Trend of 2008: Pop-Politics

Barack Obama’s election was historic on many levels; aside from being elected America’s first black President, Obama raised more money for his campaign alone than had ever been spent by all candidates running in any previous Presidential campaign. Incredibly, he did all this just four years after first popping up on the national radar by having an innovative campaign that used online tactics to achieve offline results.

But beyond his tactics, Obama benefited from an intersection of pop culture and politics. Viral videos like “1984,” “Obama Girl,” and “Yes We Can” underscored that much of the hype and excitement around Obama came from beyond political circles: none of these internet famous videos was produced by the campaign, but both served to underscore campaign messages. (In the case of “Yes We Can,” the Obama campaign almost immediately promoted the video on its own site.)



The need to create excitement around a candidate is nothing new – just watch any footage or read any account of a successful campaign rally since the founding of the Republic. But the funny, creative videos that supported Obama without overt political messages, allowed the campaign to push the storyline that Obama was wildly popular. The campaign itself paid careful attention to imagery, creating a website with the visual qualities of popular online communities rather than traditional campaign sites. Even the “O”-shaped bumper stickers were different from the usual, run-of-the-mill rectangles that usually pop up in traffic every four Octobers (including those used by his opponent).

These tactics helped simplify Obama’s messages to a broad range of voters, allowing his official campaign to avoid discussions of policy specifics through much of the campaign – discussions which could only serve to drive away voters attracted to Obama’s celebrity status.

The Obama campaign’s strategies were ultimately the same as any other campaign’s: Supportive voters were identified, contacted, and encouraged to get to the polls. And they did it well; when the votes were counted on November 4, the victory was decisive. But Obama looked like a winner long before Election Day thanks to non-traditional message-delivery vehicles which simplified his messages and took his candidacy from politics to pop-culture. And that can only help those outreach efforts.

Simple messages have always been better in politics, which is why the advent of pop politics is a “trend” and not a story, development, or event. But it’s an increasingly relevant trend, especially for conservatives and Republicans grappling with their messages in 2009, 2010, and beyond. Since voters now face so many information sources competing for their attention, a message delivery vehicle which entertains is more likely to be successful.

"A letter to the losers"

That's the title of Gore 2000 campaign manager and current CNN contributor Donna Brazile's post-election piece on CNN.com.

I expected a smug scolding directed at Republicans, but was pleasantly surprised. Shame on me for assuming the worst.

Wrapping up

It isn't hard to see that people are still processing this week's election. That's a good thing: quitting cold turkey might lead to withdrawal symptoms. Of course, the results mean different things to different people, meaning post-election analysis has been diverse and educational. Here are my favorites:

Down in the dumps? Ten reasons why you shouldn't be. Fellow UMass alum and conservative author Dan Flynn has five reasons why he's excited about an Obama presidency. The Next Right's Karen Soltis is looking for five positive outcomes from Tuesday's results.

What happened? Like C3PO talking to the Ewoks, Colin Delany of epolitics summarizes the Obama camp's revolutionary online tactics and superior infrastructure from the primaries and caucuses through election day. Republican online guru Patrick Ruffini finds that Obama's appeal among black and young voters translated into 73 electoral votes.

Good for a laugh. Townhall.com's Matt Lewis kicks off the long-predicted post-election GOP soul searching with a thank-you memo to conservative pundits who trashed McCain. But the best and most insightful summary of the election came from my brother Mike.

The Road Ahead

It doesn't feel like a great morning to be a Republican. But in reality, last night might have been the best thing to happen to Republicans - and, more importantly, for the conservative base of the Republican party.

Is the GOP too conservative? The left-leaning pundits like to say so, because it tacitly paints their victorious candidate as a centrist. He isn't - Barack Obama simply ran a campaign that painted liberal ideas like government-orchestrated health care and wealth distribution as "common sense."

But the problem for the Republican presidential candidates this time around was that they tried too hard to identify as conservative in their tight primary battles by using the word "conservative" and constantly quoting Ronald Reagan - despite the fact that every candidate had glaring non-conservative credentials. This was not only an insult to the intelligence of Republican voters, but to those waiting for the general election GOP debates were stages full of buzzword-bandying empty suits.

As a colleague of mine said the other day, Ronald Reagan didn't call himself the "next Barry Goldwater" when he ran for president in 1980. He didn't need to claim the conservative mantle because he had been banging the drum for decades. He had walked the walk, so he didn't need to talk the talk. That is why conservatives worship Ronald Reagan, but today's Republican candidates simply don't understand Reagan's governing philosophy - at least, not enough to break it down like Reagan did when he said famously called government the cause of, rather than a solution to, America's problems.

It's not time to panic yet. Four years ago, pundits were asking if the Democratic party was dead - they were painted as a party devoid of ideas that could only react to their opponents. Two years after John Kerry's failed presidential bid, the donkey-shaped tombstone had been chiseled, the Democrats were in power and driving the agenda. So the pendulum will swing, and it can happen sooner than expected. But depsite cries about the political environment being one way or another, a saying by my old boss Morton Blackwell rings true: in politics, nothing moves unless it's pushed.

Now is the time to push - and it isn't going to happen in smoke-filled backrooms and it's not going to come from political celebrities who will deliver a new platform from on high. It's up to us, to the grassroots, to make conservative ideas mainstream again. And given the challenge of a dynamic and charismatic champion of liberalism on the national scene, the right has no choice but to elevate our game - and not wait for national GOP leaders to do so.

Reagan would be the first to say that relying on big, national institutions for change is a mistake. The online media environment today gives us our window: never have such institutions (party leadership, national media) been less relevant. But to paraphrase fellow UMass alum and former Boston Celtics coach Rick Pitino, Ronald Reagan ain't walking through that door.

We have our work cut out for us, but this should be fun.

Predictions

Since my office constantly looks for opportunities to gamble, we have a small pool about the electoral college results. Just for fun, here's my best guess on how tonight is going to go:

Electoral tally: Obama 349, McCain 189, with Virginia, Ohio, and Florida the most notable states going from red to blue.

Senate: Look for the Democrats to pick up at least eight seats - Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Virginia.

House: The Democrats will gain as many as 20 seats, but look for an all-politics-is-local moment in Pennsylvania's 11th District, where Paul Kanjorski will fall to Hazleton Mayor Louis Barletta, largely over Barletta's reputation for standing firm on illegal immigration.

Alternative effigy

A West Hollywood man has been allowed to keep an effigy of Sarah Palin hanging from a noose in his front yard as part of a Halloween display - which is the right call, because he has the right to free speech and no one in their right mind thinks he is making an actual threat.

You may be asking yourself, what if it was another candidate - say, maybe, Barack Obama? Well, that gets the offending party arrested.

Paranoia may destroy ya, but McCain's health care plan won't

I have seen tons of Barack Obama commercials plugging his health care plan and telling me that John McCain’s plan will tax my health benefits. Predictably, it’s not true; what is true is that McCain’s plan would shift ownership of health care coverage to me and away from my employer – so if I change jobs, my health coverage comes with me. (It's a concept that was championed by Thomas Friedman in his best-selling book, The World Is Flat.) Barack Obama cribbed the major pillars of his program from Mitt Romney, who instituted it in my adopted homeland of Massachusetts.

Is it part of a disturbing pattern? Another Obama commercial quotes a Heritage Foundation policy expert – and by “quotes” I mean "flat out lies about" the expert opinion. Despite the lead, Obama is demonstrating an almost paranoid urgency. McCain HQ may want to double check their phone lines.

Give credit where credit is YEEEAAAHHHHHGGHH!!!

CNN.com contributor Roland Martin reminds us that before Obama put Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, and other formerly deep red states in play, Howard Dean boldly forged a "50-state Strategy" as chair of the DNC. The then-controversial plan was simple: Democrats would work to rebuild their party in every single state. Martin recalls that many influential Democrats feared the strategy spread resources too thin and would cost the Democrats their change to win a Congressional majority in 2006.

It obviously didn't, and the statement was clear: Dean felt his liberal policies would improve the life of every American, so he would ask every American for their vote.

In the six years since Republicans staged historic gains in the 2002 elections, some conservatives have gotten sloppy when talking about the red state/blue state divide, assuming that "elitist" urban areas wouldn't support conservative policies instead of finding a way to sell conservatism to those areas. We built a base of support in rural and suburban areas, but never made the case of why conservatives could run cities better than liberals.

The pendulum will shift, and in a few years Republicans will likely be in a stronger position than they are today. But to really rise from the ashes, we need to take new ground - rather than simply reclaim what we had.

Me? I'm supporting McCain's redistribution of wealth...

This is a couple weeks old, but a friend just showed it to me. King of All Media Howard Stern interviewed Barack Obama supporters in New York City and asked them if they supported Obama's "pro-life" stance, or his call to "finish the job" in Iraq. They enthusiastically agreed with many of McCain's positions:



It's no surprise to find uninformed voters who support a candidate but really don't understand what he or she stands for. This leads to two conclusions:

1. The 2008 election is not a referendum on any political philosophy, and should not be read as a fundamentaly shift to the left from the American electorate. It is a fundamental shift toward a guy who is great on TV and gives a great speech.

2. The Republicans - specifically, conservatives - need to step up the candidate recruitment, because there are plenty of people out there who will jump on board if you look great on TV and give a great speech.

But all PR is good PR, right? Right?

The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism released a study this week that showed coverage of John McCain in the mainstream media was predominantly negative, while coverage of Barack Obama is fairly even and balanced.

(I know – I’m shocked to learn this, too.)

In fact, the study shows McCain gets more bad coverage than typical Presidential candidates received in 2000 or 2004. Pew spokespeople are quick to point out that their findings do not indicate a partisan slant to the news (although, watching the news does indicate a strong partisan slant).

They may be on to something; McCain’s negative coverage could not solely be the work of a hostile press dedicated to electing Barack Obama. Hostile press is a fact of political life. Presidents Reagan and Bush both dealt with it and were able to speak with the American people through the coverage. That’s a tactic McCain simply hasn’t mastered yet, but its an important one for the rest of us Republicans who will be talking to both national and regional media over the next few years.

Nazis for McCain/Palin

Last night's Family Guy featured a sight gag I missed until I saw it on Digg today. Apparently, Nazis are all about McCain/Palin:



I'm assuming Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane did this because of the image of McCain's cult of personality inspiring massive crowds in Germany last summer... Oh, no, wait, that was Obama. Well, maybe it was because of the way McCain has targeted one segment of America as having too much money, and has promised to re-distribute their wealth (as Hitler did with Jewish businessowners)? Nope, that's Obama again.

It must have been campaign finance reform.

$600 Million? This is a change...

Barack Obama has changed politics - now it can cost you $600 million to run for President, thanks to Obama's record-shattering $150 million raised in September.

With one more month like that, the Obama campaing would have raised enough to buy both 2008 World Series participants. He has already raised enough for his White Sox.

By raising this much from small donations, Obama has indeed changed campaign fundraising as we know it. By creating a system where people can give $10 at a time, the Obama camp is getting people to invest in his campaign - and once people are invested, they stay interested. It's a tactic that dates back to high school: a club that charges dues can expect members to be much more serious about meetings and activities; a campaign can similarly expect its donors to be more serious about getting to the polls on election day.

Palin's next steps

Sarah Palin is stepping out of her shell to appear on SNL this week. This is a critical appearance - not for 2008, which is pretty much decided, but for her future as a Republican leader.

Palin's selection as McCain's veep energized the Republican party for a short period of time by signalling that the national ticket was willing to add a candidate who not only identified as a conservative but had governed (and lived) as one, as well. After a primary season where candidates fell all over themselves to quote Ronald Reagan, Palin was different in that she walked the walk. And of course, Republicans were eager to have their views articulated by someone other than an old white guy - just as the Democrats were when they rushed Barack Obama to the national spotlight in 2004.

This weekend, Palin begins the next phase of her political career. If she can hold her own and roll with SNL's punches, she can earn a position of relevance as a GOP spokesperson and set up a possible 2012 run for the White House.

Game on!

News broke this week that Barack Obama placed campaign ads in online video games. Obama's campaign has been very innovative throughout this campaign cycle - most notable their iPhone application which turns your mobile phone into a satellite campaign office. I'm not sure this is a great example of technical innovation, but it shows the pervasiveness of both advertising and political campaigns.

You might also imagine it shows the Obama camp has too much money, that they are wasting resources on ads directed at stoner teens who can't - or don't - vote. But if you look at the demographics of online gamers, it actually makes sense to advertise in this space. In fact, online gamers spend three times as long on their computers as they do in front of their TVs. It's actually a pretty bright move.

The biggest value was, of course, the free advertising the Obama camp received from the news media for using such a novel advertising tactic - a less-controversial equivalent of the strategy behind the "Daisy" ad.

Where's MY tax cut?

I tried out Barack Obama's "tax cut calculator." It doesn't seem to work. It looks nice, but when I tried to enter my information the problems started.

First, it wouldn't take all the information required. Next, it started processing whatever information it did have, but I couldn't tell what it was doing or how it was manipulating that data. Then it gave me a brief message about staying informed.

I didn't get any details about my tax cut - just the same short message, over and over again.

Hey, wait a minute...

Obama: We're taking your money. Get over it.

I don't have to make it up: He said it to a plumber from Ohio. To illustrate the courage of his convictions, he even tries to explain marginal rates to make the tax hike sound not so bad.



It plays well in the polls to wage class warfare and say that you're only taxing "the wealthy" - but the reality is that those taxes hurt the people who are expanding the economy. Government prints money, but businesses create wealth.

(By the way, if all this sounds familiar, it should.)

A promise is a promise...

John McCain has promised to bring up Barack Obama's relationship with 1960's activist/terrorist William Ayers in their debate this week.

I guess that's good, but on the off chance that Obama has a glib reply prepared, McCain may want to find something else to ask his opponent. Some things I would like to see discussed:

• How will Obama cut taxes for 95% of Americans when 33% don't pay income tax? What, is he just going to start printing money?
  
• Given all the issues surrounding ACORN, isn't this lofty rhetoric just a slick veneer on politics as usual? Or is there a canned talking point that says bringing that up is "erratic"?
  
• Isn't paying for your health care plan by raising a death tax a conflict of interest? If the health care system is funded by death rather than life, that might shift the incentives.

Putting union thugs back in charge of elections

The most interesting part of this week’s Presidential debate wasn’t even part of the debate – it was this commercial:



If you need to watch it again, I don’t blame you – that’s leftist stalwart George McGovern opposing the Employee Free Choice Act, or EFCA. This creatively-named legislation would let union officials – i.e. goons – look over a worker’s shoulder when he or she casts a vote to unionize, replacing the apparently outdated concept of secret ballots. The hope from organized labor and Democrat circles is that this would lead to an increase in union membership.

Union membership has been steadily declining despite a small uptick in 2007 – and the states where the economies have been most prosperous have been those with right-to-work laws.

Barack Obama (who is receiving $3 million worth of campaign help from his union buddies) is promising to sign the bill – which has been blocked by filibusters but has already passed the Democrat-controlled House. Considering what unions have done for the economies in places like Michigan, that would be an unwise move. Obama would do well to listen to fellow Democrat McGovern.

(For more information on keeping secret ballots in union elections, check out www.myprivateballot.com.)

After the party it's the afterparty

Did you enjoy your post-debate afterparty? It's safe to say Barack Obama did, netting nearly a cool million at a high-dollar fundraiser at Al Gore's mansion.

McCain's campaign has to be frustrated that despite Obama's obvious elitism and status as a long-time darling of the Democrat establishment, he still manages to successfully position himself as the "change" candidate.

We're losing the debates

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden debated last night. Like millions of Americans, I made sure I was in front of a TV to tune into Pitt's 26-21 upset of No. 10 South Florida.

What made the football game more interesting was that even though I was rooting for Pitt, I didn't have any idea what either side was going to do - much less what the outcome would be. If you've made up your mind on a candidate, chances are the debate won't change your mind. Worse yet, if you've followed the race to this point - and it has been a very long race to this point - you have a good idea of what each veep candidate will say in advance.

Early in the third quarter of the football game, Pitt tried a fake punt. It came from out of nowhere. What would the equivalent of a fake punt be in a Presidential or Vice Presidential debate? Joe Biden calling for free market solutions to the financial crisis? Sarah Palin accepting Hugh Hefner's offer?

Debates have become microcosms of the campaigns - in other words, scripted personality contests that only happen every four years. And for the campaigns, that's the right move, because they have such a finite amount of time to discuss issues and ideas. The American people are stuck voting for candidates based on personality rather than ideas.

Debates would be more useful if they were more frequent. In addition to holding a handful of candidates' debates just before an election, it might be fun to see monthly or weekly debates between conservatives and liberals on various issues. At the risk of dating myself, this worked well about 15 years ago, when Ross Perot and then-thin Vice President Al Gore debated NAFTA on Larry King Live.

I'd like to see an hour long debate between MoveOn.org and the Heritage Foundation about whether we should replace our income tax with a national sales tax. I'd like to see the AFL-CIO debate National Right to Work over the proposal to remove secret ballots from union elections.

This isn't going to turn our Presidential election into forums of philosophy, but it might help engage people more in the political process. And, let's be honest, those 24-hour-a-day news channels don't have enough news as it is. This would help them kill an hour or so a week.