"Gotcha Journalism"

As we discuss in the classroom the idea of "gotcha journalism", we see that this does actually happen...or at least McCain and Palin seem to think so.

Pelosi's partisan appeal on bail out

Politics muddy the waters of an already chaotic situation. Whether she was right or wrong, the question for many is whether this was the right time for Pelosi to bring up the partisanship of the situation. Could her comments kill the possibility of passing anything meaningful?

The Economic Bubble - Close to Bursting

Years ago, during the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt helped issue in a bill that would steer America in the right direction.  The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, also known as the Banking Act of 1933, prohibited "commercial banks from engaging in the investment business."  This was a large step forward to repairing the economy of the U.S. as it created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, (FDIC), which insured deposits for individual accounts.  This provided the banks with credibility as well as the government.  The government in those days, was seen as a liberator from harsh times.  Although the act took several years to have a positive effect, we were privy to economic prosperity it afforded for quite a while.

In 1999, Republicans and other policy makers repealed the Glass-Steagall Act.  In its place went the new Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that deregulated the banking industry.  There were few that dissented when the vote came to call; North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan was one of them.  His comments at the time now make him seem as though he knew what the future would hold.  "I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930s is true in 2010."  Senator Dorgan was correct in his assumption and unfortunately his prediction came true earlier than expected.  

This past Saturday, Senator Dorgan took to the Senate floor pounding home the point in the midst of this latest economic meltdown.  Senator Dorgan talked about the collapse of Washington Mutual and the ramifications of a golden parachute.

"Well, as I said, last year the CEO of a company that went belly up last night made $14 million, and the replacement, working 3 weeks, will make $19 million.  What does $19 million equate to?  Well, I figured at $50,000 a year for an average salary in this country, it would take 382 years for a worker to earn what this man is going to get in severance payments and bonuses for a 3 week stint in a failed company.  Unbelievable.  Absolutely unbelievable.  But it is a hood ornament on a carnival of greed that has existed now for some while, unabated, in which people at the top have made massive quantities of money."

This culture of greed has brought about the collapse not only of Washington Mutual, but also that of other banks, most recently Wachovia, and this has been due in large part to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.  Banks are buying up high risk mortgages and selling them on the speculative market.  All too often these mortgages are backed up by no-doc or low-doc loans.  No-doc loans allows a borrow to provide no documentation of income and low-doc is for a low documentation of income.  Mortgage companies made it easy for people without the ability to pay for mortgages to get a loan for them.  Then, after maybe a 3 year grace period, they'd hit the borrower with a prepayment penalty, (so they couldn't pay on the loan,) and with a high interest rate that made it impossible for the borrower to pay back the loan.  Sadly, " in addition to 2 million people losing their homes, then we see the consequences of all these bad, toxic securities, mortgage-backed securities lying in the bowels of these big investment banks and regular banks as well, whose deposits are insured by the Federal Government." (Dorgan)

So what is the solution to this quagmire?  Senator Dorgan has expressed that several items need to be revised in our search for a solution.  Some accountability has to be taken by the Republicans who were in charge when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed because there was no framework in place to prevent anything like this happening.  Firewalls need to be replaced that once existed in the Glass-Steagall Act.  There needs to be a curbing of the "wildly excessive compensation" (Dorgan) for CEOs on Wall Street.  The figures that people earn in bonuses is staggering.  The regulation of "speculative investments by hedge funds and investment banks" also needs to be in place.  For that to take place, special interest groups in Washington, lobbyists, need to be shown their place because they have a vested interest in the future of their companies.  The lobbyist's influence on Congress is just as toxic as the speculative investments Wall Street has been making.

Currently, the House of Representatives is hammering out the details of this bail-out plan in which the government will buy these toxic mortgages at a low dollar value.  They hope to turn it into capital gains after the economy picks up the slack later on.  The economy will bounce back, but how strong?  Couldn't what the government involved in be called speculation, the same as what those investors on Wall Street are so ardently blamed for?  Essentially the bail-out plan calls for 250 billion dollars up front to address the need, and then a gradual filtering in of monies to total 700 billion dollars.

At the time of the blog, the U.S. House of Representatives failed to pass the legislation.  

So how does all of this affect the current race for President?  The Republicans were the policy makers at the time that the deregulation of the Glass-Steagall Act occurred.  Overall, the shaky ground of the economy has been blamed on the Republicans.  Eight years of fiscal irresponsibility has chided a great many voters who see our economic outlook as a direct result of policies and procedures that the Republican party has perpetuated.  That is not to say that al the Democrats are innocent.  The Democrats have had their hands dirty in this as well and it takes a majority, not a minority, for a bill to pass.  But the Democrats are not seen as the ones who've been in charge.  The Democratic Party is the one selling itself to the public on the basis of Obama's call for change on the beltway.  Both candidates agree that change is necessary.  Either candidate that wins the race will have on his desk a mountain of responsibility to set right our economy, and face a task so monumental that it hasn't been seen since FDR's Presidency.

With the Bailout plan rejected by the U.S. House of Representatives, the future is even more uncertain and the stock market has plummeted.  How this will play out for either party is anyone's guess, but it does seem to work in the Democrat's favor.

Why So Short? An Analysis of President Bush's Endorsement of John McCain at the RNC

Without directly saying it, Senator John McCain has tried to disassociate himself, as a candidate from President George W. Bush and his administration. The past eight years have left American citizens confused and disappointed. President Bush’s approval ratings have reached an all time low. Senator John McCain has used this situation to advance his standing in the election. While many Americans have become turned off with Bush’s policies and governing tactics, it is not the Republican platform they have lost faith in, but the current man representing the Republican ideology. Senator John McCain’s campaigning strategies have consisted of setting himself apart from President Bush by stating his ability to handle policy and party ideology in a more responsible way. His forums and media appearances tell a tale of good politics in the Republican Party that have been misused. By using this tactic McCain has expressed and idea that American’s should not loose faith in the party’s politics but the man running the politics. My taking this approach he is giving voters to maintain their loyalty to the Republican Party.
Clearly President Bush and Senator John McCain have had discussions about the best strategy to get McCain elected into office. McCain has individually attempted to separate himself from Bush and his presidency but the media has also played a role in the presence of President Bush since this election cycle began. Since the beginning of the 2008 election cycle there have been fewer appearances in the media of President Bush and those appearances have been shorter and far more controlled. There could be hundreds of theories about why this is so, but I believe the McCain campaign and the Bush administration have strategically worked together to highly control Bush’s rhetoric and endorsements of John McCain for President.
For example, let’s discuss and analyze President Bush’s address at the Republican National Convention. The presence of Hurricane Gustav prevented Bush from appearing in St. Paul, which in my opinion actually benefited John McCain. The mere presence of Bush at the Convention could have given McCain too much connection to the failed administration. It was clear that Bush’s endorsement of John McCain for President needed to emphasize his individuality and uniqueness to the Republican Party. Bush’s goal was to disassociate McCain from the typical party divisions and address his ability and willingness to cross party lines, something the Bush administration has not been concerned with over the last eight years.
Polls show that Laura Bush’s approval ratings are higher than her husband’s. The Republican Party’s base maintains their loyalty to the Bush administration but the independents and moderates are weary of voting for a candidate that has close similarities to President Bush. Therefore Bush’s speech needed to divert attention away from himself and onto the future candidate that can truly unite the party. Laura Bush’s introduction to the President was highly controlled and she only addressed the positive outcomes from his administration. Voters usually notice the negatives more than the positives. Laura’s goal was to communicate to the audience that advancements in American culture did happen under her husband’s presidency, and then associate those positive policies with McCain’s capability to do the same in the future.
One of the biggest shockers of the 2008 Republican National Convention was how short President Bush’s endorsement of John McCain was. Did the McCain campaign purposefully allocate a limited about of time for Bush to speak because they don’t what to emphasis the magnitude of their relationship? Or was it the Bush administration that chose to limit his message in time and rhetoric? Which ever option it may be President Bush’s speech used rhetoric that disaffiliated John McCain’s politics from his own. Obama’s campaign has been emphasizing change from the start of his candidacy, but after Bush’s endorsement at the RNC the public saw for the first time McCain’s capacity for change. Senator Obama’s won voters over by addressing the failed Republican policies and how change to a Democratic administration is the only resolution to the problem. President Bush’s rhetoric manipulated the idea of change to present McCain as the only candidate that has the capacity to save a failed system that evolved from his own party.
The theme of the evening was “Country First” which allowed Bush to discuss McCain’s military service as a prerequisite for the presidency. Bush used McCain’s maverick status to illustrate that he would not back down against the “angry left”. I believe this communication tactic served two purposes. First it alluded to the idea that McCain’s intent is to satisfy the majority of Americans and if it comes to him disagreeing with the current President, Bush, he wouldn’t think twice about doing that. Second it painted a picture of Democrats as being unwilling to cross party lines to work for the greater good. This appealed to moderates and independents because they want a leader that will put petty politics aside and get things done.
Ultimately I believe President Bush’s endorsement of Senator John McCain at the Republican National Convention strived to identify McCain as the only candidate that can stand up to political pressures. Bush briefly commented that when John McCain disagrees with a policy or path of action he will let you know. He alluded to the idea that McCain had stood up to him before when he disagreed wit Bush’s politics. This was a great communication tactic because it disproved the belief that John McCain follows suit with President Bush. Whether or not Bush’s endorsement speech achieved what it was supposed too, it’s interesting to analyze why the President’s appearance at the 2008 RNC was so short and controlled. The political strategists behind these speeches know exactly how to manipulate the audience, media, the candidate’s and the President in order to produce an outcome they desire.

The expectations game

The Obama campaign is working to lower expectations in typical fashion to set itself for victory in the vice presidential debate this Thursday, October 2.  Campaign manager David Plouffe told reporters Saturday that Governor Sarah Palin is "a terrific debater" and "a skilled speaker" who will compete well in Thursday's debate.  This tactic is meant to raise expectations for the opponent, Palin, thus encouraging a better impression of Biden's performance at the debate.  This move by the Obama campaign seems a little obvious, but it might be especially necessary to play up Palin's abilities.  If Biden is too aggressive toward her he could get zinged with a new load of sexist accusations from the McCain camp.

Yes? No? Maybe so?

Are they simply ignorant people who don’t follow the issues? Are they still ‘weighing their risks’? Are they waiting on the debating? Or Are their minds already made up? With only 39 days until the Presidential Election, the candidates are on a mad rush to gain support from undecided voters. These questions are all in reference to the logic of an undecided voter.

Are undecided voters simply ignorant people who don’t follow the issues?
Jonah Goldberg of The National Review followed the 2000 campaign and election season and voiced his opinions on the issue of undecided voters in an article called, “The Undeciding Factor.” Referring to these citizens and their indecision as a “scandal” Goldberg deemed them “America’s least-informed voters.” Through the word usage of his article it is clear that this author does not have a very high opinion of the “undecided.” However, Goldberg also references briefly why undecided voters are for the most part undecided—because they are searching for specifics. These voters are waiting to hear every last detail of each candidate’s position on the various issues of the election. Goldberg says that the campaigns and the media “treat the least engaged and least serious voters with the highest regard” (30). Goldberg believes that the average undecided voter is a “latecomer” (31) and spends the majority of the election season not paying attention to the campaigns and then has a hard time catching up. Goldberg makes it clear that he finds it ironic that our candidates end up basing their whole campaign on attracting undecided voters who are oblivious and unaware.

Are undecided voters still ‘weighing their risks’?
Alexis Simendinger quotes democratic pollster Mark Mellman in National Journal Magazine, “People are more worried about what they have to lose; what’s the greater risk?” (1). If people are still weighing their risks then what is it going to take to ease their mind and help them choose? Goldberg and Liz Sidoti from ABC News.com believe that there is a possibility that the voters are waiting on something specific.

Are undecided voters waiting on the debating?
Goldberg from The National Review, believes that the undecideds are waiting on debates supposedly to decide who to support but once again believes that this is simply an excuse for not following the news prior to the debates. Sidoti quotes undecided voter Peggy Cacia from Orlando, Florida, “‘I want to see what happens’ during a domestic policy debate next month to hear more about what Obama has to say on the economy” (2).

Are undecided voters minds already made up?
National Geographic News’ Stefan Lovgren says yes. Whether undecided voters think that they are undecided or not, national geographic reports: studies show that voters already know who their vote is going to because of “automatic mental associations” that the people have in their minds. The types of associations that people have may be any thing from “ethnicity” to “age” (1). Clearly, this means that due to the fact that people already have unconscious biases in their minds, they cannot help but lean one way or another in an election because of the candidates’ individual characteristics.

What causes undecided voters break and is it certain issues that make a difference?
Arguably, this years Presidential Elections most dominant and influential issue is the economy—is this the issue stance undecided voters are waiting to hear more details about, the economy? If this is true, each candidate will have to convince undecided voters that they have the best plan for America’s broken economy in order for these voters to break and decide. Liz Sidoti of says, “The key to unlocking the support of persuadable voters may be this: convincing them that one candidate alone has the ability to identify, understand and fix the country’s ills, especially the economy” (2).

What does Maverick mean to you?

When John McCain ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, nobody doubted his maverick identity.  He also lost to the charming George W. Bush.  When he began to campaign again for the presidential nomination for 2008, he learned from the past and began to embrace more mainstream Republican views.  He strove to distance himself from his old maverick reputation and began to present himself more as a compassionate conservative, like Bush had in 2000.  Now, he has managed to pull the maverick theme back into his campaign without alienating the conservative base.  He has transformed the image of a maverick into an appealing-to-Republicans image of reformer who will cut government spending.

The Maverick

In McCain's maverick days, he probably caused the most controversy among Republicans with regard to taxes.  In 1998, McCain angered Senate Republicans when he supported a tax on cigarettes.  Republicans and tobacco industry allies called the regulations bill the “McCain Tax.”  In 2001 only two Senate Republicans voted against Bush’s tax cuts, and John McCain was one of them.  A quote on the 2001 tax cuts sounds strangely similar to something Barack Obama would say today: "I'd like to see much more of this tax cut shared by working Americans… I think it still devotes too much of it to the wealthiest Americans."  Again, in 2003, he was opposed to the tax cuts. "Most of the economists view this as primarily benefiting wealthier Americans," McCain said on CNBC at the time. "There's a theory, I think, that's prevalent -- it was true in the 2001 tax cuts -- that if you give it to the wealthy people, then they will then, you know, create jobs, et cetera. The interesting thing to me is that most economists will tell you that it's the middle-income Americans that have been keeping the economy afloat."  These comments go against a prominent conservative belief that the wealthy will share their money and boost the economy.

During his 2000 campaign he also notoriously called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance.”  It was speculated that this was a strategic attempt to set himself apart from his opponent, incumbent George W. Bush. McCain’s other well-known maverick trait is his activism for campaign finance reform.  In 2001, he was co-author of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, BCRA, or McCain-Feingold.

What changed?

Since embarking on his presidential campaign in, McCain has reversed his position on the Bush tax cuts and supports making them permanent.  In 2006, he voted to extend the tax cuts.  In general he has begun to support tax policies more central to conservative beliefs that he formerly opposed.  He also gave the commencement speech at Falwell’s college, Liberty University, and spoke about forgiveness and respect for opponents, among other things, to try to heal any wounds left from his scathing remarks in 2000.  He has also distanced himself from seemingly drastic campaign finance reform activism that Republicans see as invasive, although ethics and lobbying reform is still a major part of his platform.

The Palin Effect

With the introduction of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee, a hard-line conservative who also claims the title of reformer, McCain has enabled a way to use his maverick identity without causing the old controversy among his supporters.  Top campaign advisor Charles Black said in August 2008 that the switch from maverick to conservative back to maverick was entirely planned.  “It was always going to have to be part of our campaign for the general election,” he said, although it is possible that the campaign simply realized that running as an experienced war hero was not working to pull far enough ahead of Barack Obama.  Palin was the perfect pick to allow that move.  Her rhetoric of reform at her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention provided the ideal introduction of McCain the new maverick.  She was effective because she introduced the theme of reform as limiting government by decreasing taxes and reducing spending, disassociating reform from what some conservatives see as McCain’s radical independent streak.  The choice of Sarah Palin, completely unconventional and unexpected, also played to McCain’s advantage.  It portrayed him as a maverick who doesn’t follow convention, but who also doesn’t stray from conservative ideals.

So why is McCain’s image as a maverick so important?  First of all, he needs to, and largely has, separated himself from George Bush.  McCain has been able to dodge some of Obama’s harshest criticisms that his election will be Bush’s third term by emphasizing his identity as a Republican maverick.  More than anything, though, is the importance of the independent vote in this close election.  A recent Gallup poll from September 8, 2008 showed McCain leading among independent voters.  According to the poll, 40% independent voters supported McCain before the Republican National Convention, and then 52% supported him after.  However, a more recent poll from Gallop shows that only 3% of his volunteers are voting for him because he can bring about change.  The bulk of his supporters are still more likely to cite his experience for their reasons for choosing him.  In order to win, McCain will have to court stout Republicans, as well as continue his appeal to independents.

Will the young vote actually make a difference in '08?

This election year it seems as though its all about the young vote, but will it actually make a difference? The 18-29 year old demographic is relatively small, however. According to the Slate, "To change the entire election, they'd have to be double their size," says Joe Trippi, Howard Dean's campaign manager in 2004. Although most of the "young vote" is said to support Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, it would still be difficult to tell if this specific demographic would actually make the difference to winning the race to the White House. 

Rock the Vote is one of the most well known nonpartisan campaigns that aims to encourage young and new voters to register and become more politically active. Their statistics say that the 18-29 year old demographic voted 103 percent more in the primaries and caucuses than in 2004. What an increase! Does this mean they will actually make it out on November 4th?

 A Rock the Vote poll says that 50 percent of young adults identified themselves as Democrats, whereas only 29 percent declared Republican. According to the Arizona Republic online, although the number of young adult registration has skyrocketed, young voters still have a relatively low participation rate compared to their elder counterparts. Therefore, if the youngsters sleep in on election day it could actually favor the Republican party. 

Young voters ages 18-20 are more likely swayed to the views of their parents and what others think about the election. Some news and political junkies, like ourselves, are researched and have an opinion. But this group has hardly figured out themselves, much less their thoughts on foreign policy and the economy. When the demographic hits the 21-29 phase, young adults are in their first jobs and actually seeing the tax cuts coming out of their pay checks - definitely a passionate reality check that will send them to the polls.  Other issues, however hit closer to home. According to the Tennessee Journal online, A Youth Vote Coalition survey says that the top three issues among voters are terrorism, the economy and crime. 

What about Sarah Palin? It seems as though McCain's VP selection "has energized the young Republican group, "according to Celinda Lake, a Democratic political strategist. Lake also said that a poll shows "they were more excited to elect the first female president than they were to elect the first Black president." Interesting. This, of course, came from Republicans, but since this is such a historical election it's a good point. Do young voters, the next generation of leaders, want to see a female vice president "a heart beat away from the presidency," or the first African-American president? We'll find out in 38 days!

So what have the candidates been doing differently to cater to their younger audiences? Social networks like Facebook and MySpace have become big media outlets. Obama has incorporated text messaging, making a point to announce his VP nominee, Joe Biden. Last summer, McCain held numerous YP4McCain events, which hosted young professionals cocktail hour-type fundraisers. YouTube has become a major player with the younsters as well. At both conventions there were numerous YouTube booths set up for anyone to voice their opinion about the elections. Also, this year for the first time both parties held a CNN-YouTube debates, in which users were able to submit a video and CNN aired the question and had the candidate answer it. I think this was a particularly smart move. Millions are on YouTube daily, in fact that is probably where most watch the debates because they are too busy to watch during air time. The fact that anyone could post a question from their home, gives a sense of true involvement with little effort. For those first-timers who are getting involved, CNN put together the League of First Time Voters. At the conventions, members were given t-shirts saying "you'll never forget your first time." In an online forum, league members can discuss and learn about current issues and how to register to vote. 

So, where does the celebrity endorsement factor into the young voters? With the Internet, YouTube and Entertainment TV covering the election, celebrity endorsements are popping out everywhere. The McCain camp has slammed Obama for his celebrity status, yet I think the young voters pay attention to this. If you think about it, an 18 year old is a senior in high school most likely favors celebrity opinion. Obama supporters include Oprah Winfery, Matt Damon, George Clooney, and Scarlet Johannson among others. For some, it makes a statement about Obama's character...for others, they're just entertainment endorsements. 

Polls show Obama is the favorite of the young vote, but when it comes down to it, will the rise in registrations make a difference? 38 days, and we'll find out.

The Bradley Effect, 2008

Over 26 years ago the Sunshine State made waves across the national landscape, rocking the racial boat. In 1982, Los Angeles Mayor, Tom Bradley, ran as the Democratic Party's candidate for California Governor. His opponent being Republican George Deukmejian. In policy these candidates aligned with their parties, but on screen their place on the political spectrum was not the only difference. Bradley is African American and Deukmejian a white American. Polls during the final days of the election indicated Bradley with the lead, even the exit polls predicted Bradley as the winner. When the dust settled, Bradley lost the race by over 50,000 votes.

The phenomenon of poll-takers saying that race does not effect their decision to choose a minority candidate, minority candidates in the lead during the final days of an election, and then the election outcome favoring the majority candidate is known as the Wilder Effect. But after the shocking results of the California election, Bradley's name was lovingly attached to this phenomenon for the next several decades.

The Bradley Effect has waxed and waned in sate and national elections since then.
During the 1990 Gubernatorial election in North Carolina, African-American Democratic candidate, Harvy Gantt, was leading his opponent, Republican Jesse Helms, by four to six points. After election night, Helms won by four points.
But in Tenessee's 2006 Senate race, Harold Ford Jr. ran against Bob Corker, the white candidate. In this case, the exit polls were in line with the pre-election polls. How white voters said they would vote before the election matched closely with the results of the election.
Race being a determining factor in any election is subject to several compounding factors, but the topic never seems to go away, as it shouldn't.

This cycle, the topic of the Bradley effect was hottest during the primaries when Clinton and Obama were vying for the Democratic nomination. In California, Obama had a significant lead over Clinton, but Clinton won by 9 striking percentage points (Clinton 52%, Obama 43%). A similar pattern occurred in the New Hampshire primary this year. Obama held the lead in polls by 13 points before the primary, but Clinton took New Hampshire with a narrow 39% to Obama's 37%. In contrast to these events, Obama took the lead in polls in Iowa as well as the caucus. This could be because Iowa hold caucuses while New Hampshire and California hold primaries. The difference is a public caucus, where community members can see for whom their neighbors vote, versus a private choice in a voting booth.

The Bradley Effect is widely attributed to the psychological desire of voters and poll-takers to appear unprejudice. During a public caucus, citizens are more careful to hide their prejudices by voting for minority candidates even if they privately do not support them. The same pattern occurs during polling. When poll-takers are asked whether or not the race of a candidate would effect their vote, the poll-takers say that it would not in order to avoid sounding racist. This is especially true if the pollster is a minority and the poll-taker is white.

In a nation-wide Gallup poll, 78 percent of black Americans said that Obama's race will not effect their vote, while 88 percent of white Americans say the same. It is counterintuitive that more white Americans would not let race influence their decision than black Americans. Then, poll-takers were asked a series of other questions about race. In particular, they were asked if Obama's race would give him more votes than it would lose him. 47 percent of white voters said that it would "make little difference." But 25 percent of white voters said that it would cost Obama more votes than would give him. Such a striking number of white voters said that their personal decision would not be influence by race, but 25 percent of white voters believe that other voters would not vote for him because of race. The results of this poll point curiously to the psychology of polling. It seems to indicate the typical paradigm that "I am not a racist, but everyone else is." Poll-takers are unlikely to admit their own prejudices so it is difficult to rely on polls to determine if race will truly play a role in the upcoming election.

Another poll from AP-Yahoo asked poll-takers quesitons about their perceptions of black Americans. With word-indicators such as "criminals" or "lazy" used by white Democrats, the poll states that many voters are still racist and this will effect their vote in the general election. However, it is easier to stereotype a group than an individual. We do not often consider our minority neighbors to be "one of them." Obama is an individual who has worked hard to make a common connection with all American regardless of race. This poll is not a good indicator that Obama's race will effect voters' decisions.

While some say that the Bradley Effect is a huge risk for Obama, others believe that the phenomenon is just a myth or that polling is too flawed regardless of race to determine if race will influence an election. Other factors muddle polling, not just race. These include the increased use of cell phones and new voters – which pollster cannot reach.

The national polls show Obama and McCain at very close margins. Several major issues in the U.S. right now indicate that if Obama were white, the race would not be so close today. With the economy in shambles, Bush's approval rates below 30 percent and a majority of Americans opposing our involvement in Iraq, McCain's party affiliation with the current administration, on whom the American public lays blame for these issues, should bring him father behind Obama.

When election day comes, even if Obama is in the lead in national and state polls, viewers and media must be cautious to trust the numbers. The true racial sentiments of voters will not be apparent until all the votes are counted.

Economic Crisis Shaping Camapaigns

It is obvious that the economy has become the number one issues of both the Obama and McCain campaigns. With President Bush proposing a $700 million bail-out for a failing Wall Street, both of the senators are being forced to take a firm stance on their own economic plans. They are also having to form strategies for dealing with this mess if they are elected president in the next four months. The economic issue could make or break either campaign.

On Wednesday, McCain announced that he would be postponing his campaigning in order to give his undivided attention to this crisis. He asked Senator Obama to join him in this suspension, including postponing the first scheduled Presidential Debate on Friday, September 26. The Washington Post reports Obama’s response to McCain’s idea as being somewhat of a challenge. "It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess," said Obama. "Part of the president's job is to deal with more than one thing at once."

However, the only way for voters to decide who they want in charge of this crisis and its aftermath is to compare the Obama and McCain strategies and look at how their campaigns are responding to the situation under increasing pressure.

Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama are struggling to deal with this economic crisis. The Seattle Times reports, “Both candidates are struggling with the fallout from a financial crisis that neither had foreseen. Obama conceded that as president he might be compelled to defer pieces of his $130-billion-a-year spending plan if the economy worsens. McCain has been forced to re-examine his long-held view that free-market solutions work best and is calling for tougher regulation.” Both campaigns are being forced to alter their previous economic strategies in order to incorporate a new plan for dealing with Wall Street failings. Both candidates have acknowledged that this problem will affect every American citizen; thus, any government action must keep in mind not only the interests of Wall Street, but of Main Street as well. Obama and McCain have also expressed their concern with President Bush’s current proposal, specifically the broad power it would give to the secretary of treasury. Both candidates are in favor of some sort of independent council or board that would oversee all aspects of the bailout. The candidates are also expressing great concern for tax payers and the possible harm this bailout could cause them, insisting that there must be some sort of protection built in to Bush’s proposal. Both McCain and Obama have also made statements that Wall Street executives should not be allowed excessive compensation as a result of the bailout.

Despite similarities, the campaigns still differ significantly in many aspects. The Seattle Times reports, “Obama said he would like to see an economic-stimulus package for families struggling to pay bills and stave off foreclosure. McCain, at a Dow Corning solar-panel factory in Freeland, Mich., made it clear he would not support such a stimulus package. ‘I don't think anything should be added to this legislation,’ he said. ‘This legislation should stand on its own.’ ” McCain also said he will seek ‘basic improvements’ to the legislation as it moves forward. The legislation, he said, needs a "path for taxpayers to recover the money." With an estimated price tag of approximately $10,000 for each American family, McCain said that "that money cannot simply go into a black hole of bad debt with no means of recovering any of the funds." However, even in the light of these campaign strategies taken by both Obama and McCain, they will still be pressed to make a definite decision on Bush’s proposal.

In President Bush’s address to the nation Wednesday night, he painted a dire picture of America’s financial and economic standing and called for action from congress. The Associated Press reports, “President Bush said Wednesday that lawmakers risk a cascade of wiped-out retirement savings, rising home foreclosures, lost jobs and closed businesses if they fail to act on a massive financial rescue plan.” The president was quoted as saying, “Our entire economy is in danger…Without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic and a distressing scenario would unfold." Bush delivered this message in a 12-minute prime-time address delivered from the White House East Room, hoping that his words would help rescue the highly contested bailout package. "Ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession…We must not let this happen,” said Bush. In response to this message, both Obama and McCain have made public statements as they prepare to head for Washington to meet with the president.

As reported by the Associated Press, McCain was quoted saying, “It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the administration's proposal," he said. "I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time." This sense of urgency accompanied McCain to the White House today as he met with House Republicans before heading into a meeting with both President Bush and Senator Obama. As reported by CNN, “McCain told ABC News on Thursday night that Republicans ‘have legit concerns. Some of those have already been satisfied, such as accountability and oversight board and CEO executive pay. Members are aware of the crisis situation that we are in.’ ” By the end of the meeting this evening, it seems that the final proposal is still up in the air.
So, how is this crisis affecting both campaigns? It seems that the American people are favoring Obama in terms of economic reform. The Washington Post reports, “in a new Washington Post/ABC News survey released on Wednesday, Obama led McCain 52 percent to 43 percent, an edge largely built on the increase in the number of voters who believe the Illinois senator is best positioned to handle the economic crisis. A survey also released Wednesday from Fox News/Opinion Dynamics showed Obama with a 45 percent to 39 percent lead -- a significant improvement from a poll done by the same organization earlier this month that put McCain ahead by three points.” Additionally, young voters are questioning where they stand in this crisis as well. Many young voters, especially those struggling to pay of student loans, know that this crisis is going to affect them in a major way. The Washington Wire reports that Obama is leading amongst younger voters as a new poll shows. “Obama leads John McCain, 56% to 29%, among 18 to 29 year-olds, according to a Rock the Vote poll, conducted with The Tarrance Group and Lake Research Partners.”

It seems that this crisis is going to define this election cycle whether the candidates like it or not. The question is, who will come out on top?

OSPD...

There has always been and will always be intrigue with American Culture. Politics is like Hollywood. Hollywood calls them paparazzi DC calls them the press poll. In essence, they are they same entity existing for the sole purpose of fulfilling the public’s need for scoop.

Americans want to feel in the loop. Our obsession with instant gratification has created a society that needs blackberry vacation services for executive travelers. Stop the madness…

I wholeheartedly admit that I am a part of this “need to know now” generation. When I feel helpless because my wireless connection isn’t working or I make a Law and Order-esque appeal to my dad for my need, as a 21-year-old college student, for a PDA or iPhone it infuriates me. What has created this monster inside of me? Helpless far from it! I am an intelligent young woman with nothing but the whole future looking at me and yet without the net I feel totally incapacitated.

People in politics, I have come to realize, are a different breed. I felt like an outsider at the Republican National Convention without a PDA. These politicos’ obsession for connection reaches past the point of health into the realm of utter absurdity. I recently sat next to a woman on a flight who what attempting to work off of three screens, a cell phone, blackberry and laptop. What is really that important?

Media’s metamorphosis over the last 30 years has completely altered how Presidential elections are run. Traditionally, individuals held pressers, town halls and meet ’n’ greets. They invited specified members of the press and called it a day. The advent and widespread accessibility of the Internet allowed for mass media globalization.

Spending last summer working abroad in London, taught me a lot about a global intrigue with the USA. Every morning I would pick up a paper and coffee from the same stand. I remember being shocked by the amount of coverage on America from Hollywood to politics. One particular morning the clerk asked me, “So you’re for Obama, right?” I was totally taken back, didn’t this man know you never talk about politics or religion?!?! Before answering the question I asked him why he though to ask me and he said, “You are an American and you are young isn’t backing Barack the ‘cool’ thing to do?” Ahh MTV politics…

It was not long after this first incident that I would find myself being regularly confronted with questions, comments and concerns pertaining to American politics. I guess with my blonde hair and blue eyes I must have looked the part or was it something more? Brits constantly chat on their mobile phones truth be know the underground is the only place that’s truly quiet most days. In an effort to try to assimilate to London culture I followed every perceived culture norm possible. One day when I was approached and asked a question about the United States presidential race, I asked him why he thought I was American. He answered, “Because you talk like George Bush.”

Until this trip, I was unaware of the magnitude of the US’s global superpower status. Fact is the commoners I met and shared political banter were in most cases better versed on the topics than my American friends. This is why it came as no surprise to me that many of my RSS feeds on the election came from international sources.

United Kingdom journalists have a knack for infusing some kind of humor to tie into editorial pieces. The majority of Bristish “news” could be considered editorial by American standards due to the obvious journalist slant or bias. As I glance over guardian.co.uk’s homepage, their commitment to following the race for America’s Commander in Chief is evident, the third tab option directs readers to “US Elections.” Although many in the UK consider this paper a “rag” – it is a free publication handed out during rush hour in the underground. It reaches an enormous audience providing the opportunity to be a highly effective news source. The international audience appears to adore Obama. One day, I counted his name over 50 times in one of the “light” London papers.

The Blogging Effect

Google Alerts, RSS feeds and mindless net surfing allow for anyone anywhere to be “educated” and a journalist. This election will be the first where blogging could have an impact. According to the Communications director at the Republican National Convention, there were 200 requests from bloggers for media credentialing at the 2008 convention.

I have witnessed first hand the impact of these bloggers. I am currently receiving google alerts and RSS feed for the states I am covering for my class election project. Some of the states are more obscure and attract less attention than others. I can always chart a slow election news day in Idaho or Rhode Island due to the fact that my RSS and alerts are filled with blog entries not bonified news stories.

We all know that a picture is worth a thousand words. With all of the current media styling direct exposure like proves to be more effective than newspaper coverage (Denton and Kuypers 2008). It can be surmised from their research that increased online video ad blog sites create a larger forum for analysis and interpretation. The more information that’s available for voters the better.

Although feeds may be void of breaking news, certain blogs boring, and few validate videos to view, I recognize this Southern Methodist University coed has developed a new obsession …OPSD…obsessive political scoop disorder…let’s face it, I am a American voter who is a poster person that never wants to be out of the loop.

Negative Ads, Do They Work?

At this point in the presidential campaign, negative ads are everywhere. You can see Obama compared to Hollywood celebrities like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears (view here) and McCain side by side with President Bush implying “more of the same”(view here). Voters are bombarded by these ads, but do they really work?

Research
Although many Americans complain about the use of negative ads and “mudslinging”, research has proven that this actually mobilizes voters to the polls. In a study by Martin P. Wattenberg and Craig L. Brians it was found that negative campaign advertising actually mobilized voters even when they disapproved of the messages. When people in the study were asked if they remembered any presidential campaign ads on TV during the 1992 cycle, the overwhelming response was just a general consensus that there was too much negative advertising. However, 82% of those that complained turned up to vote as compared to 76% who did not offer that criticism (1996).

In an article by ThisNation.com it is stated that while many voters do approve of the widespread use of negative campaigning, they are nonetheless affected by it because of the information they receive. However, the viewer was only more influenced by the information if the message was conceived as relevant to the campaign. Some of the issues presented that viewers deemed irrelevant included lack of military service, past personal financial problems, actions of a candidate’s family member, or past alcohol or drug abuse.

Another research study by Ken Goldstein and Paul Freedman used the 1996 election cycle and the 1996 National Election Study to prove their hypothesis that negative campaign ads stimulate voter turnout (2002). Goldstein and Freedman find that an average white female with no mobilizing contacts from parties will have a .761 probability of voting. When exposed to negative campaign ads however, her likelihood of voting increases to .789.

Why Does it Work?
New technology helps keep negative advertising in line. Journalists are much more likely to check the facts on the behalf of the public and keep the candidates honest. In this sense, the media helps facilitate the democratic process because the voters can receive both good and bad information on a candidate in order to make a more knowledgeable decision.

Today the response time of a candidate to an attack ad is much shorter. There is great importance on a quick turnaround to the oponent’s ad and technology like satellites can help provide a counter ad in a matter of hours. David Doak, in Winning Elections, says it is important to have someone on the campaign team that can listen to the audio tracks from each day of ads on the media market to be able to respond quickly to what the opponent is saying.

These two things make negative advertising seem more appropriate to the American public. By having someone hold the candidates accountable for their words greatly impacts how much attention viewers pay to the ads. And by giving the candidates a way to efficiently respond to attacks makes the campaign game seem more fair and less damaging.

This Election
So what are voters saying about this election? Many commentaries, such as the one by Darrell West on CNN.com, are saying that this election cycle of campaigns are breaking the patterns of past elections. West claims the ads between McCain and Obama are making many more false statements, taking quotes out of context, and lied about personal background. He also suggests voters should use websites like factcheck.org to make sure they receive accurate information.

The New York Times ran an article citing a new NY Times/CBS News poll that found 56% of voters think Obama is spending his time making clear what he would do as president but only 38% thought McCain was discussing what he would do and 53% thought McCain was spending his time attacking Obama.

If negative ads do in fact have a positive correlation to voter turnout, there should be a record number of voters and the ads observed now will only help to stimulate turnout. However, only the election in November will help prove this.

Inside the campaigns: Steve Schmidt and David Plouffe

The heads of the McCain and Obama campaigns play a crucial role, including the strategy and image. In taking a closer look inside the personal lives, political careers, and campaign styles of Steve Schmidt and David Plouffe differences in the campaigns this election cycle can be better understood.

David Plouffe, Barack Obama’s campaign manager, has been a Democratic Party campaign consultant for many years In 2000, he joined AKP&D Message and Media, a campaign consulting firm, where he is a partner. Prior to joining AKP&D, Plouffe had 10 years of political experience. He worked for Senator Tom Harkin’s re-election campaign in 1990, worked as a state field director for Senator Harkin’s Presidential campaign in 1992, and also in 1992 he managed Congressman John Olver’s re-election campaign. Plouffe managed Attorney General Charles Oberly’s campaign for Senate in 1994, was campaign director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 1995, and in 1996 managed Bob Torricelli’s US Senate campaign. In 1997 and 1998 he served as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt. From 1999 to 2000, Plouffe led a national campaign with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that raised a record amount of contributions for House races across the United States. Plouffe’s experience with Obama began in 2004 when he worked on Obama’s Senatorial campaign.

An article in Newsweek titled "The Details Man: David Plouffe" gave insight to Plouffe's campaign expertise and strategy for the Obama 2008 Presidential campaign. Newsweek calls Plouffe "the campaigns organizational mastermind" and described him as a "quiet, tightly wound campaign manager". Plouffe came up with the state-by-state strategy that Obama's campaign has executed and he also oversees the entire operation of the campaign. Although he is in a well-known and highly publicized position, Plouffe is one to be behind the scenes and is very shy. However, one of his friends told Newsweek that he "commands attention". The article and other coverage on Plouffe notes that his previous experiences served him well in the Obama campaign, where Iowa is a key state. Plouffe, as previously mentioned, had worked for the Iowa Senator Tom Harkin's campaign, which made him familiar with the state and also gave him an understanding of how critical the Iowa caucus was. Plouffe has been the strategist for Obama's campaign, and also controls leaks and when information is released, making him significant in the communications of the campaign.

Even though Rick Davis still maintains the title of campaign manager, Steve Schmidt is the main man behind the McCain campaign as the senior campaign strategist and advisor. Schmidt is described by the New York Times as “one of the most intense, hard-driving figures in his party today”. Schmidt has been a well-known figure in the Republican Party for his specialization of political strategy. When McCain needed to revamp the direction of his campaign, it was of no surprise that he would choose Schmidt.

Steve Schmidt experience includes his role as the Communications Director for the Matt Fong for Senate campaign, serving as a chief White House strategist, and spokesperson for Vice President Cheney. He also managed California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reelection campaign. Along with his experience, he is also well-known in the party for his relationship with former Bush mastermind, Karl Rove.

In the structural change of the McCain campaign, Schmidt will be reporting to campaign manager, Rick Davis. However, Davis will only be overseeing fundraising and he also oversaw the planning for the convention and the selection of the Vice Presidential nominee. According to the Washington Post, Schmidt is in control of of all other campaign logistics. This includes controlling the message, advertising, scheduling, and advance work. Schmidt’s campaign style is described by the Washington Post as “a less bureaucratic campaign structure that will allow for faster decision-making and more outreach to individuals and groups that can be helpful to McCain's cause”. (See full article).

Social Networking and the Election

With the rise in use of social networking sites, political campaigns have another venue to try and reach out to voters. With over 100 million people on Facebook alone, these sites allow politicians to reach out to a vast number of people. This is also an excellent way to reach out to young voters, which is an important goal of candidates.

There are two key elements of a social networking site that makes it a great communication tool for a campaign. First, it shows a more personal side to the candidate and second, the candidate’s pages are controlled by the campaign, rather than the media.

On a social networking site, a candidate can give out personal information and write special notes to followers and potential supporters. In elections today, people can tend to vote on the personal aspects of a candidate rather than the issues. Here is a Newsweek article which discusses one reason for this tendency. This is the reason it is imperative for a candidate to shape their image into one that not only resembles someone of power and intelligence, but also someone that has morals and values, and can relate to the average person. On a website such as Facebook or Myspace, the candidates are able to get close to supporters in a way that they can’t in other forms of media. While these sites are actually being monitored by a campaign staff member, it is given the appearance that visitors are actually forming a relationship with the candidate himself. There is a connection established by making a candidate your MySpace/Facebook “friend” or by becoming their fan on Facebook. This idea of becoming a Facebook “fan” is also interesting because once someone becomes a fan of a candidate, all of their friends are informed of this fact. As Christine Williams, a political science professor at Bentley College in Massachusetts, says “There's some kind of a subjective quality. You're coming at these kids through their friends, people they trust." (Politico Article) These sites also allow people to give back their own feedback, and by doing so, people feel like they are contributing to the election process. It is this candidate/supporter interaction that makes social networking sites different from other forms of media.

Another key element is that social networking sites are a widely viewed source of media that can be controlled by the campaign. The campaign can post anything from messages to videos and pictures to events and even send reminders to supporters to watch the candidate on t.v. or to get out there and vote!

So the real question is…Does social networking really turn out voters?

When Kinky Friedman ran for Governor of Texas in 2006 against Rick Perry, he won 66 percent of the Facebook poll, while Rick Perry only got 16 percent. However, when the actual election came around, Friedman lost to Perry, only receiving 13 percent of the vote.
These results make it appear as if social networking sites do not have much affect on the general election results. However, social networking has grown since 2006, which could have an effect.
The truth is, we don’t know what is going to happen. Last election there wasn’t much of an effect, but with all the technological advancements, these sites could determine the outcome this time around. We already know that social networking sites are a powerful tool for gathering supporters. What we do not know is how successful they will be in motivating their supporters to act. In the past, the major tv networks have negatively affected voter turnout by inaccurately reporting who is ahead early. If social networking sites do this, voter turnout could be low. (Resource of Social Media Article)

What Are the Candidates Doing?

Both Obama and McCain have Facebook pages. On both pages, you get access to behind the scenes pictures and videos of the candidates. There are also videos put out there by the campaign, such as ads, and also ones smashing the opposing campaigns. Both have posted notes and events, blogs, news and a wall for visitors to write on. Both candidates also have opportunities for people to get involved. Each candidate also has elements specific to his own page. McCain has a link for people to register to vote, to get an online yard sign, a link to find events in your area, and even a McCain Game. McCain currently has 541,568 supporters. Obama also has a link to register to vote, a box which shows his favorite pages (an example is Latinos for Obama), and a box entitled Blueprint for Change: Economy. Obama currently has 1,915,133 supporters. Palin and Biden also have Facebook pages.

Obama and McCain also both have MySpace pages. While McCain’s page is set up in a more distinct, professional way, Obama’s page is set up more like the everyday user’s page. Obama’s page seems to be a lot more interactive than McCain’s. On Obama’s site, there are a lot of little “extras” such as The Obama Store, Obama Mobile (where you can text Obama), and messages from the candidate. Obama currently has 551,649 friends. McCain offers blogs and messages on his page. He currently has 103,151 friends.

Both candidates are part of several other social networking sites, but none offer the reach or the functions that Facebook or MySpace do.

It is interesting to look at what social networking sites offer the candidates. Obama has run a campaign that is about being the young, new, “hip,” candidate who is about change. Social networking sites are a very good fit with his campaign because we view this as a new technology for a younger generation that is changing our society.

Things are a little different for McCain, mainly because of his age. While the age of Facebook and MySpace users are getting older, people still tend to think of social networking as part of a younger generation. Having McCain get involved makes him look like he is trying to engage with his young voters, but at the same time, he still doesn’t seem to fit in. This is why I think McCainBlogette is such a great idea. McCain Blogette is a blog created by Meghan McCain, in which she follows her father on the campaign trail. This is great because it seems natural for Meghan, a 23 year old, to be blogging and she is able to connect to younger voters. Also, there are great behind the scenes pictures of the family, which gives a great personal touch for McCain.

"Billary" for Barack

The Democratic primaries for this election ripped the party apart. Both Hillary and Obama were huge, historical contenders and the Democratic Party had a difficult decision between the two possible general election candidates. As we all know by now, Obama prevailed over the first-ever major female contender, and ironically, she would remain one of his biggest obstacles to reaching the White House. The country was so divided between the first Black man and the first woman leading the Democratic ticket that the primaries split major contingencies.

When Obama won the primaries, the next step towards the election of a Democratic President was to win over Hillary’s staunch supporters. According to this Gallup poll, Obama grew in ratings with Hillary supporters after the Democratic Convention, proving that the convention was effective in rallying and unifying the party to some extent.

Riding this momentum, “Billary” has hit the road to attempt to unite their party and get Obama elected. Both Clintons had proved successful in gaining the Latino-American vote during their own political careers, so Hillary’s first surrogate appearance for Obama in June 2008 was before the National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials (NALEO). Obama’s current popularity level with Hispanics wins even over Kerry’s 2004 stance and has continued to rise in recent polls.

Bill Clinton has proved more of a liability for Obama on the campaign trail, though. P0litical Humor quotes him as saying:

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." He was “speaking in North Carolina about a matchup between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, which critics took as an implication that Obama was unpatriotic.” People say what they will.

Still, the Obama camp realizes that Bill Clinton’s endorsement and role as surrogate has the potential to unite the Democratic Party under Barack, but he has been hesitant to do so. A Timesonline.co.uk article quotes a senior Obama aide as saying, “If anybody can put their arms around the party and say we need to be together, it is Bill Clinton.” It goes on to say that Bill may have been initially scarce on Obama’s campaign trail due to bitterness that Hillary did not prevail in the primaries, but that his eventual involvement would be critical to the campaign. This assumption stemmed from the fact that, at first, he “only released a one-sentence statement saying that he will do whatever he can to help the Illinois senator win the election” (Political Ticker). His involvement has not been too substantial since.
The most overt effort of the Clintons to show support for Obama took place at the Democratic National Convention, where both Clintons spoke and Hillary released her delegates with a charged speech. Since this public declaration of support, Hillary has started a campaign called “Hillary Sent Me” to excite her former voters and mobilize the party for Obama. You Decide 2008 wrote that she kicked off this initiative by saying,

“Today I am asking all of you to stand up, hit the road and spread the word that we must elect Barack Obama president and we must send a filibuster-proof majority to Congress […] This is a call to action. This is a must-do. We all have a role. And there is not a moment to lose.” Actions speak louder than words, and Hillary taking on this surrogate role, even after primary defeat, proves she does hope for Democratic victory in November.

Hillary’s main purpose as an Obama surrogate, especially in swing states, is to excite women voters in competition with McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, according to Gothamist.com. She has even amended her famous quote from Denver to include Palin’s name: “No way. No how. No McCain. No Palin.” Hillary wants to separate herself from Palin, and a recent SNL skit portrayed this attitude. She campaigns with and for Obama so that her female constituency chooses him over the ticket with a woman on it.

This will be a challenging feat with Palin’s momentum but, according to Politics USA, Hillary could influence the Democratic Party by uniting the left, acting as superstar surrogate, and taking on an attack dog role, which seems to be one of Obama’s lesser priorities.
On the other hand, Bill has been a weaker surrogate. A blog from MSN.com attributes his less significant role in Obama’s campaign to the following reasons: “It’s always about him;” “He likes everyone;” “He’s too analytical;” “He thinks Hillary deserved to win;” and “He determined to be bipartisan.”

Sure, Former President Bill Clinton holds significant power to sway Democratic voters, but he has been more hesitant, even than his former Obama-rival wife Hillary, to give his entire devotion to achieving Obama’s election in the general election. It would be fair to say that Hillary is doing and has done all she can since her primary loss to support the Democratic nominee, but one cannot say the same for Bill.

The race is getting more heated and the November election is sure to be a close one. The Obama campaign should maximize the potential of “Billary” as the election nears. Defeat is in sight if the Democrats do not unite under their candidate. The Clintons can do a better job of encouraging the whole party to back Barack, even without Hillary on the ticket.

The Political Ground Game

Much can be said of a candidate's success or failure that is dependent upon enacting a successful ground game.  The ground game involves several key factors to include opening offices in a battleground state, organizing the campaign, soliciting the help of volunteers, and many more that cannot be fully explicated here.

The current election between McCain and Obama posits unique challenges that both have to deal with.  Florida, as it has always been, remains contentious.  In all but one battleground state, Florida, Obama has opened more campaign offices than McCain.  McCain has a slight advantage in Florida with 56 offices compared to Obama's 42.  These offices are critical agents that allow discourse between the candidate, (although indirectly,) and the constituents.  These offices allow the image of the presidential candidate to be seen, and it assists in registering voters, possibly even influencing movable voters whose minds have not been made up. 

For example, Obama has numerous political contacts in the red state of Texas.  For each precinct in Texas there is a Precinct Captain.  Each captain can access a database full of voter information such as street addresses.  As salon reports, this advantageous use of the internet "frees up field staffers who, in previous campaigns, might have spent hours typing in the same information."  This brings up a key point; door to door campaigning is essential.

Candidates must go door to door if they hope to succeed.  Of course it isn't plausible that a candidate can do that for every constituent, but with the aid of volunteers the task is better handled.  Organization of these volunteers is paramount.  An article in the New York Times details the story of an Austin man who "organized neighborhood canvasses, literature drops, and 'visibility campaigns,' where volunteers stand on the street corners and shake signs at motorists."  This type of campaigning can greatly increase visibility for a candidate and can increase the candidate's ability to have his message heard.

John McCain initiated a grassroots leadership team in California in August.  Much like Obama's Precinct Captains, McCain's campaign employs the use of 58 chairmen who serve the 58 counties in California.

According to Christine Pelosi's Campaign Boot Camp, there are three objectives of a successful field operation; they are as follows:  "identify the key demographic groups, geographic areas, or specific individuals who are most likely to support the campaign; repetitively deliver the message to key groups, areas, and individuals in an effort to persuade them to support your effort, and get those identified supporters out to vote on Election Day." (Pelosi, 188)  To implement this strategy, a candidate must wage the war on different fronts.  Phone banks are one of the most commonly used strategies and hinge heavily upon the sheer volume generated.  The distribution of leaflets, literature, and staging outdoor events where people hold signs in support of the candidate is also important.  Holding rallies that will stiffen support and can demonstrate the appearance of someone who looks Presidential.  A well organized campaign strengthens a candidates image and makes the candidate appear like a natural leader, one people can have trust and faith in.  These attributes can make or break a candidate's bid for the White House.

The internet is changing aspects of the ground game in ways many could not have anticipated.  The Rolling Stone published an article detailing the changing political landscape.  The typical way of campaigning since the 1960s has been to advertise with television and work from there.  The technology that is available now is changing all of that.  With voters able to register online, a growing community of voters can be contacted and volunteers can more readily be found.  The internet is a two-way communication that allows for discourse between the candidate and his followers, unlike the passive one-way communication of television.  The internet allows candidates a proactive environment, one that combines both the new technology and the old door to door approach.  At every major rally that Obama hosts, voters can get in for free by providing "their e-mail, zip code and telephone number - a practice that continues at every Obama megarally, where it has become routine for him to draw crowds in excess of 20,000" (Rolling Stone)  The enormous potential impact of this sort of outreach has historical connotations.  If successful, this campaign's strategy to use the internet will be scrutinized and quite possibly implemented in every campaign hereafter.

There is a flip side to all of this grandeur of using the internet to solicit votes.  If used too much, the internet can have a crippling effect, just ask Howard Dean.  Dean relied on the internet to bolster his voter base too much and neglected to take into account door to door campaigning, a lesson the Obama campaign is aware of.  On the internet, personal looks and personality cannot come out.  On television nothing is hidden and a person cannot hide their personality.  There was an outburst from Howard Dean, perhaps he had been under too much stress, and it circulated the internet and the television networks faster than Dean's campaign could get a lid on it.  Ironically, considering the current schtick with Sarah Palin as a hockey mom, David Letterman said "The people of Iowa realized they didn't want a president with the personality of a hockey dad."

Identifying and resonating with an audience is vital to the success of any grassroots campaign.  McCain's efforts in Florida have been met with criticism.  McCain targeted older Democratic voters.  "A letter signed by McCain tells the Democrats: 'We have you registered as a Republican."  This has caused some outrage among the party faithful.

Although most of what I found on the internet seemed slanted to the negative for McCain, it must be duly noted that McCain survived the primary season despite having negative remarks made about his abilities.  The media was constantly scrutinizing McCain and throughout most of the primary season, McCain wasn't perceived as a front runner.  Despite this, McCain has been able to clinch the nomination for President and is competing well with Obama.

Both campaigns, Obama and McCain, are strategically different yet highly motivated.  The end result that we see in November will be the determining factor in how well, or how poorly, organized each of these campaigns have been.  We've seen what possibilities there are with the advent of internet canvassing and that area will continue to grow and mature.  

Remember folks, there's only five more weeks until election day, so get out there and vote!

  

Expectations and Debates

This Friday Americans will have their first opportunity to see presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama formally debate each other at the University of Mississippi with PBS anchor Jim Lehrer moderating. There is much speculation at this point over what the results will be and how each of the candidates will perform, and as the hour draws nearer, the media and even the campaigns themselves will be scrambling to create expectations which will carry over into the actual viewing of the debate. Essentially it is the media who decides the victor on debate night, and their contest begins long before the debate.

The media have become experts at creating hype, often unnecessarily, to serve their own needs. At the September 26, 2007 Democratic presidential debate at Dartmouth College, MSNBC correspondent Monica Novotny declared that, “For most of the candidates, it (the debate) may present the last chance to try to make a dent in the lead enjoyed by the front-runner.” (see full story here) At this time Novotny was referring to her belief that this was the last chance Edwards and Obama had of closing the gap in the polls on the then substantial lead held by Senator Clinton. What she failed to mention however was the additional DNC-sponsored debates, which would be taking place in November and December of that year. These two debates, although DNC-sponsored, would not be broadcast on MSNBC, their presentation rights having been given to other networks.

Obviously from the previous example, the media often make claims to further their own ends. They provide excitement about something that may be meaningless. But above all, the media decides what the candidates must do to win the debate or at least get in the spotlight. According to a "Washington Post" columnist, the debate on Friday provides McCain with “the opportunity to go on offense.” He refers to this debate centered on foreign policy to be in McCain’s “comfort zone” and refers to McCain’s ability with this debate and topic to “take control of the conversation.” He doesn’t refer to a McCain victory as a given, but he does assert McCain’s ability to win as fact.

In a "New York Times" story published earlier this week, John Broder does a little bit of expectation lowering for Obama. In the article, Broder refers to some of Obama’s strengths such as his “reasoning skills” and “youthful cool,” and states that these have not always served him well in formal debates. Broder also alludes to Obama’s tendency to “overintellectualize and lecture,” due in large part to his training as a lawyer, and expresses the opinion that this poses some vulnerability as Obama heads into the debate Friday night. In the past Obama has not excelled at debates in this format, although reporters say they have definitely seen an improvement since his first debates at the presidential level.

In another article published earlier this week in the "New York Times," reporter Katharine Seelye seems to give Senator McCain the edge in the debate this Friday; not only because of his mastery of the subject matter, but also because of what Seelye calls his “track record as a scrappy combatant.” She asserts that McCain is not afraid to take out his opponents and that his strength, connecting with audiences by using “down-to-earth language,” is Obama’s weakness. Aside from praising McCain however, Seelye also enumerates McCain’s weaknesses such as “looking wooden” and his practice of evading the questions when they are outside of his comfort zone. Seelye concludes the article with comments from David Birdsell, a political communications expert from Baruch College, who refers to Senator McCain as “irascible” and “stoked by personal animosity.” According to Birdsell, it will be a challenge for McCain to keep that in check on Friday as he debates Senator Obama who is 25 years his junior and is someone McCain believes “has not paid his dues.”

So it is obvious the media has a strong hand in informing the public what to look for in debates and what to expect from each of the two candidates. Aside from the media however, the campaigns themselves attempt to control the expectations people have about the upcoming debates. This tactic is surprising and surprisingly effective. In an article in the “Boston Globe” this week entitled “On debate night, who’ll be master of low expectations?” Peter Canellos states that, “From now until Friday, campaign aides will be working overtime to persuade everyone what bad debaters their bosses really are.” He states in the article that presidential debates are won because of two things, “gaffes and expectations,” and campaigns have become masterful at controlling the expectations side of things.

Campaigns often control expectations by praising the opposition “so as to set an impossibly high bar,” according to Canellos. In this way, the public cannot help but be disappointed when a candidate does not perform as well as the hype prophesied he would. For this particular debate, John McCain has been continually praising Senator Obama’s rhetorical skill, stating, among other things that, “ Obama was able to, I think, with his eloquence inspire a great number of Americans. So these are going to be tough debates.” (see full article here) And these words of praise are coming from both sides of the party divide, as Obama’s campaign insists McCain has the upper hand, having “been immersed in the issues for more than two decades in the senate.” With this tactic the candidates lower their own expectations by raising those of their opponent, done in the hope that the other person will not be able to measure up to the praise and therefore, lose points with the media and the viewing public.

Tomorrow will be the first official presidential debate of the season and the first time since the nominating conventions that the candidates will be locked in, essentially, hand-to-hand combat. For weeks now the media and the campaigns have been attempting to create expectations that will, in some part, help us define who wins the debate tomorrow night. After all, in the end, it is the media who will determine the victor in tomorrow night’s contest.

How does race affect the election?

After Lenny McCallister, leader of the hip-hop young republicans, quoted Dr. Martin Luther King in an interview with CNN, “may we not live in a nation that judges a person by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” I realized that McAllister was correct when he was implying that race should not be a factor in a voter’s decision on November 4th. Sadly though, Americans as a whole suggest otherwise.

McCallister is a young, black Republican who leads an organization called “hip hop young republicans,” whom I met during the Republican National Convention. McCallister opened my eyes and allowed me to see past the stereotype that I had once created in my mind, “blacks vote democrat,” and ensured that I had a more educated view on the hip hop republican movement. He stated that there exist a difference between a black republican and a hip hop republican, “Hip-Hop Republicans grew up with the influence of hip-hop culture, and while black Republican is a label based solely on race, ‘Hip Hop Republican’ speaks to the existence of a group that has transcended race in many ways.” (See this website).

While McAllister’s passion to separate race from political party’s may be enough to inspire hope for the young voters of the future, I fear that his movement has not yet become influential enough to affect the issue of race in the upcoming presidential election. Whether it is blacks voting for Obama because he is black, or whites not voting for Obama because he is black, this election reminds us that race is still very much an issue.

With a black man strongly contending for president, it is hard, even for a “black republican” to vote for the republican candidate. On one side, there is not only the typical view that blacks will vote democrat, but also the view that all blacks will vote for Obama. Since 1964, the tendency for blacks to cast ballots in favor of the Democratic Party has become increasingly common; and with Barack Obama as a candidate in the 2008 presidential election, a larger number of African Americans will cast their vote for the democratic ticket than ever before. Great presidents such as FDR, Truman, and Kennedy are all Democratic presidents who are known for building a strong relationship between the blacks and the Democratic Party. Since these presidents, with the exception of the 1972, 1984, and the 1992 presidential elections, blacks have continued to give a minimum of 80% of their votes to the Democratic Candidate (See this website). With a voting history like this, is it any surprise to see that black voter turnout reached a high in the 2008 primaries with a candidate who is not only a democrat, but a black democrat? If nothing else, the democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama proved race is still a factor when it comes to politics. Obama’s overwhelming support from the black vote in the primaries not only proved that Clinton did not receive the same support from this group as her husband did, but it showed how much influence a black candidate can have over the same group of voters. It makes me wonder whether Bill Clinton would have received as much support from the black community if Senator Obama was his opposition (See this website).

In an article in Essence Magazine, a number of Black Republicans spoke about the struggle of overcoming their internal desire to cast their vote for Obama simply because of his race, "As a Black man, it weighs heavily on me," says New Yorker Wendall Niles, of Obama's candidacy. "Politics is a part of my life, but being Black is my life." While Niles is trying to fight his urge of voting for Obama simply because of his Black identity, other Black Republicans such as Peter W.D. Bramble, Ph.D., prove the power that Obama has over Black voters is unbeatable. Even with his strong support of the Republican Ideologies, and his strong disgust with the thought of programs such as universal healthcare, Bramble says "I'm a Republican. I'm not changing my registration or my beliefs," he says. "But I'm voting for Obama. If a Black man becomes president of the United States of America, then Black people will stop singing, 'We shall overcome some day.' Symbolically, his victory would show them that they have overcome." (See this website).

No matter what the reason, Senator Obama has inspired Black voters from across the nation to cast their vote for the democratic ticket in the upcoming election.
While blacks voting for Obama simply because he is black may be one side of the race issue, there is a whole other side that may affect the presidential race just as much. While new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 85% of Likely voters say they are ‘willing’ to vote for a African American Candidate, this poll does not take into account the white voters who say they are ‘willing,’ but who are not actually ‘ready’ (See this website).
The hardest thing for pollster’s to poll for is racial attitudes and how it affects their behaviors, because while most people say that they are willing to vote for a black candidate in order to ensure to themselves and others that they are not racist by any means, their voting behavior may not correlate with what they say. According to an AP-Yahoo News poll, designed in partnership with Stanford University, without racial prejudices, Senator Barack Obama would receive about 6 percentage points more support. “The results suggest that 40 percent of white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, including more than a third of white Democrats and independents. A small percentage of voters -- 2.5 percent of those surveyed -- said they may turn away from Obama because of his race” (See this website). Again, it is the same story as the black vote as it is for the white vote. Many whites will say that they are willing to vote for a black candidate, but will their actions speak louder than their words, or will they drown in a fear that is hidden deep within them?

Currently Obama is leading McCain by 89% to 5% among African American Voters (11% of likely voters), while McCain is leading Obama 52% to 42% among white voters (78% of likely voters) (See this website). With a record number of African American Delegate at the 2004 Republican National Convention, one would think that the republicans were doing a good job at galvanizing black support. The 2008 Republican National Convention proved otherwise with the lowest black representation in 40 year. The 36 African-American delegates in 2008 represented only 1.5 percent of the party’s total delegate count, that’s a 78.4 percent decline from 2004, when 164 black delegates participated at the Republican Convention. This is shocking, but what is more shocking is that nearly 25 percent of delegates attending the Democratic Party’s 2008 convention were African American. If the numbers at the convention are any proof of what is to come, the democratic nominee will sweep the African American vote without a problem (See this website).

But how will this affect the election? "The stakes are extremely high. In 2004, African Americans made up approximately 11 percent of the vote nationwide. If the percentage of African-Americans was a mere two-and-a-half percent higher at 13-and-a-half percent, Democrats would currently be running for reelection in 2008," he said. For example in the state of Ohio in 2004, Democrats lost by 2% or 100,000 votes. There were 270,000 unregistered African-Americans. So the African-American vote can absolutely make a difference in this election." (See this website). These are the exact kind of statistics Obama is hoping to change, and the kind of statistics that his campaign believes will help push him ahead of John McCain. With greater African American support, and a steady support from white democrats, Obama has the chance to win states that democrats have come close to in the past two elections, especially swing states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida. With the efforts of 3,000 volunteers helping young voters and black voters register, Obama also hopes to regain control of southern states with large black populations (See this website). With an increase of black voters, some statistics suggest that Obama can win states which have in the past, been won by Republican candidates. But, is this to much to ask of the citizens of America? Is Obama depending to much on his “get out the vote tactic” and not enough on winning the votes of people who are surely going to be at the polls on November 4th?

In the end I believe that race will indeed affect the election, because I believe that it already has. Never before has there been a strong black contester for president, which is why voter interest is sky rocketing. While blacks have proven their loyalty to the democratic ticket in past presidential elections, it has never been enough to strike Republicans as dangerous. While individuals like McCallister fight to find a sense of political independence free from his race, others seem less inclined, atleast in this election.