Campaign Ad Tactics

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Advertisements
(sorry couldn't imbed. Fast link to the video)

We see 2 campaign ads here from back in 2008. John McCain and Barack Obama.

McCain makes you feel like it’s the end of the world and he’s ready to change everything around for us . His tone is very serene and calm in convincing way. “lets fight for America.” It’s almost a bit scary how much acting is taking place in this small clip as he tries to convince people that he’s the one that should be elected. It’s far too outdone.

On the other hand, Obama’s Campaign Ad shows McCains flaws and how he is “the same as Bush” with a voiceover going through minor facts that prove that point. Interesting, to say the least.

Campaign ads: Change

According to Julian Kanter the basic subject material of ads have changed. Beforehand when we first had television advertising, like during the Lyndon Johnson campaigns, they focused specifically on issues and candidates addressed issue positions but in 1964, all of that changed. They show clips from campaign ads dating back from 1950.

Campaign advertising: Ron Paul

Jonathan Martin from Politico, says that Ron paul has been, undoubtedly, one of the most consistent candidates,over all but he has also been trying to become more mainstream like the other candidates. Martin has many problems within his campaign and one of them is that unfortunately he has a ceiling an isn’t part of the parties main stream. Martin brings up the question of if this campaign had included Ran Paul (Ron Pauls son), instead of Ron Paul who is considerably older. Other things that make a huge difference in a candidates campaign is airtime and presence. Other candidates he states get move airtime on television because of the money behind them. During debates, we see that Ron Paul looks more tired than other candidates and that plays a big role as well.

Oh no, Mitt Romney

Apparently Mitt Romney is not as big of a hit as the polls show. On a news analysis written by Jeremy W. Peters of the New York Times, he writes, " THE WALL STREET JOURNAL editorial page, that irascible voice of high-minded conservatism, has taken a rather dim view of Mitt Romney. “It’s hard to discern any core beliefs beyond faith in his own managerial expertise,” it wrote in September.

The columnist George F. Will has disparaged Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, as a “recidivist reviser of his principles,” so uninspiring to his party that he might become the Republican version of Michael S. Dukakis. Erick Erickson, who writes for Red State, a blog closely followed in conservative circles, has said that choosing Mr. Romney as the Republican presidential nominee would spell disaster: “Conservatism dies and Barack Obama wins.”

Here's some background info on Michael S. Dukakis, just in case you are not familiar. Dukakis served as the 65th and 67th Governor of Massachusetts from 1975–1979 and from 1983–199. He was also a democratic presidential candidate in 1988. Now that we got that covered, it's important to know that he was refused renomination by his own party! He won his election by promising reform but took that back once he was put into office. This is where columnist George F. Will draw ties to Dukakis and Romney. Romney is seen as just that. An unpromising candidate that in no way shape or form deserves to be elected. 

Peters writes, More recently, conservative news media have provided ample, initially positive, coverage to a succession of candidates with a shot at upsetting the Romney bandwagon, however short-lived those chances proved to be. There was Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, then Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, then the businessman Herman Cain.

So what exactly is helping Romney get such high ranks in the polls? WEll for one, i think it has a lot to do with the fact that he's been laying pretty low and the media has been focusing on all the ridiculousness of the other candidates. For example, Cain's sex accusations, Perry's "memory loss" AKA his numerous excuses that he makes, Bachmann- well, yeah enough said there.etc… The bad publicity that is derived from these candidates is making a guy like Romney look good. Lucky guy, eh? Fortunately though, there are those out there that are able to see how Romney is making his way to the top, and really it has nothing to do with his credentials. It's more about the right timing and how he portrays himself. 

We see that the conservative media isn't really on Romney's side, although he has tried very hard to win them over. Usually the media has a great impact on the how America votes but it doesn't seem to be making a dent. Peters writes, "And if you read, watch or listen to news media that draw large conservative audiences, it is not hard to discern a reason: a recurrent “anybody but Mitt” drumbeat from right-leaning pundits and media outlets that are responding to and feeding a conservative disaffection with him."

Peters gives us great details and facts about conservative radio and according to him, Conservative radio is home to some of the most wary Romney skeptics like Mr. Limbaugh and Mark Levin, taps a particularly large pool of potential Republican voters. An average of 15 million people hear Mr. Limbaugh’s program each week; about 14 million tune into Mr. Hannity’s radio program. Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and Mr. Levin draw around nine million each.

Romney has had plenty of interviews with conservative radio hosts like Laura Ingraham, Bill Bennett, Greta Van Susteren, Mr. O'Reilly, just to name a few. Somehow he's making it out alive, regardless of their discerning opinions about him. What does that mean for the Republican party? Well, they may have to give the republican vote to him. Let's see what happens. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/sunday-review/can-conservative-media-stop-mitt-romney.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Healthcare issues

Most New Yorkers, i would assume, would agree with Obama's plans to have health insurance plans cover contraceptives and sterilization, but religious officials don't seem to be on the same page. This mandate was recommended by The National Acadamy of Sciences and Obama decided to put it into place. I say, good thinking, Obama ! what exactly does this law entail? Well, The 2010 health care law says insurers must cover “preventive health services” and cannot charge for them. On Aug. 1, Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services issued rules that require health plans to cover contraceptive drugs and devices and sterilization procedures, among other services.

In order to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases amongst other things, I think it's important that the people have access to it in an unlimited quantity so that way there is less room for excuses. There are other arguments to this though, and they come in the form of religious matters. There have been a great amount of protest by religious- affiliated groups such as Churches, charities, school, universities, etc concerning the exemption to the plans. this is infuriating democrats in congress for the main reason that they came such a long way in trying to do what they see as something "positive" for the people, only to get shut down.

Apparently there have been exemptions that have been put into place because of the concerns brought to the attention of Congress, but it doesn't seem to be substantial enough to make a difference. Robert Pear of the New York Times writes Churches may already qualify for an exemption. The proposal being weighed by the White House would expand the exemption to many universities, hospitals, clinics and other entities associated with religious organizations. The rules already include an exemption for certain “religious employers,” but the exemption is so narrow that some church groups say it is almost meaningless. A religious employer cannot qualify for the exemption if it employs or serves large numbers of people of a different faith, as many Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies do.

House members wrote to Obama urgingg him to keep the exemptions as is because of the risks he would be taking in preventing millions of women in need from contraceptives. Pear writes that Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the broad exemption was “an outrageous idea.” And Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said: “There is not a scintilla of legislative direction in the statute that requires the broadened exemption the administration is contemplating. This change would be a reversal of the progress made in favor of reproductive rights when President Obama took office.”

It's apparent that many want to keep the law as is, but in Meeting with Obama and the Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, it was evident that he wasn't very enthusiastic about this law and expressed his concerns towards it. Pears writes that, in a letter to the administration, the bishops’ conference said the requirement for coverage of contraceptives and sterilization was “an unprecedented attack on religious liberty.” Moreover, the bishops said, “the exemption is directly at odds with the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Jesus teaches concern and assistance for those in need, regardless of faith differences.”Obama is being very cooperative with religious leaders and trying to understands their views and do the best he can to accommodate their needs. well, it might just play a role in his reelection, smart guy. 

The points made by religious groups are valid based on religious beliefs and deserve to be credited as so, but it's important to realize that in this day and age people use contraceptives and are in great need of them. The world is evolving and I personally think it's important to put aside some of the religious factors that play into such laws. The bible was written long ago and a world like ours wasn't foreseen. Hmmm, does anyone else see a connection to constitution and the fact that our founding fathers weren't able to foresee the advancement of our people today, which means that for our sake we can't take into account every single word written and a few changes need to be made. Just some food for thought. We can agree to disagree or just agree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/us/politics/democrats-urge-obama-to-defend-birth-control-rules.html?ref=politics

Citizens' Debate Commission

Mr. Farah is the author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates. He states that the Commission on Presidential debates is created by democratic parties for the republican democratic parties. It is co chaired by a democrat and Republican. Contributions made are considered bi-partisan contributions and it is not fair to third party members. He states that the CPD exists exclusively to award control of the presidential debates to the nominees of the republican and democratic parties at the expense of voter education. Rather than being able to watch actual debates, voters are subject to a series of glorified bi-partisan press conferences. His solution ? - Th Citizens' Debate Commission

Spin room action

This is coverage from the "spin-room" after the 5th republican presidential debate in Tampa,Florida. Charles, a reporter from Politico talks a little bit about Backmann, Perry and Cain. He states Backmann didn't win the crowd over like people expected her. He states that there was a bar in which was already set and it didn't seem as though she had actually met that bar. Although this is true, he states that her presence was great. He discusses the jobs program amongst the candidates. He goes into Romney and Perry's debate over job creation, and their back and forth shenanigans about which has had better success in their states.

medicare/medicaid

medi

Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich debate over the topic of the growth of medicaid. Both candidates seem to agree that the federal government is a bad administrator for the medicare, medicaid, and social security system. Both also seem to agree that the medicaid and medicare system can't be reshuffles but need to be restructured. Cain gives some interesting facts about long term projections and firmly states that long term projection costs are never correct.

Cain = humorous

Want to hear something hilarious? Philip Rucker of the Washington post reported a few words that came from Herman Cain, early thursday morning in good ol' Michigan. 

“How do you beat Obama? Beat him with a Cain!” Cain quipped to a table of supporters at the Big Sky Diner here. When reporters pressed him on what exactly he was suggesting with his remark, Cain said: “Cain. Herman Cain. C-A-I-N. Do I have to connect all the dots for you?”

Thank you for another one of your quirky remarks Herman. As if all your other remarks weren't enough, you come along with these cheesy pick up line. I have to admit though, it is funny. Getting back to some serious stuff, can you believe he's still running after all of what he's said? Every time he says something some of us think ok this is it for Cain, but nope, he keeps on coming back. 

Although Cain tried to sway away his assault allegations, he stood in front of what we call a "tea party" crowd in Michigan and tried to make himself the victim. “I’m gonna be the president of the people and not of the politicians because, as you can tell, they’re starting to come after me,” Cain said. “They’re starting to attack me any and every way they can. Since they can’t kill the ideas, they’re trying to attack my integrity and my character. But the American people are not buying that. They are sick of gutter politics.”What is he expecting though? a sunny stroll down central park? Things like this are expected because every candidate is in it to win it. 

The crowed cheered him on as he arrived on his campaign bus… and wait… guess what they were chanting? His "I am America" theme song from his campaign video. I'm not sure if everyone has seen that yet, but it's a must watch. His chief of staff is featured smoking a cigarette as if it's the "cool" thing to do here in America, and Cain, well, he's just a whole other story. It's almost one of those videos that you can't explain and you have to see on your own and if you don't, well you're missing out, that's for sure. 

Anyway, back to Michigan, comment's like "a REAL black man" were made and it made me furious because what is that supposed to mean? Obama wasn't black enough? What does that even mean? It's upsetting to read this ridiculousness because it shouldn't be the color of a candidates skin that we look at, but more of what they can bring to the table as president. After all, does skin color have an effect on a presidents duties? This is none-sense and shouldn't be tolerated. It shouldn't have to be a black or white thing. 

It's interesting to find that people aren't worried about the assault allegations that have been brought against him. One man said, “It could be true, but people are trying to regulate human nature,” said Steve Lambert, 61, a scrap metal worker from Ypsilanti. “The woman said he made a move on him, she told him to stop and he did. What’s the problem?”

Another woman commented and stated her opinion as well: Cathy Upton, a 60-year-old physician from nearby Ann Arbor, said: “The mainstream media’s trying to distract us. I’d like to believe him. I assume he’s telling the truth.”

In my opinion, Both of these people are right. I have to greatly agree with Cathy because things like this are brought up so that a game of "survival of the fittest" comes into play. Cain isn't willing to crack under pressure and he's doing the best he can. His remarks are always to the point and sharp, humorous as well, if I might add. 

Cain also address his 9-9-9 plan, but as always never giving a direct answer to the questions asked about this plan, because apparently he's not even too sure for himself. “We are the only one that has put a bold solution on the table,” Cain said. “They keep shooting at it, they keep criticizing it and they can’t kill it, and the reason they can’t kill it is because the people own ‘9-9-9’ – and they can’t shoot straight.”

I enjoy watching him and what he has to say because he aways says something that he probably shouldn't have said and he has to apologize for it. It's fun and it makes the debates a lot easier to watch. This ties into my last post about why so many Americans are watching the debates all of a sudden. Well, we have to give a large thanks to candidates like Cain because they always have something wrong to say. But has it become more about the drama within the debates more so than the politics? possibly. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/herman-cain-in-michigan-on-obama-beat-him-with-a-cain/2011/11/10/gIQAUsHy8M_blog.html

Watching the debates? why?

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/11/10/us/politics/100000001163335/the-caucus--debate-wrap-up.html

What's with the media coverage these days? Everything seems to be like another reality T.V show, whether it's MTV or Rick Perry and Mitt Romney arguing over which one is breaking their own immigration laws. Fortunately, we like what we see and it's keeps us watching. Thank God it's not as dry as some past debates … not calling anyone out (Kerry). How much have these debates helped the candidates on their presidential race? For some it has been a rugged ride that has left Americans turned off by their performance during the debates while for others, these debates have taken them through a more positive route that has America feeling like we're on their side. 

Michael D. Shear of the New York Times writes, "Gov. Rick Perry of Texas will have another chance to either prove he can recover from historic stumbles — including his nearly minute-long spell of forgetfulness on Wednesday — or cement his reputation as one of the worst presidential debaters. Jon M. Huntsman Jr., a former ambassador to China, could shine since the debate is intended to focus on foreign policy. And Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, gets another chance to do something other than criticize the news media for asking terrible questions."

What's important to note is the fact that we are so technologically advanced we can just turn on the t.v or go on the internet and watch debates being streamed live, in which we are capable of coming up with our own conclusions and judgement. Steve Schmidt (helped run Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008) is right when he draws a reference to American idol and how it has become almost like second nature and ingrained to our culture as Americans. Like in American idol we watch something and automatically have construct some sort of feedback or judgement on the basis of what was just watched. Schmidt says, "debates have grown in importance as Americans have become attached to reality television shows," and he's absolutely right. 

Luckily (or unluckily) for these presidential candidates, we are addicted to the media and anything that has to do with "reality t.v show". We enjoy the drama and expense that comes with the debates. Some of these candidates aren't the regular boring republicans we may be used to; they're all a bit spicy in their own way. Shear writes, It is also the case that the current crop of Republican candidates are not the typical collection of middle-age, somewhat boring governors or senators, said Ronald A. Klain, former chief of staff to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and who has served as a debate coach to numerous presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Many are genuine media personalities who know how to use the television camera to their advantage.

Representative Michele Bachmann gained national attention before her presidential bid from her television appearances. Herman Cain spent years as a radio talk show host and giving speeches — good preparation for the debate spotlight. Newt Gingrich made a post-Congressional career out of opining on television programs.

These candidates know what they're doing and it's no surprise nor mystery.  The candidates have also made a point to make each debate like a soap opera that you can't wait to tune into next week. There's always something to look forward to; “The up and down of all the non-Romney candidates have given people a reason to tune in to see who’s up and who’s down. Will Michele Bachmann do better? Will Mitt Romney and Rick Perry fight? Can Mr. Perry bounce back? Will Mr. Cain get “The Question”? Tune in next time!"

Is this the only way to keep America watching like they're doing now? Well, it seems so, and it's not such a bad idea. Apparently there are plenty of democrats who wouldn't have necessarily watched republican debates that have tuned in. Why? Because everyone is talking about them, plus there's nothing better on t.v. We know that these candidates are trying to put on a show to keep our interest but how far do you think they will go to keep our attention … because remember, we have pretty small attention spans. Just kidding … but i'm serious about that when it comes to myself.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/us/politics/taste-for-reality-tv-seen-in-popularity-of-debates.html?ref=politics

Network of support

Mitt Romney is seemingly out to charm everyone. Apparently, Romney has been out on the loose, showing up to numerous luncheons, lending his name to plenty of fund-raisers and he’s even been spotted giving money to rank and file candidates around the country.  His game plan is working well because networking is key and he’s definitely on top of his game as far as that goes.

Nicholas Confessore and Ashley Parker of the New York Times write, The New Hampshire Seacoast Republican Women’s Annual Chili Fest? He was there. The Lake County Federation Dinner in Illinois? He delivered the keynote address.  He has slung barbecue at the grand opening of a suburban Las Vegas campaign office and has handed out tens of thousands of dollars to Republicans running for the legislature and other offices. He seems to know what he’s doing as far as getting his name out goes. He wants people to know who he is, and he wants to make a good impression every time. Can you blame the guy?

Tom Schweich, a law professor who jumped into the Missouri Primary last year, still raves about the fact that Mitt Romney agreed/ volunteered to headline his Fund-raiser in St. Louis. Reading this, you would think Romney and Schweich go way back and have been buds for a long time now, but that just isn’t the case. Romeny has never even met this guy, but he made it his business to show his face and get himself out there however he can.

On the other hand, people like Schweich feel more than delighted to have a presidential candidate volunteer to do such a thing. “How more honored could you be that a potential president would come and do an event for a state auditor dinner?” said Mr. Schweich, who raised half a million dollars that day.

Nicholas and Ashley write, Now, as Mr. Romney seeks to solidify the perception that he is the preferred candidate of the Republican establishment, many of his beneficiaries are returning the favor, providing endorsements — more than 1,000 of them, far more than for anyone else — ground troops and other help in the states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina that will make or break his campaign.

Curtis M. Loftis Jr., a first-term South Carolina state treasurer and a Tea Party favorite, has campaigned with Mr. Romney, and Mr. Romney showed up for his big fund-raiser last month.

“He was supposed to come for an hour, but he showed up early and stayed late, and I dragged him to meet everyone who was there,” Mr. Loftis said. “We had pictures, we had hugs, we had conversations.”

It’s evident That Romney is trying hard to win over America little by little and he’s apparently got the money to prove it because he’s been raising quite a good amount; but also giving out money as well. In July 2010, a Romney PAC sent a $1,000 check to Georgia’s secretary of state, Karen Handel, the day after she came in first in the Republican primary for governor. That September, a few weeks after Ms. Handel lost a runoff to Nathan Deal, Mr. Romney sent another $1,000 — this time to Mr. Deal. That’s just too bad I guess. If he has waited a while, he would’ve saved $1,000 but I guess Romney isn’t willing to take that chance

I like what he’s doing and support his game plan because that’s what it’s about, getting out there with the people and making yourself available for others. In my opinion, he’s doing just that.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/us/politics/mitt-romney-campaigns-tirelessly-and-not-just-for-himself.html?ref=politics

Will Obama get a next term ?

Fact: When looking at the last eight elected presidents, all but two (George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter) got a second term. When considering this, we can conclude that Obama’s chances of getting reelected are higher than his chances of not getting reelected. His approval rating are in the 40’s so it’s hard to say. Nate Silverman of the New York Times analyzes previous presidents and what America thought about them right before reelection. It becomes clear that, it’s not always black and white. Who we might think will win, won’t necessarily do even close to as well as expected.

Obama has had some criticism over the debt ceiling debates, which were said to have “crystalize his vulnerabilities”, which in turn frustrated swing voters as well as annoyed his base, but most importantly, mark the major policy victory for the republicans. Shortly after the debate, Obama’s stock on Intrade, a popular betting market fell below 50% and has remained in the high 40% range ever since. This has undoubtedly made Obama a bit of the underdog.

He also has a jewish, Hispanic, working class white- problem, and somewhat an African- American problem. His standing amongst Jews has declined, with a 54% approval rating amongst them. His African American approval rate declined from 90% to 80%. His problems don’t end with races, but extend to his problem in Ohio, Florida, and New Hampshire.

Nate Silver of the New York times writes, Nevertheless, this is an unusual circumstance. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes all looked like the favorite to win a year in advance of their re-election battles, either having strong approval ratings or good-enough ones accompanied by robust economic numbers. When we look at the last eight elected presidents, only Carter faced a situation worse than Obama’s: approval ratings in the low 30s rather than low 40s, the likelihood rather than the mere possibility of a recession, a primary challenge rather than a clear path to renomination and a crisis in Iran rather than a string of foreign-policy victories.

The other seven had stronger fundamentals heading into the election year. This includes the elder Bush, who lost despite an extremely high approval rating and a disarrayed Democratic field (Mario Cuomo and others skipped the race at a time when Bush appeared unbeatable). It also includes Reagan and Clinton, who had grave problems early in their terms but who saw their numbers tick upward at the very moment in their presidencies that Obama’s have continued to slide. None of this is news to the White House. Following the debt-ceiling debate, Obama’s strategists started comparing their boss with the original comeback kid, Harry Truman — an implicit concession that the president will most likely fight 2012 from behind.

Obama is undoubtedly having a few “problems” and Nate states that all of these, however, are symptoms of Obama’s larger problems, a set of three fundamental misgivings shared by much of the American electorate.

• First, many of us understand that Barack Obama inherited a terrible predicament. We have a degree of sympathy for the man. But we have concerns, which have been growing over time, about whether he’s up to the job.

• Second, most of us are gravely concerned about the economy. We’re not certain what should be done about it, but we’re frustrated.

• Third, enough of us are prepared to vote against Obama that he could easily lose. It doesn’t mean we will, but we might if the Republican represents a credible alternative and fits within the broad political mainstream.

Each of these factors, in turn, can be quantified.

• The first factor, Americans’ performance reviews of Obama, can be measured through his approval ratings.

• The second factor, economic performance, can be measured through statistics like G.D.P.

• The third factor — essentially, the ideological positioning of the Republican candidate — is sometimes thought of as an “intangible.” But it can be measured too, and it matters a great deal.

Shift in media

Susan Drucker states that the media has changed increasingly and students for instance are looking elsewhere besides the newspaper for news and coverage. She says people go on Youtube to watch debates. Some watch live debates then go back to it when its not live and dissect it, because we demand that kind of interactivity.

C-span's social media sites

Howard Mortman talks about using facebook and twitter to educate the audience about what members of senate and congress are saying. C-span uses these sites to help people go beyond the media filter. He stresses the importance of people commenting and CONTINUING a conversation. Another thing he talks about is watching live media and talking to people directly.

Social media

A 19 year old student, David Burnstein talks about the impact celebrities, television, and especially the internet have on the youth vote. He states that one of the biggest factors in the political process is the internet. It's been very important for fundraising and organizing. Social sites like myspace, youtube, twitter, facebook have made a huge connection point with the political process.