Thought
Up through Super Tuesday, the Clinton campaign ran on the premise of "inevitability."
One of the more profound transformations in the recent rounds of primaries is that Clinton is now positioned as underdog/outsider complete with "fighter" imagery.
How would she be faring with white working class (Edwards) voters if she was still running as the inevitable Washington insider?
One of the more profound transformations in the recent rounds of primaries is that Clinton is now positioned as underdog/outsider complete with "fighter" imagery.
How would she be faring with white working class (Edwards) voters if she was still running as the inevitable Washington insider?
posted by mikevotes at
7:01 AM
4 Comments:
Interesting. When's the last time you heard "I'm running on 35 years of experience"? Now it's "I'm just a girl form Main St. USA, who's daddy ran a little ol' printing shop." (I feel your pain)
Part of the politically convenient identity reassignment... Like some kind of call girl who we "be" whomever you want her to be. Just leave the money -- and votes -- on the dresser.
OK. That was a little harsh. But you get my point.
Recently, Obama talked about his need to raise awareness among working class voters about his personal life story. I think it would go a long way toward deflating the (bizarre) "elitist" label, but I haven't seen much of a change in his campaign message... at least not in what's published in the media.
But you got to give it up for Hillary. She's managed to scratch her way from the Governor's Mansion to the White House, the the Senate.... and some how she's convinced a certain demographic that this is some sort of Horatio Alger life story. Oy!
By
-epm, at 10:53 AM
Right. And, 3AM has largely been dropped.
My general sense of Obama is that he does extremely well whenever he can get long, uninterrupted segments of speeches and interviews on air. He doesn't do soundbytes well whereas the Clinton campaign is almost the exact opposite, with their soundbyte strategy very effective and the long speech not necessarily her friend.
I maintain that that is one of the reasons for the "big state" divide. Her campaign is a much better media campaign.
By
mikevotes, at 10:57 AM
Good point, regarding sound bites and media campaigns. You'd think with the minds and money available to the Obama campaign, they'd be able to come up with a better media campaign.
But let's not forget, like it or not, going negative works. Publicly, we all sneer and pooh-pooh attack ads, but deep down in our darker gut... they work. Perhaps even more so among the demographic Hillary is winning. So while "going negative" may work against Obama in his core demo, it may serve him well in pulling votes from Hillary. As you said before, going negative is a bit of a third rail for the Obama brand though.
By
-epm, at 11:22 AM
Well, the Obama campaign is somewhat hamstrung in going too negative in that the expectation is that they will have to turn around and win the Clinton supporters right afterwards.
They're going to win, so they have to take the general election consequences into consideration.
The Clinton campaign isn't tied up the same way because they have to "win" first.
By
mikevotes, at 1:22 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home