A Stunning Victory for...Television.

[ludwigb]

The winner is the candidate who, by critical consensus, had the best television ads. The runner-up owes his even more incredible rise to being widely recognized as "nice" and "optimistic". He's an articulate, bright and caring person. How do people know this? Because the statewide ads tell them so, and the face of John Edwards meets their unconscious longings. Meanwhile, tall and deep-voiced John Kerry taps into a longing for a calm, powerful, commanding presence.

The fact of the matter is that all of Dean's money isn't going to make him a telegenic personality. At lunch today I briefly discussed the election with one of my roommates--she was vaguely familiar with Dean.

"Isn't he the one with the awful red face that goes around shouting 'You have the power! You have the power!," she asked.
"Yes, where did you see him?"
"Oh, on the news a few days ago."

That says it all.

It is sometimes difficult for us Net junkies, who watch little or no TV, to realize that the wide world around us remains firmly committed to the original fix. Many on the Net attribute Dean's defeat to the overwhelming power of the corporate media. They are only right insofar as it is the nature of the dominant medium of television that defeated them, rather than some corporate conspiracy. Gephardt's traditional labor volunteer campaign failed just as spectacularly as Dean's innovative Internet volunteer campaign.

The entire Internet punditry class, as a red-faced Andrew Sullivan points out, has demonstrably overestimated the power of new media. We have been caught up in a circular, blogular CW and have lost touch with the medium that brought Clinton and Bush to power.

I'm going to return to my original instinct, before I went to Dean meet-ups and got idealistic about the democratic power of new media. The Democratic candidate must be someone who can defeat Bush on the television screen. He must win over people whose only knowledge of politics are sound bytes and headlines through the sheer force of his personality. Simply put, the Democrats need to nominate someone we could imagine our parents and grandparents voting for, even if they knew next to nothing about his ideas.

I say we should give each one of the candidates an honest 2nd look. How effective are they at convincing normal (that is, unpolitical) people?

We have to win in 2004. Let us learn what we can from these early primaries and act accordingly!

[jedicord]

1. Unfortunately, You're Right

I like Kucinich, but there's no way Average Joe and Jane will vote for him, 'cause he's just weird looking.

Last night, my husband (Average Joe, trust me) took a liking to Edwards, based simply on his presence. Hated Dean, based simply on his presence (remember I like Dean).

My man's my national thermometer. Edwards could beat Bush.

[ludwigb]

2. I wish it wasn't true.....

But my Mom is the same way. She has voted for the winner in the last 4 elections and ALWAYS rationalizes her vote as the vote for the "nicest" man. She even told me that Gore lacked humility and this was a bad trait for a president to have.

This is a popularity contest, whether we like it or not.

Certainly Edwards, probably Clark, maybe Kerry can compete with Bush in the 'nice' department, but it isn't the only aspect of being telegenic.

[Stuckinthebush]

3. Oh, Lordy!

Your mother thought Gore lacked humility and that Bush had it!

Please, please ask her today what her thoughts are about Bush's "humility"! That is rich, thanks.

[jedicord]

5. What's the Percentage of Independents in the US?

That could make a huge difference this year.

My sister voted for Bush because he's so "good looking". :puke:

My mother-in-law voted for Bush because he's from Texas.

They are both generally Democrats.

P.S. My husband voted for Gore 'cause I told him to. O8)

[DrBB]

4. My parents: disaffected Republicans

They don't like Bush--my Pop is VERY conservative, but he is a Buchanan-type isolationist Catholic conservative.

Had a long talk with 'em. You're right: Dean is not an option for them. I want to say on a "gut" level, but it's really more on an optic- and audio-nerve level.

There has to be a certain fit between biography, positions, and appearance/manner. It's not all one thing. But two of 'em can easily outweigh one of the others, and if you have biography and manner, positions are vastly less significant. You could analyze it better than this, but the formula's something like that.

Bottom line: that formula works for Clark, with them. He is way more liberal on positions, but his background and manner make him a possible vote for these two disaffected Bush voters. Kerry would not do it because even though he's a Viet vet (good) he was also prominently anti-war (intolerable for my Pop--generation gap).

I think it's very interesting that I, as a liberal and an old 70s war protester, and my Pop can actually both like the same candidate. Me more than him of course. But Clark actually embodies far more of the things my dad respects than Bush does, even though his positions are leftish, and that makes an anti-Bush vote for Clark a possibility for him. (Mom's an easier sell--not as hard-right as the old man.)

SUPERB thread, this, by the way. Surprised not more are weighing in.

[ludwigb]

9. I think Clark....

can certainly appeal across the political spectrum. He's the most promising candidate IF he can prove he's got good political instincts. Kerry and to a lesser extent Edwards are more tested and thus don't have as much to prove.

Clark may want to rethink emphasizing his opposition to the war--the Iowa results do not bode well for that strategy.

I also like your comment on the "optic and audio-nerve level"--I think this is true and the strongest argument against Dean. The thing is, it seems more difficult for the media to spin Clark as crazy--even if you catch him in one of his cantankerous moments (which are rare, but do happen), you're more likely to blame the person he's angry at than Clark himself. We'll see in the next few weeks whether this is true for the population at large.....

[aquanut]

16. Dovetails nicely with what I was trying to say here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=145060#145787

[stickdog]

6. Sure, it's true.

Dean come across best of all the candidates in audience question and answer sessions.

And he's pretty good, but not great, on the stump.

However, his ads suck, and when he thinks he being unfairly attacked he stops being quick on his feet.

On the other hand, he comes across as real, regular and tough when he's comfortable with his audience. Overall, I think he's the class of the field when he isn't playing prevent defense against hordes of attacker or exhorting crowds with repetitive mantras.

Kerry and Lieberman are resoundingly unappealing. Edwards "soothing salesman" approach wears thin after a few doses and Clark sounds like he just finished cramming in order to memorize his issue stances. Finally, DK resembles a scowling elf, and Sharpton is an entertainer.

[ludwigb]

12. A good Dean TV ad

Would look like this (in my not so humble opinion)

Show pictures of ordinary people and children with a grave voice talking about the dominance of special interests and the loss of control of public life. How only one candidate is revolutionizing the way campaigns are financed and run, only one is returning power to the people. Then fade to black with white letters.

"You have the power."

[JCMach1]

7. It was that Kerry ad with the veteran...

It was that good.

[leyton]

8. Don't blame it on TV.

John Edwards visited every county in Iowa. I'll bet most of the people who voted for him saw him in person.

Sour grapes, methinks.

[ludwigb]

11. I'm not taking anything away from Edwards

He's a great candidate and he's working extremely hard. He got the DM Register endorsement and he's proven his charisma (see the Lizza article at TNR)

Still, he picked up something like 20 points in the last week. Don't tell me that has nothing to do with TV. It has everything to do with TV.

[bloom]

19. I think most of the people in this country

are aligned with the TV mentality. It's the same thing that makes Britney Spears popular. The celebrity image. The American Idol.

So I think, whether the candidate is seen in person or on TV, people are affected by the TV, regardless. I think even people who don't watch TV are affected by the values of those that do.

[ludwigb]

20. Sure....

Look how much we horse-racers are forced to think about it!

[Jerseycoa]

21. Exactly right

Edwards did it one on one. Dean also visited every county in Iowa.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. I think you're right

Overestimating "netroots" - yes, and even overestimating "grassroots" - how the hell did Gep get trounced so badly?

The only problem with your strategy is even if we had a super-telegenic candidate beloved by grandparents everywhere - the people who own the TV stations might decide to make them untelegenic - look what they did to Gore.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. I agree wholeheartedly...

and have been saying this all along.

The country is not made up of political junkies who hang out on discussion boards. Opinions are created viscerally, not necesaarily rationally. Even on the boards, look how many people heed their emotions and not their minds.

Remember how Nixon lost to Kennedy simply because he didn't shave and seemed a little nervous and shifty through the debate? There was a lot of discussion about how women voted for Kennedy because he was cute, but that wasn't the story at all.

It's about trust. Most of us don't vote on issues that much. there may be a dealbreaker here and there, but most of us know that all talk about issues is largely hot air and none of these people can really get all of their fantasy programs through.

No, what we are voting for is someone we trust to muddle through the morass of bureaucracy, Congress, interminable opposition, the press and the rest of this beautiful swamp we call a democracy and not screw things up any more than they already are while trying to make it just a little bit better.

Who can we trust to give us the best chance our children will see a better world? Who can we trust to let us do our own best to work things out?

Who can we trust not to destroy what others have built?

Who can we trust to do the job without cracking up?

We learn who to trust not by listening to talking heads or online screamers. We learn it by taking whatever we have learned in life and watching these people as they go through their campaigns and seeing how they stack up. We get impressions from discussions in the office, at church meetings, in the Dairy Queen, at the kids's soccer games... and we see what the people we know and respect think. We also see what the people we don't care much about think.

Eventually, we go into the voting booth alone with nothing but trust, and hope.

Our candidate must be someone everyone can trust more than Shrub. I would hope the process gives us that person.

[SheilaT]

14. Here's another way to analyze the

results in Iowa.

The tallest man came in first. I think second place went to the next tallest one. Not sure if Dean is taller or shorter than Gephardt. If he's taller, what does that tell us?

corrected spelling.

[ludwigb]

15. Those eyebrows

Yes, Gep is taller than Dean, but then again he lacks eyebrows.....

Can it be that eyebrows are the formula--whoever has the most eyebrows wins?

[aquanut]

17. That bodes well for Clark

The guy definately had a unibrow as a young man. :-)

[leyton]

18. I think it helps if your name is

John.

[John_H]

22. Nice, thoughtful post.

You're ten times better on media than you are on campaign finance, Ludwig :).

Like I tell my Dad, it's going to take all the folks his age dying off, and the people of my generation getting more used to the Net before TV even has to look over its shoulder.

And you can add that this is a stunning win for old fashioned politcal organizers. Sad, perhaps, depending on your persepective, but true. A few pros with cell phones and legal pads smoked 3,000 college kids with color coded hats and laptops.