How Can (And Will) Media Shape the 2012 Election

If there is any doubt in your mind that the media can drastically influence an election, ask Hilary Clinton. We read in Game Change about how the media's skewering of her campaign took a huge emotion toll on her. I found this link, which was one of the many instances of the mainstream news jabbing her for crying on the campaign trail.

Am I saying that the media was solely responsible for Hilary losing to Obama in the primaries? Not at all. However, trying to ignore how much of a factor they were in the way her campaign shaped out cannot simply be ignored. The massive amount of crying coverage, in addition to other coverage that seemed endless in a bloody primary was an example of one of the many ways the media can dictate an election cycle.

Similar to the way we had to constantly see Hilary when the media was "taking her down" (her words), when Rick Perry makes a gaffe during a debate, we see it ad nauseum - It's not just on every news outlet through a seeming loop, it's a punchline on variety television for weeks later. Up until his dropping out of the race this Saturday, it seemed that you could not turn on a news station without getting some sort of update on Herman Cain's many woes, as well. Now that Gingrich is out in front of the GOP field, he seems to be the only thing CNN wants to talk about.

A presidential candidate is greeted by dozens of camera whenever they leave the protection of their homes or campaign buses. With this kind of intense coverage and a microphone on them 24/7, there are bound to be gaffes and bumps along the road that can cripple candidates. How does Rick Perry look in the polls after his month long smashing at the hands of the media? Candidates become punchlines in today's news coverage.

However, I'm sure some candidates would welcome overcoverage. Candidates like John Huntsman and especially Ron Paul feel they don't get enough coverage. Ron Paul was given less than two minutes during the most recent debate, and he spends nearly every moment he shows up on your television reminding you how the news media isn't willing to give him the time of day.


Paul was a serious contender during the Iowa straw poll, but has been consistently sliding further and further down the list in polls. He's gone from near the top to barely fetching 5 percent, and being considered the least "acceptable" Republican candidate by likely voters. Sharing the same percentage as Herman Cain.

How the news media chooses what it covers will continue to play a huge role in how this election plays out, and I wouldn't be surprised if another candidate gets slammed hard in the news media either before or during the early primary season (looking at you, Bachmann). It will continue to be interesting to see whether or not their headlines news covers the appropriate things (Such as Herman Cain's sex scandal) or if it will continue to look like unnecessary piling on, such as in the cases of Ron Paul and Rick Perry.

10 Things I Want To Know About The 2012 Election

1. Why not Romney? - With Newt Gingrich now surging to the top of the polls, there have been four different candidates perched up on top of the GOP polls with Romney being second fiddle to all of them. Look, either he's that unlikable as a candidate and you should all just jump ship from him, or you should just accept the inevitability that he is the only candidate with a shot at Obama.

2. Who is John Huntsman? - Though I've seen him on numerous talks shows and appearances, I don't know what thing about who Huntsman is politically or as a candidate, and that's an issue. Seth Meyers joked with him that he will never hear "Mr. Huntsman, this question is for you." at a debate, how long is that going to be true?

3. Why isn't social media a factor, yet? - Sure, Obama's "I'm in" campaign was fascinating, but with Huntsman being showing up all over late night television and Ron Paul being the candidate of choice for the average internet goer based on my observations, why aren't these numbers being reflected in the polls? Is there something we are missing?

4. When will the herd thin? - Sure, having all these candidates is cute, but are we really planning on taking candidates like Huntsman or Santorum all the way to Iowa or further. The more we give them credence as candidates, the less time we can devote to the candidates who are legitimate contenders.

5. What will supercommittee fallout do? - We've heard what sort of repercussions that supercomittee, which we know is now planning on announcing they cannot come to agreement, will have for the country, but how hard with the fallout hit Obama? And, what GOP will twist into a big bump in the polls?

6. Who stumbles next? - With the biggest headline getters being the Perry's and Cain's who are making gaffes, who is next to say something they're going to have to damage control afterwards? Will Ron Paul, in a desperate attempt to get headlines, start screaming "GOLD" mid-sentence in a debate?

7. Where's Sarah Palin? - I'm tired of all of these amateur GOP contenders making themselves look like fools for the camera. I want to bring back a pro!

8. What do off-year elections say about the current GOP offerings? - We saw, even locally here in Arizona, that the most recent elections were a proverbial "mea culpa" by Independents for allowing Tea Party policies into government. Does this mean curtains for Cain, Bachmann and Paul?

9. When are we going to fix polling in this country? - It seems like you can get just about anyone to conduct a survey these days, why are we actually doing that instead of just getting one group we all can trust to do these early polls?

10. When is the media going to learn? - Between reporting every poll down the chute to make the election look chaotic, to overcovering the election before any primary as even happened, when are we ever going to learn that this doesn't really change any aspect of the lives of the average American? Why are we covering things just so they can be talked about over the water cooler?

Herman Cain and The Money Behind Politics

I realized halfway through this blog post that the title could be misinterpreted, and I just wanted to make it clear that I intend to blog about two separate topics, Herman Cain and then the money behind politics, today.

Wow. What an ad that was. The dim lighting and the blatant shots of him forcing puffs from a cigarette make it seem like it's a deleted scene from a bad Tarantino rip-off. Add that to the conflicting attitudes of the commercial - with the dark dim lighting contradicting it's rallying the troops tone. And then that smile. Oh boy, that smile. I think Jon Stewart of the Daily Show fame hits the nail on the head with the splicing of that hilariously awful smile with new music.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/jon-stewart-herman-cain-sexual-harassment_n_1069217.html

As much as the ad is chock full of mistakes, I like it. It's typical Cain, who has been all in with bad ideas and fringe appeals throughout his candidacy. Cain embraces every aspect of his personality and policies as if they're any good as any other, and is a "take it or leave it" sort of candidate. So, while I think I might just like the ad because it's one step closer to blowing up his candidacy so I don't have to see him on my T.V., if people have already bought into the idea of Cain, they're going to eat this up with a spoon.

As far as political money, it was fascinating to read how easy it is for people to drastically influence the nature of politics. Reading about how a millionaire can just as easily funnel his money into a candidate without any accountability to it is downright baffling.

Finally, it doesn't surprise me that there isn't really a method to gauge how well political endorsements from publications help a candidate. While I think the average voter may think a publication can know more about a candidate in a given election, I think that they don't put a lot of clout in those endorsements. It seems like there's a lot of suspicion of newspapers, and a political endorsement probably does more to raise the idea that they are in the pocket of politics more than anything else.

Ad Season Ramping Up

Two of my favorite ads so far in the 2012 election cycle have been these:

In this ad, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul takes a much smarter approach than I have seen throughout most of the primary. Instead of trying to differentiate himself from Barack Obama, he shows how each of his relevant opponents have sided with Obama or with liberal politics and ideas. I think is a much smarter game plan - instead of slamming into the juggernaut that is the Obama politcal machine, Paul saves his early game for taking hits on the Mitt Romneys and Rick Perrys of the world. Now, while this is probably a logistical thing (Paul likely has much less in the war chest than his opponents, and therefore has to keep doing well in the primary to stay afloat), it's smart to save your big hits on Obama for when he is actually your main opponent and to make yourself look different from the sea of other (with apologies to Bachmann and Cain) white guys in suits that are running against you.

I also like this ad:

I'm a fan of this one because it's an incumbent behaving like an incumbent should. Not gloating about achievement, not complaining about what he would do better, and no mudslinging at any of his opponents. Now, I'm not exclusively against mudslinging per se - it's a very useful tactic. Though, Obama has the opportunity of being ahead of every possible contender and having a lot of chances for them to shoot themselves in the foot. This is clear with this ad, which is very calm and relaxed. It focuses on Obama has a candidate and a leader, not on tearing down any opponents.

I chose to analyze Gov. Rick Perry's calling of Herman Cain "brother" during a recent debate. These three articles had a couple big differences that I thought were critical.

http://theweek.com/article/index/220489/why-did-rick-perry-call-herman-cain-brother

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-19/news/30318205_1_herman-cain-brother-debate

http://news.yahoo.com/why-did-rick-perry-call-herman-cain-brother-095000099.html

What I found most interesting is that one of the articles, the one from the New York Daily News, didn't refer at all to the fact that Rick Perry also called Gov. Mitt Romney "Sir". I felt like this was an important idea, and lent very much to the fact that Rick Perry was sarcastically urbanizing his speech towards Cain while making Romney seem stuffy. He was lampooning his candidates in a way to make them less appealing to the voters.

I also found it interesting that the New York Daily News was the only publication to not rely on its own conjecture - instead going to experts in the subject of race relations. This allows them to tell a fairly straight inverted pyramid style story while everyone else relied on the instant analysis type of story.

I think it's interesting that the Washington Post, a paper seen as "liberal" analyzed every possible angle and reason the Perry could have used the term. It seems like they would have instantly gone with "racism" if they were marking for Obama.