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. hment_9 attachment_10 attachment_10 attachment_11 attachment_11 attachment_12 attachment_12 attachment_13 attachment_13 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 Purchase answer to see full attachment Explanation & Answer: 1 Page Tags: communications Obama Discussion socioeconomic statuses User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following our company’shonor code & terms of service.
