Pop Politico: “The Following Message …”

In an election year, candidates often want to talk about “the issues,” but more often than not, campaigns will ditch the boring talk for talking smack about each other. It’s a game of misdirection based on a good reading of what captures the imagination of the typical voter. Like many political watchers, I’m atypical when it comes to TV news, reading the paper, or which sites I regularly read for what I consider good political analysis. Yes, I read the New York Times almost every day, and yes I would rather watch The Newshour with Jim Lehrer than my local TV news or the nightly news from the Big Three. And yes, I read academic journals for the really geeky stuff. However, staying too long in the realm of political junkies comes at a cost: alienation from the political mainstream, and frustration with the way people are easily manipulated.

Case in point: there’s quite a bit of hot air about the presidential race and how the lack of a presumptive nominee in the Democratic Party is hurting the chances of Hillary or Barack to become the next president. We’re at the beginning of April, the Republican and Democratic conventions haven’t even happened, yet there’s a lot of nervous nailbiting among Democrats who think the election is already lost.

McCain is many things, but he’s no idiot when it comes to politics. The hand-waving from Karl Rove after McCain reached the magic number of delegates to secure the nomination was a Three-Card Monte move to give Dems a false sense of security. What was it that Rove said (and was repeated in the echo chamber)? His view was that because McCain was now the frontrunner (sorry, Ron Paul supporters), his coverage in the media was going to wane as the American Idol competition between Barack and Hillary continued. Ha, bloody, ha. If anything, it has boosted McCain’s profile as many in the media have grown tired of writing the ongoing saga of “who’s up, who’s down” between B and N. Lately, there have been a number of “McCain as presidential” stories floating to the top of the political pages. McCain in Iraq … McCain talking about the economy … McCain talking about public service, and it all comes without much criticism from the press. Sure, Obama responded to McCain’s policy prescriptions to the economic recession we’re in, but what is happening right now is that many in the media are looking at McCain and framing a story that goes something like this: “Chapter 1. McCain is the 44th President of the United States.”

For Hillary or Barack to turn this story around, they are going to have to split their attack strategy and remind voters why another Republican administration is going to be a horrible thing for the country, hammer home the fact that the last 7 years under Bush have been a boon for everyone but vast majority of Americans, and then start talking about the following issues:

1. Ending the war in Iraq.
2. Finding and/or killing bin Laden.
3. Addressing the economic crisis caused by Republican polices.
4. Restoring our liberties that have eroded under Bush.
5. Paying down our debt in order to restore financial stability and independence.
6. Investing money into industries that will make the U.S. less oil dependent.

There are other issues (and variations thereof) that Dems need to hammer home. The point is that the average voter has a very limited attention span; they don’t bother with an in-depth analysis of issues, nor do they really care about the details a particular candidate has on a position paper. What will resonate is that a candidate has a vision of how they will make things better for the majority of people. By “better,” mean bread and butter issues, security, and an end to a war that has no end in sight — other than more death. Hillary and Barack may personally like John McCain, but they need to go after his foreign policy (i.e., play down terrorism and play up another Cold War with Russia), and present an alternative to what he’s selling. In short, turn the “we don’t have a front-runner yet” bullshit into a story about the American democratic process.

Since presidential campaigns are also media campaigns, a quick glance at what the media is serving up (and what we’re consuming) may be telling when it comes to politics.


One thing is clear: the U.S. is a country that loves violence — except when actual Americans die. We love violent sports, we love the softer conflicts of singing competitions, reality shows, and people trapped on a tropical island of Hobbesian dimensions. Sure you can point to 60 Minutes as an example that people are paying attention to the news, and I won’t argue. However, 60 Minutes is the only news program on the broadcast top 10. It’s a well-produced program, and while they can easily be accused of bias (And really, who can’t these days?), they consistently produce programming that is more informative than 99% of what cable news churns out. But really, the majority of the programming that people are tuning into is designed to distract people from the fact that their lives are not all that great. If their collective gaze and pent-up frustrations can be turned to the importance of the singing competition, a wrestling match, a cop show, or a sponge who lives at bottom of the sea, then, perhaps, a level of passivity will pervade. But there’s another aspect to this as well. It’s ability of people to latch on to something that is compelling, consistent, and comforting when projected through the TV screen. That devotion comes when you have certain elements in play: a message + frequency + time = a brand that people become devoted to.

If many in the press are already anointing McCain as the next president (reinforcing the “comfort” factor), that means the campaign messages that Hillary and Barack’s camp are projecting may be compelling, but they hardly satisfy the other two planks in what makes for an effective message.

Black Flag, “TV Party” (Download)

Tags: , , , ,

  • JonCummings
    Call me complacent, but I'm having a hard time worrying about John McCain right now. The thing about McCain is, everybody already KNOWS the good stuff about him; I think this weeklong "introducing John McCain" thing they're doing is pretty, and full of nice photo-ops, but it's pretty useless in terms of framing any kind of debate or ramping up his poll numbers.

    This has no business being a Republican year, even though McCain is as appealing a candidate as the GOP could possibly have put forward. And despite the best upcoming efforts of the "attack machine" (Eric, where are you?), this is an election that is more likely than most to turn on actual issues, since McCain's an honorable guy and doesn't have a crazy-Christian army behind him.

    So let's assume that the Democrats don't implode (i.e., a nominee is figured out by about the middle of June, rather than Hillary bansheeing it all the way to the convention). As soon as (presumably) Obama pivots into a general campaign, the policy contrasts will become clear, and so will the "change" differences between a 73-year-old with no concept of economic policy and a 46-year-old who continues to ooze charisma while having policy positions both foreign and domestic that, let's face it, match the desires of a large majority of the country right now.

    Of course, "let's assume the Democrats don't implode" is like spitting into the wind. We might wind up covered in loogies.
  • I can't be as assured as you. Wish I could. Although the Dems blew it big time in 04 (and I truly believe there was no conspiracy, so let's not walk down that bramble patch), that year certainly had no business being a Republican year. All the worst talking points we have now, we had then. Bush's ineptitude now was in evidence then, yet here we are.

    And even if many feel McCain's ascension is inconceivable, I have totally rejected this country's ability to reject fear and embrace common sense. When McCain talks about security and terrorist hunting as the single most important topic now or ever, in spite of what the media and the general populace asserts, it has an effect. That effect will be amped up over the last few months of the campaign where he will say that neither Democrat has the guts to make the tough decision, the only important decision there is (economy be damned), and that is the war.

    Although he doesn't initially seem like he's playing to the Christian right, his stance on the war ultimately plants him firmly there, as many of the Mega-Churches truly see this as a holy war and that our stance versus Islam is inherently Biblical. We are fighting the worshippers of a false god. We are duly ordained to keep this going for as long as need be (A hundred years? The return of Christ? The four horsemen of the Apocalypse?) There is still a small sector of the country that revels in our supposed position as "Asskickers of the Middle East" and while I don't like to draw stereotypes, many of them really are infatuated with Toby Keith and Dale Earnhardt Sr.

    So while better nature and clear mindedness demands change, don't for a minute start thinking that it's obvious or in the bag. So long as the Republicans can prey on fear and xenophobia, they have a very powerful campaign tool.
  • I wish I could argue against you Dw -- esp. on that last point -- but it's painfully obvious that many in our country are all-too-willing to give in to the darker side of human nature.
  • The Democrats have always been a group who love to eat their young. But I hope they can check their natural instincts as we head into the general election.
  • Dan
    I'm with Jon (except about that piece of garbage How I Met Your Mother). Either Dem will completely blow McCain out of the water. He has been having senior moments already without the stress of competition. 100 more years in Iraq? Admits to knowing nothing about the economy?
    This guy will be a punching bag with lots of soft spots.
  • True. But wasn't the same said of George W. Bush?
  • I'm thinking of launching my own cable network. It's going to be called the "Bread and Circus Channel" or BCC for short.
  • Can I host a show on there? :-)
  • J
    I hope that we don't end up with loogies all over us. Twice before in recent memory, I couldn't comprehend how Bush could possibly win. Both times, I was amazed and horrified by the results.

    I, for one, am tired of the horse race aspect of the election. I'm tired of hearing who is ahead right this minute and why that might change three more times before lunch. I would prefer some in depth coverage of the policies these folks are putting forward, and some analysis of where we might be in 4, 8, 12 years should the policies be implemented and allowed to continue unfettered.
  • slappyfrog
    As 'J' pointed out in his comment below, there were two times where the 'left' (for lack of a better word) gave Bush no chance of being president....and two poorly run campaigns by Gore and Kerry and see where we are today.

    My big concern with this year's election is the sexism/racism issue...I think there are still tremendous strains of it in this country, it only appears to be lessened because those who hold those views have learned to keep them to themselves. Combine that with what I've seen elsewhere described as the "little woman voting to make her man happy" effect that saw Bush win larger than anticipated numbers of women voters and I can easily see a McCain 'surprise' in November.
  • Cap
    "Horrified" by Bush wins??? I don't get you people. The irrational hatred for Bush is crazy. All the mantras and lies people believe about him to sound, I don't know, "hip" or "informed" crack me up. Thank GOD Bush beat Kerry and Gore!
  • Cap
    You guys are crazy if you are concerned about McCain winning. WIN the war in Iraq! No to socialism! You should be afraid of Obama (surrender monkey and socialist) or Hillary (corrupt, selfish) winning.
  • And you say the left is irrational? Check yo self before you wreck yo self.
  • Hillary and Barack can talk about how they will make things "better for the average person." That doesn't mean it will be credible. When people look at the war, our education system, the Post Office, immigration policy, or almost any area the government dabbles and meddles in -- we see that government routinely does crazy things -- often at direct odds with the will of the people -- and is incapable of solving complex problems. Sometimes it only makes them worse. This is a bipartisan failing.

    Given this bedrock wisdom of the American people, it seems likely that the candidate proposing a lighter hand of government is apt to find the most resonance with voters, all things being equal.

    And it isn't hard to guess who that candidate is. It really doesn't matter who wins the blood fight for the Democratic nomination. They are only fighting for the privilege of presenting to the American people a philosophy that most of us have seen is ineffective and unwise.
  • Eric, you ignorant slut. Less government has had just as many negative side effects as more government, and you know it. People are greedy and stupid, and there's no political cure for either; what we're really arguing over here is whether we want our politicians to take more of our money and try to do good things with it, or pretend they're taking less of our money and doing nothing with it. I prefer the former, you prefer the latter, but let's not try and fool anyone with all this "will of the people" hoo-ha.
blog comments powered by Disqus