After reading the the Obama messaging chapter, in what ways do you think Obama’s campaign capitalized on the concepts outlined in the Emotion Reading? Be specific about particular messages and how they utilize techniques described. Feel free to use readings from the textbook as well.
9:46
that are nis STOCK in trade. (p. WK4)
In 2008, Democrat Barack Obama won
the presidential election and threw a
major wrench in the machinery of the
permanent majority (Heilemann &
Halperin, 2010; Plouffe, 2010).
Republicans made a major comeback in
the 2010 congressional elections, but by
then the idea of a permanent majority
had been abandoned. Regardless, the
decade from 2000 to 2010 had
established the format of a new kind of
campaign strategy-one based on
appealing to a large partisan base rather
than seeking votes from moderate
positions.
At this writing, many candidates of both
parties continue to use this strategy,
particularly at the state or district level.
Republicans use it in strong Republican
districts, while Democrats use it in areas
with strong Democratic support. It can
still be effective, if the following
assumptions are present:
1. Identification with the
ereader.perlego.com
9:46
1. Identification with the
candidate’s party significantly
outpaces that with the
opponent’s party, particularly if
that partisan identification
exceeds a majority.
2. Partisanship becomes the
primary anchor for the voters’
decisions. In some areas, a local
issue (e.g., weak economy) may
override partisan concerns.
3. The candidate has a record of
strong identification with the
party. Generally, newcomers to
either party have a tougher time
employing this approach.
a
Academic research has documented the
success of this approach. The theory
argues
that candidates who emphasized
the issues identified with their political
party had an electoral advantage. Benoit
(2007) later tested and supported that
theory in an analysis of candidates’
television ads.
ereader.perlego.com
9:46
There are those who raise ethical
questions about this approach. Typical of
these critics is the work of Hacker and
Pierson (2010), who call it “winner-take-
all” politics (p. 3). Hacker and Pierson
argue that both parties are at fault. They
would agree with Baker, who noted that
after the Republicans went after Clinton
in a partisan-based impeachment effort,
It definitely poisoned the well on both
sides. Without getting into the merits of
anything, there’s no doubt there were
Democrats waiting from the day George
Bush took office to even the score for Bill
Clinton. And Republicans are the same
today with Barack Obama and the Rod
Blagojevich scandal. (2008, p. WK1)
The problem is that partisan campaigns
extend beyond the boundaries of the
campaign itself, making it harder for
legislators to reach consensus on
legislation (Hulse, 2010).
Positional Strategies
ereader.perlego.com
9:46
Positional Strategies
One approach to strategy development
relies on positional rhetoric to
distinguish the candidate from the
opposition. While each can have its own
distinctive elements, most of these
approaches are variations of Shadegg’s
easy decision model. In each case, the
purpose of the positional strategy is to
define a position that will make it easy
for the voters to make a decision that
favors the candidate. The variations of
this approach are too numerous for all of
them to be included, but three variations
can serve as examples: the “only
alternative,” “role definition,” and
“triangulation strategies.”
a
The only alternative, or the “anybody but
them” approach, attempts to position the
candidate as the only viable alternative to
an unpopular opponent. When there are
only two candidates in the campaign, this
approach usually becomes a negative
campaign, which is similar to the in
1
TA1
ereader.perlego.com
9:46
campaign, which is similar to the in
man-out man approach. What typically
makes it different is the absence of any
comparative messages. The messages
focus instead on negative factors related
to the opponent, with little or no positive
messages about the candidate provided.
Strategically, that can be a risky gamble;
a lack of positive information about
candidates can keep voters away from the
polls, rather than attract them toward the
only alternative.
Another scenario for this approach
occurs during the primary nomination
process. Although several candidates
may officially be on the ballot, one
candidate will sometimes campaign on
the basis of being the only “viable
alternative” for defeating the nominee of
the other party. In this instance, the
focus of the campaign messages is on the
legitimacy or credibility factors of the
campaign, rather than the issues. The
argument becomes, “Vote for me,
because I can defeat the other guy,
rather than “Vote for me because I
ereader.perlego.com