Featur e
A photo from the televised debate
The 1960
campaign for president
transformed American elections. The race, which pitted the young and charismatic John F. Kennedy against Vice President Richard Nixon, a seasoned politician, was one of the most competitive in the nation’s history, but it is note- worthy for other reasons as well. It catapulted television, an emerging medium at the time, to the forefront of American campaigns—where it has remained since—and transformed the ways in which campaigns strategize and appeal to voters. It was, in many respects, the first mod- ern campaign. As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the contest, and as we prepare for the start of the 2012 campaign for president, Ted Sorensen, John F. Kennedy’s legendary ad- viser and one of the campaign’s masterminds, reflects on the 1960 election and the lessons for contemporary campaigns.
2 1
8 Campaigns & Elections | Canadian Edition
Even a young United States senator, inexperienced in executive administration and a member of an oft-disparaged demographic minority group, can,
through hard work, defeat a hard-nosed, hard-eyed, hard- hearted WASP who scowls more than he smiles – even though a single speech cannot overcome decades of dispar- agement for his demographic group. (Like many of these 1960 lessons, this one was reinforced by the 2008 campaign.)
Presidential nominations are won by little-known delegates at the grassroots level in each state, not by endorsements from big names in Washington,
DC. Long-time governors and mayors are more important than congressmen and senators. Quoting my book Coun- selor: “The presidential race is not a single national campaign but many campaigns contested state by state.” This is a huge country, and years are required to find reliable and useful friends and allies in every state.
3
Presidential elections are won by electoral votes, not popular votes. A commitment to campaign in every one of the 50 states is foolish compared with a
campaign strategy that devotes most of the candidate’s time, money, attention, and energy to those “feasible” states that constitute a majority, and does not waste time in smaller states where the candidate and his/her party have com- paratively little chance of success. (We made no attempt to match Nixon’s commitment to campaign in every state, and JFK made repeat visits to New York, California, and Texas while Nixon was slogging through the snows of Alaska.)
DALMAS/SIPA/Newscom
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79