Related: One critque that I have read a number of times over the past week from the anti-McCain wing of the blogosphere has been that his campaign has sacrificed the development of a coherent narrative or a long-term media strategy for short-term and ad hoc efforts to dominate the short-term news cycle. I've not seen enough evidence to be convinced of this, but it's an interesting take on how each campaign may understand the role that (various) media play (or will be encouraged to play) in this election.
In that vein, I draw your attention to Ezra Klein's take on the Palin speech. He writes, in part:
She chose the applause line, not the deeper argument. In that sense, the speech was slave to the same priorities that governed her selection as vice president: It was aimed at wining the news cycle, not the campaign. Again and again, strong narratives were sacrificed for good lines.Absent more evidence and without giving this some more careful thought, I can neither agree nor diagree with Klein here yet, but let it serve as a prod for us to try to peer into the campaign strategists' mind.
UPDATE: Fallows weighs in:
The speech took the "press is the enemy" theme to an extreme in dropping in a bunch of claims and factlets that the McCain team knows will be immediately picked apart by the press. For instance, her claimed opposition to earmarks and "bridge to nowhere." I guess they figure, they'll stick with their side of the story and say "there you go again!" when the press points out errors and holes.
5 comments:
This is definitely something to keep our eyes on and I will. At the same time it seems to me, although I too have no evidence for this, that in the end of the day these small battles and ra-ra speeches will benefit the campaign, but only slightly. We spoke at the end of class yesterday about the insignificance of the vice presidential nominee in the grand scheme of elections, and although Ms. Palin won't win the election for Mr. McCain, she can help rally the crowd and give speeches like she did which will stick in the minds of many Americans up until they go into the voting booth. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that these people will be making the best or most educated decision when they enter the booth, but it is very possible that she is trying to get to the more easily influenced part of our population, and Mr. McCain will, if I am correct in my guess about each of their roles (which is probably incorrect, but nevertheless), try to influence the rest of the population who need more evidence and background in order to make a decision.
FWIW, there's some early polling and focus group data that's starting to emerge, and so far her speech seems to have landed favorably with those already inclined to vote Republican, but not among Independents; and there's some preliminary data that she's had a modest negative impact upon Independent women. But Daniel's right that this is nonetheless unlikely to have much impact ultimately upon voters' decision-making process (such as it is -- as we'll discuss soon).
PS: Josh Marshall at TPM (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/) is trying to collect the focus group data as they come in.
If Daniel is correct- and I'd like to think he is- then where were the substantive speeches by McCain last night? Do we have to wait for the debates when the candidates have no choice but to answer the questions asked of them?
As we will see shortly, even the debates do not guarantee that questions will be answered. Or, for that matter, that the questions will be particularly thoughtful.
Post a Comment