What do Values, Authenticity; Communication and Connection, Trust, and Identity have to do with voter's decisions? According to George Lakoff, everything. According to George Lakoff, everything.
History says negative campaigning works. The press, commentators, pundits and the like have discussed ad infinitum how democrats do not know how to fight back and lose elections because of it. That is when democrats get attacked, they take the high road and not respond, whine about their republican opponents not fighting fair, try to use logic or truth to rebut the attacks, wait too long to respond, or respond with nuanced explanations.
Attacks late in a presidential campaign can be likened to a schoolyard fight. The kid who gets punched in the face needs to fight back. If he doesn't, he gets labeled a sissy. Barack needs to fight back. The public wants a champion. The public needs to know whether Obama can defend himself before they will consider if he can be their champion.
Of course, there are different ways of fighting back, the point being to define or redefine your opponent. McCain's way of fighting has been to blatantly lie in order to gain the upper hand. This is the way (lies) he has chosen to define himself, Palin and Obama.
I mentioned earlier this week that IMO, republicans operatives would be using racially coded language to stir up and influence the minority of voters who could be swayed by race-baiting. At that time I questioned "... which serves the race- baiter's interest more -- the original statement or the indignation and backlash that typically follow? " IMO, the resistance put up against "uppity" helps to amplify the statement and focuses the publics attention on whether Obama is uppity. A better response would be to change the focus of the discussion.
An article written today by by George Lakoff provides some support for this idea. In it he states,
"Four years ago, I wrote a book called "Don't Think of an Elephant!." The title made a basic point: Negating a frame activates that frame. If you activate the other side's frame, you just help the other side, as Nixon found out when he said, "I am not a crook," which made people think of him as a crook.
The Obama campaign just put out an ad called "No Maverick". The basic idea was right. The Maverick Frame is central to the McCain campaign and, as the ad points out, it's a lie. But negating the Maverick Frame just activates that frame and helps McCain. You have to substitute a different frame that characterizes McCain as he really is."
You can see this concept deployed by the McCain campaign in response to Obama's attempt to discuss education. Instead of engaging Obama in a substantive discussion on education (amplifying Obama's discussion) he changed the subject by smearing Obama as a 'sex pervert' wanting to EDUCATE young children about sex. He replaced Obama's EDUCATION 'frame' with an EDUCATION smear. Will it work? It depends upon how Obama fights back. But responding to McCain with "I'm not a sex ..." won't work. It will only amplify McCain's assertion.
Next, when Obama mentioned "Lipstick on a Pig" McCain turned the statement against Obama. Pundits suggest that McCain simply wanted to twist Obama's comment to keep Obama off message for another day. IMO, there's a second reason that McCain pounced. "Lipstick on a pig" is a great sound bite. Labeling the McCain/Palin ticket "Lipstick on a pig" is an effective and potentially defining sound bite. It does a much better job then the 'No Maverick' ad in conveying the message the McCain (pig) with Palin (lipstick) is just 'more of the same.' If McCain succeeds at turning Obama's "lipstick on a pig' into an Obama slur against Palin, he neuters an effective sound bite against himself. That would be brilliant if he succeeds.
Lakoff goes on to discuss what voters base their decisions on.
"In 1980, Richard Wirthlin - Ronald Reagan's chief strategist - made a fateful discovery. In his first poll he discovered that most people didn't like Reagan's positions on the issues, but nevertheless wanted to vote for Reagan. The reason, he figured out, is that voters vote for a president not primarily on the issues, but on five other "character" factors; values; authenticity; communication and connection; trust; and identity. In the Reagan-Carter and Reagan-Mondale debates, Mondale and Carter were ahead on the issues and lost the debates because the debates were not about the issues, but about those other five character factors. George W. Bush used the same observation in his two races. Gore and Kerry ran on the issues. Bush ran on those five factors.
It certainly looks like this is the republican play book doesn't it? Didn't republicans just had a convention where the issues WERE NOT discussed but PERSONALITIES were? Do they know something that Democrats don't?
Josh Marshall commented this morning on how Obama hasn't been seen in front of a large crowd since the convention. Well last night he did and did well doing it. He feeds off that energy and does well in that arena. Obama needs to go out and do the large venues that have help create the Obama phenomenon. It has been a hallmark of his success. He needs to have the press oohing over him again. There is value in the small venues for Obama to connect with white working class voters who need quality time with him. But he shouldn't abandon what made him a star.
Finally consider how the volumes of negative commentary on blogs including here on dailykos helps to reinforce McCain's negative 'frames' of Obama?'
Please recommend if you think is worth discussing.