Hmm… I might read that book. I actually agree with all the points you’ve posted except the one about issues and advertising. Although the caveat “unless they’re already sympathetic to the message” is a pretty big caveat. I mean most people are sympathetic to most things in one way or another.

Besides, when I said that candidates try to create a narrative about themselves, that narrative invariably includes their position on what they think the “key issues” are, so my statement that people vote based on that narrative is not in conflict with your statement that people understand (at least some of) the candidates position on the issues.

But it is an incomplete picture at best, although it is frequently complete enough for people to cast their vote.

I know a number of fundamentalists who vote on two or three issues. Those might be abortion and gay marriage. If a candidates narrative includes their position on those issues, and there is a clear choice, then those voters have made their choice based on what they think is all they need to know about that candidate. Obviously there are other voter groups with similarly narrow objectives who make their decisions very easily.

So to say that “most voters have a pretty good grasp of where the candidates stand on the big issues of the day” is not really in conflict with my statement that a large number of voters (and usually the key deciding voters) vote based on the candidate’s narratives instead of an analysis of their positions beyond those “big two or three” issues that matter to most voters.

If the narrative didn’t sway critical numbers of voters, candidates would not spend tens of millions of dollars creating, polishing and defending theirs. And right now Obama is losing control of his.

Look for him to regain control of his narrative by trying to focus his defense of his latest gaffe on whether certain voters are “bitter” or not. Also look at the news stories because those that focus on whether voters are “bitter” are the ones in the tank for Obama.

Because the issue that matters is not whether Obama is right about some voters being “bitter.” The issue is what Obama thinks “bitter” white rural voters do when they become bitter. And in Obama’s mind they turn to guns, god and racism as a refuge against that bitterness. That’s the real meat of Obama’s comment, but just check it out and see how many stories are about whether such voters are “bitter” or not. That will tell you a lot about the reporters and editors.

Now, if Obama can get the focus on “bitter” instead of his condescending comments about those voters, he can probably regain control of his narrative, but if not, then his narrative will not only contain his position on four or five “key” issues, it will also contain a sneering, elitist condescension for, at least, rural white voters. And that sneering, elitist condescension could very well trump the rest of his narrative with enough people that he could lose some key states, like Ohio, Florida or others.

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..CNN tries to help Obama out

Most Presidents sincerely try to keep all their promises, and do in fact deliver on most of them.

Most voters have a pretty good grasp of where the candidates stand on the big issues of the day, and decide who to vote for largely based on that.

Voters are not easily swayed by ads unless they’re already sympathetic to the message.

So-called “sound bites” contain large amounts of important data and are highly useful to voters knowing where the candidates stand on the big issues, and are in no way a distraction from the real conversation.

Political campaigns are not more negative these days than they used to be.

There’s more, but it’s a good book with lots of useful and sometimes surprising information.

I released the comments. Sorry.

I’ll try one more time, and keep it short so I don’t lose my voice from screaming at the monitor if I lose this one too…

Dean, I think you are drastically under-estimating the damage that this comment has done to Obama, just as I think you underestimated the damage his Wright association has done. This stuff is all accumulating, and if McCain wants to, he can use them both like a club on Obama for months. And it won’t be a standard club, it will be a +4 Club of Narrative Destruction, with nasty silver spikes in it.

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Maddux wins again

Shoot, I had a wonderful response typed in and it got lost to a “connection error”. Crap I hate that.

OK, to try to recreate it…

Dean, there are no doubt a large number of voters who believe they are making a rational choice based on their understanding of the issues and the candidates, but the bulk of those people are so committed to their ideology that they aren’t really after the “best” candidate, they are going to vote for the one that most closely reflects their ideology, period. That means Democrats are by and large going to vote for a Democrat and Republicans are by and large going to vote for a Republican. I could argue pretty easily that such patterns are proof that most voters don’t vote the candidates at all, they vote party or ideology.

However, that’s not enough votes to win elections. The votes needed to win an election are precisely those voters who are NOT bound to ideology or party, and as such will “swing” either way based on analysis, conscience or whim. It is these voters that are being targeted by the candidates brand-marketing efforts. And whoever wins that contest generally wins elections. So even if it’s not a “majority” it is still the key group of voters, and I think it is very clear from analyzing behavior and doing interviews of such voters that those voters react quite well to the marketing of the candidate.

I think you are confusing “elitist” with “condescending elitist.” Yes people will vote for elitists. In fact Ronald Reagan, G. H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush have all been accused of being “elitist.” But being “elitist” is not the same thing as being “condescending.” And Barack’s comment was clearly condescending at best, and downright insulting at worst.

All I’m trying to tell you is that it may not hurt him terribly in the nomination contest (although Hillary’s camp clearly thinks it will) but it will hurt him terribly in the general campaign, unless McCain is an absolute fool. Which is arguable…

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Al Franken is a big fat hypocrite?

OK, to try to recreate it…

Dean, there are no doubt a large number of voters who believe they are making a rational choice based on their understanding of the issues and the candidates, but the bulk of those people are so committed to their ideology that they aren’t really after the “best” candidate, they are going to vote for the one that most closely reflects their ideology, period. That means Democrats are by and large going to vote for a Democrat and Republicans are by and large going to vote for a Republican. I could argue pretty easily that such patterns are proof that most voters don’t vote the candidates at all, they vote party or ideology.

However, that’s not enough votes to win elections. The votes needed to win an election are precisely those voters who are NOT bound to ideology or party, and as such will “swing” either way based on analysis, conscience or whim. It is these voters that are being targeted by the candidates brand-marketing efforts. And whoever wins that contest generally wins elections. So even if it’s not a “majority” it is still the key group of voters, and I think it is very clear from analyzing behavior and doing interviews of such voters that those voters react quite well to the marketing of the candidate.

I think you are confusing “elitist” with “condescending elitist.” Yes people will vote for elitists. In fact Ronald Reagan, G. H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush have all been accused of being “elitist.” But being “elitist” is not the same thing as being “condescending.” And Barack’s comment was clearly condescending at best, and downright insulting at worst.

All I’m trying to tell you is that it may not hurt him terribly in the nomination contest (although Hillary’s camp clearly thinks it will) but it will hurt him terribly in the general campaign, unless McCain is an absolute fool. Which is arguable…

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Al Franken is a big fat hypocrite?

I think being a condescending elitist gets a Presidential candidate in trouble mostly only with a certain subset of people. Others like and appreciate condescending elitism, or simply find it annoying but not impossible to live with–and if that weren’t so, Franklin Roosevelt wouldn’t have been elected to the office four times (amongst other examples).

I think that in the end, most voters will be more concerned about Obama’s shallow resume and the questionable characters in his background than they will be mad that he’s a bit of a pompous elitist. You can believe me or not when I say that’s what I believe, but it’s what I believe. ;-)

Now, I think that you have a point, but it’s a point that only works if the political candidates are so un-electable that they fit into the “awful” category. Like, say, Ron Paul. ( ;) ) But as much as I dislike Obama, Clinton and McCain, none of them could be truly described as “awful” candidates, so your whole point becomes moot.

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Al Franken is a big fat hypocrite?

I did say that most people respond more to the constructed narrative than to the rational analysis of facts. I stand by that. I think, as I said, that it is blindingly obvious. In fact I think if you were to argue otherwise in a serious academic analysis of American political dynamics, you would be (quite properly) laughed out of the room.

Let me ask you this, do you think rational analysis of brands drives what people purchase? If so, do you then conclude that the multi-trillion dollar Madison Avenue marketing industry is just wasted money?

As I said, I still choose to believe that you are being disingenuous, but you are beginning to construct a narrative that may convince me that you are instead being purposefully naive. ;)

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Al Franken is a big fat hypocrite?