Feeds:
Inlägg
Kommentarer

Posts Tagged ‘Stuart Stevens’

DEBATT | Inför deras första debatt har Barack Obama och Mitt Romney gått inför att skapa låga förväntningar kring deras egen debattskicklighet.

Strategin går naturligtvis ut på att överraska väljarnas med att de gjorde bättre ifrån sig än väntat när det väl är över.

“Governor Romney he’s a good debater, I’m just okey”, poängterade t.ex. Obama under ett kampanjevent i Las Vegas under förra söndagen.

Och Romney spelade samma spel i en intervju med Fox News i vecka som gick.

”I don’t know how to raise or lower expectations,” sade Romney. ”The president is a very eloquent, gifted speaker. He’ll do just fine. I’ve never been in a presidential debate like this and it will be a new experience.”

James Fallows, nationell korrespondent på tidskriften The Atlantic, har tittat närmare på debatternas betydelse för utgången av ett presidentval och de två kombattanternas olika styrkor och svagheter.

Mitt Romney is far less effective as a big-speech orator than Barack Obama, and in many other aspects of campaigning he displays what appear to be laboriously studied moves rather than anything that comes naturally. But debates are and have been his strength. He grew up enjoying “big, boisterous arguments about everything around the dinner table,” according to his campaign strategist and main debate-prep specialist, Stuart Stevens. “He loves the dialectic of arguing the different sides, and he’s most uncomfortable when no one is disagreeing with him.” He will enter this fall’s encounters with very recent, successful experience in a very wide range of formats and challenges.

In none of the Republican-primary debates was Romney judged the big loser; in many he was the clear winner, and as the campaign wore on, the dominant image from the debates was of a confident Romney, standing with a slight smile on his face and his hands resting easily in his pockets, looking on with calm amusement as the lesser figures squabbled among themselves and sometimes lashed out at him.

Civics teachers won’t want to hear this, but the easiest way to judge “victory” in many debates is to watch with the sound turned off, so you can assess the candidates’ ease, tenseness, humor, and other traits signaled by their body language. By this standard, Ron Paul, with his chronically ill-fitting suits, often looked cranky; Rick Santorum often looked angry; Rick Perry initially looked pole­axed and confused; Jon Huntsman looked nervous; Newt Ging­rich looked overexcited—and so on through the list until we reach Mitt Romney, who almost always looked at ease. (As did Herman Cain, illustrating that body language is not everything.) Romney looked like the grown-up—the winner, the obvious candidate—with or without sound. “He is as good as it gets in debating,” former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who was the first major contender to drop out of the Republican race, told me. “He is poised, prepared, smart, strategic—tactical, too.”

[…]

Romney is very strong as a debater but has also shown two repeated weaknesses: a thin command of policy details, and an awkwardness when taken by surprise.

When the subject is one he’s prepared for, he rarely falters. When it’s not, or when an exchange goes on longer or in a different direction than expected, many of his ad-libbed responses turn out to be mistakes (“I’ll bet you $10,000!”). Thus the Romney team has the impossible challenge of trying to imagine every question or attack line that might come up in debates with Obama, while the Obama team tries to imagine what Romney’s might have missed. This kind of chess game is always part of debate preparation, but it is unusually important this year, because the gap between Romney at his best and at his worst is so wide.

[…]

“The history is that challengers tend to profit, particularly in the first debate,” David Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign strategist, told me in June. “Just the act of being on the stage with a president is an elevating thing.” This sounds like a small matter, but through the years, analysis of debate reactions has shown that the public takes a candidate more seriously after seeing him, for the first time, on equal footing with an incumbent president.

[…]

In this year’s debates, Barack Obama’s most inspiring and powerful message as a candidate will no longer be available to him. Four years ago, “Change we can believe in” suggested that things could be different and much better with him in charge. Now even his most fervent backers doubt how much better things are likely to get in a second Obama term. His critics put the same point more harshly. “This time, the president won’t have the luxury of making stuff up and speaking aspirationally,” Tim Pawlenty told me on a campaign swing through Pennsylvania with Romney in June. “He actually has to defend his record and attach facts to it.”

One more factor is working against Obama in the debates. When the economy is bad and an incumbent is beset, the challenger’s task is simplified. He doesn’t need to belabor the case against the incumbent. Reality has already done that; everyone knows what’s wrong with the president they have now. All the challenger has to do is say: “Look me over. I’ll be okay in this job. You can feel comfortable with me.” This is what Ronald Reagan did in 1980, and Bill Clinton in 1992. Meanwhile, the incumbent has to work twice as hard, in order to make two arguments at once. He must prove something about himself: that, while battered, he’s still energetic, visionary, and up to the job. He must also prove something about his opponent: that he is bad for the country, unready, and overall worse.

And he must do all this without seeming defensive or tense; while appearing easily in command to those who see images without hearing words; and, in Obama’s uniquely straitjacketed case, while avoiding the slightest hint of being an “angry black man.”

[…]

If economic trends are bad enough—or, improbably, good enough—to turn the election into a runaway, we might look back and say that the debates didn’t matter. But in what gives every sign of being a close, bitter, expensive, and mostly negative contest, the way these men interact onstage could make a major difference.

Övrigt: Se även Fallows video “Romney the Debater: His Strengths and Weaknesses”. Inför valet 2008 gjorde Fallows en liknande analys som ovan i essayen ”Rhetorical Questions”. (Tidskriftsomslaget ovan är The Atlantic, september 2012.)

Read Full Post »

USA | Årets presidentvalskampanj kommer att bli den dyraste, och mest negativa, i modern tid. Anledningen är att det finns mer pengar i omlopp än någonsin.

Och med mer pengar i systemet följer som ett brev på posten att kampanjteamen (och allierade organisationer) kommer att producera än mer politisk reklam för TV och Internet. Mängden reklam med negativ vinkling kommer därmed också att öka totalt sett.

Joe Hagen skriver i tidskriften New York:

In 2008, while Obama ran on the “hope” brand, the Obama campaign spent more money on negative ads than any other campaign in history, much of it under the radar—for instance, a radio ad that ­micro-targeted independent women and claimed McCain was against stem cells for medical research, even though he supported it.

[…]

TV ads are still the keystone of a negative campaign—but now they’re part of an arsenal rather than the whole war. When I visited Romney’s headquarters, Stuart Stevens showed me a research report on the projected impact of TV in the 2012 election that found that less than half of those between the ages of 18 and 44 got their video content primarily from live television. With DVRs and social media blunting TV’s impact, the report says, the campaign should reduce the frequency of TV and push into “engagement-based” advertising and media like Facebook or online videos.

But in recent years, the reaction of these campaign pros to media fragmentation has simply been to run more, not fewer, TV ads to try to break through. Whereas it used to take eight replays of an ad to see movement in polling numbers, they reason, it now requires a dozen or more. In South Carolina, the super-PACs ran ads up to 22 times a day.

[…]

Twitter, barely a factor in 2008, is now the ideal delivery system for oppo, because information can emerge from the margins through a lower-tier agent, often anonymously, and get amplified on much bigger platforms, and quickly.

[…]

That means the new rule for negative campaigning is emerging, the same one that applies to TV advertising in a fragmented cable spectrum: repetition, ad nauseam. “For instance, the flip-flopping angle with Mitt,” explains Rodell Mollineau, president of pro-Obama super-PAC American Bridge 21st Century. “You can be another organization that puts out the fifteenth press release on that, and sometimes you need to just have twelve, thirteen, fourteen of the same thing, knock it into the people’s consciousness.”

[…]

And if a candidate doesn’t go negative, he’s liable to be inundated by his opponent’s attacks—and unable to make a positive case. “A good hit buys you a little bit of room,” says Devorah Adler [Obamas research director 2008], “and that’s really all you need.”

Övrigt: Texten och tidskriftsomslaget med Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich och Barack Obama är från New York den 30 januari 2012.

Read Full Post »