

Dancing with the Stars

A blogger on the LA Times included this, clearly as a joke, saying Palin and Obama "join in unusual bipartisan moves." I think that images like this can be useful for us. At a time when there is so much to be concerned about and so much at stake for Americans, it is human nature to want to have a few laughs in the midst of grave reality. I don't think it undermines the seriousness of the issues we face, I think it makes them easier for us to face. I hope you all get a laugh out of this. Thank god for photoshop.

FYI

I wanted to find out more about how polls are conducted and came across this site. I think it does a fairly good job of explaining some of the criteria polls have to adhere to and answers FAQ. This is another one that was helpful.

Polls

So we have all heard that Obama has pulled ahead by 9 points in the latest polls. As I was reading this article about it, a few questions came to mind. I'm not sure who might be able to answer some of these, but I'll throw them out anyway.

• This particular poll interviewed just over 1500 people, not all of whom were even registered and even less who were "deemed likely to vote." Clearly the idea is that these people are random and somehow representative of the population as a whole. I am curious to the logistics of this. How are these people chosen and contacted? I would just like to know more about the process.
• In past elections how accurate have polls at this point (3 weeks out) been in predicting the actual outcome?
• Have their been times when one candidate had a substantial (or comparable to Obama) lead 3 weeks out and lost?

I am going to see if I can find some answers to those questions so I'll keep you updated.

Facebook in the Election

I know it has been mentioned in some capacity on at least one other person's blog, and I think Facebook and other social networking sites offers an interesting dynamic to the campaign. It is yet another place where supporters (and critics) can publish their thoughts/ideas/obsessions about candidates. Important issues in the election show up in the various political groups out there. This group is called "That One 08." You can buy t-shirts and stickers that publicize the statement McCain made, perhaps as a dig at Obama, to support Obama. i think this is a great example of controling something and using it for your own purposes because this was certainly not the intent McCain had when he referred to Obama is "that one" if he had any intent at all.

So as to be fair and balanced, I did a facebook search for a McCain group. I was unable to find one that was premised on anything Obama had said/done, but there were many groups for his supporters to join. I randomly picked one to check out. One thing noticeable here I didn't see on most Obama pages, was the other candidates supporters writing messages bashing McCain. I think that is a positive thing for young voters. They have a place to interact with their peers and express their ideas about the candidates. Our generation has been criticized for being apathetic and uninvolved and maybe this will be a way they can change that through an all too familiar medium.

It seems Clinton and Palin are being compared time and again. This video from cnn.com looks at both sides and asks women why they support who they do (Clinton or Palin). The conclusion I draw from this particular piece is that for some, just being a woman certainly doesn't earn you the female vote. But being a politician, wife, and mother and exuding femininity while doing it is something that (some) women respect.



Similiarly, being black, doesn't automatically earn Obama the black vote.

SNL

I am sure everyone has heard by now that SNL is doing live updates starting tonight for a total of 6 live shows in the next 4 weeks. I guess there is more material then they can keep up with in a weekly show. They have recently come under criticism for "having a secret political agenda." It seems people are confusing Saturday Night Live with Saturday Night News. The show does not claim to present any facts or news, it is comedy, it is entertainment. The executive producer, Lorne Michaels is "amused by the influence attributed to the late-night variety show." My question is the criticism really a result of people thinking it sways voters, or are people (certain candidates) just upset because it makes them look bad? I would tend toward the latter.

The candidates who are being spoofed are essentially handing the material to SNL writers, so much so that some people have said it writes itself. The show then adds its own "spin" if you will, no differently than a real news program. If you are a public figure, political or otherwise, you are bound to be the butt of a couple jokes.

#2

As I was watching the debate last night, I was annoyed by the bickering over time and who talked longer that was part of the "town hall" format. And apparently so were others . I understand that there have to be constraints to make the debate fair and relatively civil. What got to me is the candidates constantly wanted to respond, had things to say as rebuttal or clarification and the format was not conducive to that. Everytime Brokaw had to intervene I felt like there was something I was missing that I wanted to or needed to hear. John Dickerson had this to say about it on Slate :

Town halls are supposed to be freewheeling and probing. This format was dull, and the constant ankle-biting between the candidates compounded the problem.

Most coverage agrees that neither shined, and while Obama seems to have edged out McCain, there was no clear winner.

The Power of Suggestion

I receive an email everyday from the LA Times that is a Campaign Briefing. It gives me the major news stories from their paper and a brief, 2 line synopsis. The synopsis for this article brought a question to mind immediately. It read "McCain intensifies his attack on Obama's past and character, and Obama returns the favor. The tactics may not resonate with voters in a time of crisis." While I don't think this is anything radical or unexpected, it had me asking, what impact does the media suggesting that this strategy won't resonate with voters have on how voters receive the article? I think it immediately plants a seed in teh readers mind adn sets up an expectation. While this may be of small consequence in this particular case, I think it happens often.

Who's behind it all?

We have all seen movies like The American President that show the interactions between the president and his closest advisors. There are often disagreements, advice from one side on what to do, and a disregard of the advice from teh president. I have often wondered what this relationship looks like in reality. Who is actually making the tactical decisions and directing the campaign (or administartion)? The LA Times gave readers a glimpse of the man behind the scenes for John McCain. It raises some questions as to who is responsible for certain choices (for example "Schmidt pressed McCain to pluck the Alaska governor from obscurity.Other than the candidates, no one in the operation has more riding on that decision than Schmidt. " "Under Schmidt, the campaign is a tightly run operation. Previously, McCain allowed reporters almost unfettered access. Under Schmidt, the candidate went 40 days without a news conference.") My next question is, even if the ideas don't belong to the candidate, should they still take sole responsibility? I think so.

While looking for additional info on Schmidt, I cam across a website called Source Watch. At first glance, it looks a lot like Wikipedia. It is "A project for the Center for Media and Democracy" and its tagline is "Your source for the names behind the news." An interesting resource.

Anticipation and Disappointment

So we all know the VP debate was highly anticipated because most people expected Palin to fall on her face. It was being called "politically pivotal." But that was before it happened. Following the debate it was almost a disappointment for some because it was relatively anticlimactic compared to predictions. It seems that it didn't deliver in either or these categories, the general consensus being now that it won't have too much impact on the election, having only "stopped the bleeding" for the McCain-Palin ticket (a phrase used by many in the media) and presented an even-keeled Biden who made jokes about his reputation.

The dynamic between the hyped up anticipation, record setting audience (for VP debates), and relatively blase result interests me. It seems the media controlled much of this and certainly played a role in shaping ideas about it and then were disappointed with the result. I almost felt like people wanted her to fall on her face because it would make a good story and give them something to talk about. There is something disconcerting about that.

Anne Kilkenny

Anne Kilkenny has garnered a lot of attention for this email about Sarah Palin she sent to 40 of her friends. Now she is the feature of an article in the LA Times, was interviewed for an article in the NY Times, was able to post her letter on Huffington Post's site, and the list goes on. This is a really good example of how far and how fast information can travel these days. It also defies the top-down hierarchy we talked about in class. Her email was passed on and forwarded to thousands which eventually got the attention of the mainstream press. I may be careful what I say in mass emails from now on. But it was a story circulating through emails, making it to facebook and other blogs first. I know I received it shortly after the convention.

What also interested me about this story is the concept of credibility. Kilkenny is not a member of the press and does not have connections with either campaign. She is an average Alaskan who happens to have direct experience with Palin as a politician. She claims she doesn't necessarily have an agenda, but she thinks voters have a right, even an obligation, to be informed about the candidates. She was willing to be that informant. Of course she has her supposrters and her critics , but the press seems to be taking her seriously. My question is what makes her credible? The fact that she dealt with Palin's politics in Wasilla? The fact that her story has made it into major new sources? When I received the email, i read through some of it but mostly disregarded it as some disgruntled person ranting and exaggerating a "version" of the truth. Having seen her story in the papers and having the context I think I would take it differently now.