ten word did not simply allow for mass society, but also detached the argument from the author, allowing a new discourse remote from emotional ties enabling great sci- entific discoveries. In the American and French Revolutions, people dis- cussed and countries tried to contend with the printing press along similar lines as we do today about twitter. Organizations learn they must adapt to the techniques rather than simply banning them: the techniques were never the cause in the first place. Political change is fos- tered because of under-riding economic and political factors, not techniques. Facebook may have facilitated the Arab uprising, but it


was by no means the cause of it. The status quo focuses on the how things have worked in the past without keeping the focus on what they are doing. Campaigns can easily fall into old habits of how they did things, instead of focusing on what they want to accomplish. As Trippi pointed out, “really smart people, even the Obama guys, they get fat and lazy and they’re in charge and the conventional wis- dom thing even seeps in for them.” And things are chang- ing faster than they have ever done in the past. Take the radio, for instance, which was commercially


introduced in the early 1920s. Politically it was used origi- nally by President Calvin Coolidge to deliver his State of the Union Address in 1923, but it was mastered with President Roosevelt’s fireside chats ten years later once it had reached over 50% adoption (US census). Originally, reports on radio were canned with little emotion, but with time techniques were adapted to bring a more human ele- ment to better connect with the audience. By 1960, the new thing was television. In the historic 1960s televised debate, the more traditional Nixon ap- proach won over radio listeners, while the physical charm and make-up of Kennedy won the TV audience. As the mediums connected with more senses, campaigns had to convey their message through voice tonality, changing the wording, correct arm movements and eye contact often requiring experts in the ins and outs of the new medium. The assumption was that TV was more effective at connecting with an audience than radio; technology was moving us forward, allowing us to connect better than we’ve ever before. These one-to-many tools do allow us to connect to more people, but it is patently wrong to say they allow us to connect better. The best messages for one-to-many mediums are those that appeal most broadly to the population, not best to each voter. The gap between these two levels of connecting, the


broad and the personal, is huge and leads people to turn off politics. Many in the public notice that general politi- cal messages are so similar as to make all the options ‘the same’, so why would it matter to not vote at all. In many ways, candidates appear the same because there are tried and true methods for reaching the broad audience. What we have in common is our fear of the unknown or los- ing what we have. Psychologists have shown we are risk


Campaigns can easily fall into old habits of how they did things, instead of focusing on what they want to accomplish.


averse. It is much easier to appeal to a broad audience with a negative message that emotionally connects with people. Our motivations are much more diverse. Dr. Drew Weston’s book, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation posits the four main requirements in the development of a political message. Overarching all requirements is to deliver emo- tionally compelling principles through a narrative, while defining the other party. This is the high-level messag- ing strategy that appeals to the broad target audience; all other messages should tie back to this/these over-riding principle(s). At a close second is to encourage positive “gut-level feelings” to the candidate, while the opposite to the opponent. Thirdly, campaigns should “manage feelings toward the candidates’ characteristics” or the sort of judg- ments relating to leadership qualities, kindness, or trust. At a “distant fourth” a campaign should manage feelings toward policies and positions. Notice that each of these four goals contains an emotional attachment. Through his research, Weston shows that humans ratio- nalize our emotions leading us to adopt positions based on what we most associate or ‘like’. His findings echo former Prime Minister Kim Campbell’s dictate “elections are no place to talk about issues.” Particularly when deal- ing through a broad medium, the message must be tightly about the highest order, principle, focus of a campaign. The focus has been far too much on mass media in the last 60 years, but when it was much easier to control and remain on message – it seemed the preferable option. Was it? The bible of effective GOTV technique, Get


Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout, by Doctors Don- ald Green and Alan Gerber hailing from Yale University, present the compiled facts from the last 20 years. They


April 2011 | Campaigns & Elections 19


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