Persuasive Ad Analysis: Hillary Clinton "Children"

In a move that appears to be out of the Bush-Cheney playbook, Hillary Clinton recently launched an ad entitled "Children."

The transcript follows (source; view ad here at YouTube.com):

"[Announcer:] It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep, But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military -- someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?
[Clinton:] I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message."

Read news coverage on this ad: Washington Post; WSJ; Fox News; Boston Globe;

Why This Ad is Persuasive

• The ad evokes the strongest possible emotional connection--parent and child ("it's 3am and your children are safe")
• The ad plays on Hillary's perception of experience and Obama's inexperience. ("Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military -- someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world")
• The ad changes the subject of the debate from change [where Hillary cannot compete with Obama] to national security.
• The ad makes a direct call action ("Your vote will decide who answers that call.")
  

Why This Ad is Not Persuasive

• How is Hillary "tested and ready to lead?" There are no specifics and the viewer can only wonder whether Hillary beat Bill to the phone during the Clinton administration and picked up the phone instead of President Clinton.
• Hillary voted for the Iraq war--something most democrats believe was not a sign of experience
  

Other Comments

• This ad bears some similarity to Walter Mondale's 1984 ad using the "Red Phone"
• "The most awesome, powerful responsibility in the world lies in the hand that picks up this phone. The idea of an unsure, unsteady, untested hand is something to really think about. This is the issues of our times. On March 20, vote as if the future of the world is at stake. Mondale. This president will know what he's doing, and that's the difference between Gary Hart and Walter Mondale." (source) View ad here [it is about 10 seconds in the video; there is a short introduction from some UK website].
• This ad bears minor similarity to the famous "Daisy" ad (view here).
  

Presidential Persuasion

For a while, President Bush promised not to be the "pundit-in-chief" (source). However, at a news conference this Thursday, he entered into the waters of political punditry, attempting to persuade voters.

In a clear prelude to the republican persuasive strategy, Bush challenged Obama on his national security credentials and his understanding of the threat posed by terrorism.



The following is the transcript of the President's remarks at the press conference yesterday.

Q Mr. President, do you believe if we have the kind of rapid pull-out from Iraq that Democrats are talking about, that we would be at greater risk of a terrorist attack here at home? And when Senator Obama was asked a similar question, he said, "If al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." So I'm wondering if --

THE PRESIDENT: That's an interesting comment. If al Qaeda is securing a al Qaeda base -- yes, well, that's exactly what they've been trying to do for the past four years. That's their stated intention, was to create enough chaos and disorder to establish a base from which to either launch attacks or spread a caliphate. And the intent of the surge was to send more Marines into the area that -- where they had proclaimed their desire to set up a base. That was Anbar province. And so, yes, that's one of the challenges we face, is denying al Qaeda a safe haven anywhere. And their intentions -- that's what they said, that they would like to have a base or safe haven in Anbar province.

Points

• The most cogent line of republican attack will almost certainly be on national security. This is the main strength of John McCain and a serious weakness of Barack Obama.
• The president will enter into the debate in coming months. Although he is unpopular, when he speaks forcefully concerning national security, I believe he is still quite effective at persuading conservatives and independents.
• The aura of the presidency is an incredible asset. By holding a news conference from the West Wing press briefing room, the level of persuasiveness is increased.
  

Persuading the Republican Base

Yesterday, at a rally in Ohio, talk-radio personality Bill Cunningham spoke to McCain supporters before McCain took the stage. Since McCain has had so much trouble getting the base to be energized, perhaps the talk-radio host could do better. We'll, Cunningham did really get the base motivated, but he angered the independent minded McCain. So, what did Cunningham say to persuade the base to get motivated?

Consider the following inflammatory comments, which are receiving an incredible amount of media attention. (I could not find an entire transcript of the remarks. So, I recommend you view them here). Here is a partial transcript:(source; source; source).

Now we have a hack, Chicago-style Daley politician who is picturing himself as change. When he gets done with you, all you're going to have in your pocket is change... At some point in the near future the media, the stooges from the New York Times, CBS (The Clinton Broadcasting System), NBC (The Nobody But Clinton Network), The All Bill Clinton Channel (ABC), and the Clinton News Network at some point is going to peel the bark off Barack Hussein Obama. That day will come. Then you'll know the truth about his business dealings with Rezko, when he got sweetheart deals in Chicago and the illegal loans that he received. At some point the media will quit taking sides in this thing and maybe start covering Barack Hussein Obama.

John McCain came out and strongly condemned these comments.

"I take responsibility. I repudiate what he said. I will not tolerate anyone that denigrates either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama." (source)

However, this only infuriated Cunningham, who lashed out at McCain (source; source; source). Cunningham said:

He's not my candidate. He is not a conservative. I'm a conservative Reagan Republican, and John McCain embarrassed himself. The local Republican Party, Alan Colmes, has received dozens — dozens of calls complaining about John Juan Pablo McCain. They're getting complaint calls. (source)

The persuasive lesson: the far-right is motivated by this type of inflammatory commentary. If you are in doubt, simply consider the number of right-wing talk show hosts that spew this stuff out daily (e.g., Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Riley, Michael Medved, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham).

Media Coverage of Hillary

There has been a tremendous amount of talk about Hillary Clinton receiving unfair media coverage (source; source; source; source). In fact, at tonight's debate, Hillary herself made remarks to this end:

Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. I -- you know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious, and if anybody saw "Saturday Night Live," you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow. (Laughter, boos.) I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues. But I'm happy to answer it. (transcript) (other; other)

As an aside, I found it interesting that Obama subtly took aim at Hillary for these types of comments which some interpret as being a cry-baby. He said, "And, you know, we haven't whined about [the tough campaign] because I understand that's the nature of these campaigns, but to suggest somehow that our mailing is somehow different from the kinds of approaches that Senator Clinton has taken throughout this campaign I think is simply not accurate." (transcript)

Returning to the media bias question, I thought I would see whether the Reuters photo feed from tonight's debate provided numerous pictures of Clinton that did not appear presidential. Sure enough, there was a litany of pictures that made Clinton appear angry etc. Consider the following:


"US Democratic presidential candidates Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) (R) listens to moderator Tim Russert (L) as she and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) squared off in the last debate before the Ohio primary in Cleveland, Ohio, February 26, 2008. REUTERS/Matt Sullivan (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008(USA)"(source)

"US Democratic presidential candidates Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) square off in the last debate before the Ohio primary in Cleveland, Ohio February 26, 2008. REUTERS/Matt Sullivan (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008(USA)" (source)


"US Democratic presidential candidates Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) square off in the last debate before the Ohio primary in Cleveland, Ohio, February 26, 2008. REUTERS/Matt Sullivan (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008(USA)" (source)

Debate Analysis

In analyzing the just concluded democratic debate, I wanted to make a number of points on the persuasive strategies and positions that the candidates took. Obviously, this debate was "do-or-die" for Hillary Clinton, who faces the very real prospect of elimination in the March 4th primaries. Please feel free to read a transcript of the debate here.

Clinton Attacks

• Clinton's first statement was: "in the last several days, some of those differences in tactics and the choices that Senator Obama's campaign has made regarding flyers and mailers and other information that has been put out about my health care plan and my position on NAFTA have been very disturbing to me."
• Clinton also said: "So we should have a good debate that uses accurate information, not false, misleading, and discredited information, especially on something as important as whether or not we will achieve quality, affordable health care for everyone. That's my goal. That's what I'm fighting for, and I'm going to stand up for that."
• MSNBC Reported: "Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois came under a full-out assault Tuesday night from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in their last debate before crucial primaries in Ohio and Texas that could make or break Clinton’s campaign." (source)
  

Obama Portrays Clinton As Poor Looser

• Senator Obama said: "But I think it's very important to understand the context of this, and that is that Senator Clinton has -- her campaign, at least -- has constantly sent out negative attacks on us, e-mail, robocalls, flyers, television ads, radio calls. And, you know, we haven't whined about it because I understand that's the nature of these campaigns, but to suggest somehow that our mailing is somehow different from the kinds of approaches that Senator Clinton has taken throughout this campaign I think is simply not accurate." (emphasis added).

Obama Criticizes Clinton on Judgment

• Obama said: "Senator Clinton often says that she is ready on day one, but in fact she was ready to give in to George Bush on day one on this critical issue [of invading Iraq]. So the same person that she criticizes for having terrible judgment, and we can't afford to have another one of those, in fact she facilitated and enabled this individual to make a decision that has been strategically damaging to the United States of America."

Faith and Cultural-Based Smear Already Under Way

In a post a few weeks ago, I predicted that Barack Obama would face smear attacks based upon his perceived association with Islam (e.g., his middle name is Hussein, etc.). In that article, I predicted that these attacks would come from Republicans desperate to persuade the general electorate. Well, I should not have expected such kindness from the Clinton campaign that it would pass over the opportunity to persuade voters via a smear effort. Today, the faith-bases smear and cultural fear-mongering sunk to a new level.
On the Drudge Report website, a photo of Obama in a Muslim-looking dress appeared thanks to the handiwork of anonymous sources in the Clinton campaign (source).


The Obama campaign lambasted the Clinton campaign over the release of this photo:

"On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election" (source).

In a sign of the tough politics to come, Clinton campaign chief Maggie Williams shot back:

Enough.

If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted.

Recap of Clinton's New Level of Attacks:

• Called Obama's attacks "shameful" (see previous post)
• Called Obama's tactics like those of "Karl Rove" (see previous post)
• Compared Mr. Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience to that of the candidate George W. Bush in 2000. (source)
• Clinton campaign is lashing out at the press (source).
  

Hillary Unloads Attacks

In the past few days, Hillary Clinton has clearly embarked on a new level of attacks. Clearly, she has come to the realization that her former strategy of light and intermittent attacks is not working. So, she is now attacking full-force.

On Saturday, Clinton attacked Obama on a mailing he put out. Although I could not find the entire transcript of Senator Clinton's remarks, I was able to piece together a rather complete transcript (source; source):

I have to express my deep disappointment — he is continuing to send false and discredited mailings with information that is not true to the voters of Ohio...Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove’s play book. This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged...So shame on you Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio and let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton mocked Obama (source [with video]; source):

Now I could stand up here and say: Let's get everybody together. Let's get unified. The skies will open. The lights will come down. And you know the celestial choirs will be singing. And everyone we know will do the right thing. And the world will be perfect... Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand to make special interests disappear ... We are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear.

Will these attacks work? I don't think so. Hillary looks desperate and spiteful. But, only time will tell whether these attacks were successful.

John McCain Creating a Common Enemy

When I woke up Thursday morning, I was shocked to see cable TV outlets reporting that the New York Times had a front-page story "documenting" John McCain's extramarital affair and influence peddling relationship with a Washington lobbyist (see NYT story here).

However, as the day went on and I learned more, I began to notice how John McCain had subtly turned the story into an opportunity for conservatives to hate the New York Times (something they like to do). Conservatives, including those who have strongly criticized McCain, began coming to McCain's defense and attacking the New York Times (source; source; source; source; source; source).

Then, I received the following email from John McCain's campaign manager (who, ironically, happens to be a lobbyist--but the letter never said this, of course [source]).




Notice how John McCain is creating a common enemy in the New York Times.

So, how did this turn out?

• McCain had his best 24 hour online fundraising ever on Friday--the day after the story ran. (NY Times).
• From CNN on Friday night at 8pm EST: "Even Rush Limbaugh is defending McCain against 'The Times' story about McCain and lobbyists. And a source tells CNN's John King that, in the past 24 hours, McCain's campaign has raised a startling $2 million after sending out an e-mail saying: We need money to help defend ourselves against these attacks. Well, joining me now from Washington is Alfred Regnery. He is the publisher of "The American Spectator." He has not endorsed a candidate yet, but he has contributed to McCain. He has also written "Upstream: The Ascendance of American Conservatism." And from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for us tonight, Tony Perkins. He is president of the Family Research Council and author of "Personal Faith, Public Policy." (transcript)

Barack Obama the Gentleman Holds Chair for Hillary

As I was watching the democratic debate last Thursday night in Austin, Texas, I was struck by Barack Obama's action when the debate finished. Although this has little to do with persuasion and spinning, I was so struck by it that I wanted to point it out for you.

Barack got up quickly and pulled out the chair for Hillary Clinton as a gentlemen would. I wonder if this is offensive to feminists who are considering voting for Hillary? Consider the images below:

Hillary: Resolved to Create Momentum

In a latch ditch effort, Hillary Clinton is trying to generate momentum based upon the CNN debate at Austin, Texas. This effort is all centered around Hillary's closing argument in the debate. Consider the following momentum efforts:

Immediate Memo from Campaign
Almost immediately after the debate finished, I received the following email from the Clinton campaign. A similar email was also sent out to the media.

Dear John,

There was a remarkable moment in tonight's debate that we had to share with you. Watch it here:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/tonight

Pass it on.

Sincerely,

Terry McAuliffe
Chairman, Hillary Clinton for President

Ad Buy
The Clinton camp is trying so hard to get this moment out, it purchased a major ad buy and made the "moment" into a television ad (view ad at YouTube.com--see my analysis at the end of this blog; I do not think highly of it). The text for the ad is below (via AP):

Hillary Rodham Clinton: "I was honored to be asked to speak at the opening of the Intrepid Center at Brooke Medical Center in San Antonio. And I remember sitting up there and watching them come in. Those who could walk were walking, those who had lost limbs were trying with great courage to get themselves in without the help of others.

"You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. And I resolved, at a very young age, that I'd been blessed, and that I was called by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted. That's what gets me up in the morning, that's what motivates me in this campaign."

"I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this message."

Letter from Bill Clinton Within 48 Hours
Within 48 hours, I received the following letter from Bill Clinton:

Dear John,

Thursday night in the debate, in one remarkable moment, we saw the kind of president Hillary is going to be -- the strong, compassionate, and brilliant woman who will make us proud as president.

Everyone in the upcoming primary states of Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont needs to see that moment. The campaign has put together a 60-second ad with the video, but we cannot run it without your immediate financial support. We need to raise $1.3 million in the next 24 hours to put this ad on the air.

Watch the ad and make a contribution to help us get it on the air.

We're just 10 days away from a monumental day of voting, one that will decide the outcome of this remarkable contest between two history-making campaigns. The Obama campaign realizes the stakes and is putting it all on the line with a massive advertising campaign.

We have to give Hillary the resources she needs to make this a fair fight -- including running the ad based on her amazing moment from Thursday night's debate. We need to raise $1.3 million to get this ad on the air and to match the Obama campaign's ad spending in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont. We have to reach that goal in the next 24 hours.

Watch our new ad and contribute to help us get it on the air in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

With your extraordinary help she will win. And knowing that you are there for her now, as you have been throughout this race, means more than you can possibly imagine.

We can do this together. Let's keep working.
Bill Clinton

This email sounds really desperate to me.

My Thoughts
The Clinton camp has done an excellent job getting the "moment" from the debate plaid out into the national media. Between memos, ads, and surrogates, the Clinton camp has made it almost impossible to ignore. When I read the litany of emails and news stories on the "moment" I was excited to see the ad. But, quite frankly, the ad was a total let down. It is uninspiring, poorly edited, and wanting.

I would say, however, that the entire and unedited clip of Hillary giving her closing remarks at the debate was much more inspiring and persuasive (view here at HillaryClinton.com). (Note: You can view Hillary and Barack's closing argument here at YouTube.com, although you will need to move to about 6 minutes into the video).

Persuasive Ad Analysis - Obama "Our Moment is Now"

In a Barack Obama ad currently airing in Texas, the Obama campaign focuses on patriotism, inspiration, and unity. There is no doubt that this is one of the better ads thus far.

This ad has a somewhat confusing background as it appeared in Iowa and is now making a comeback (source). Some might read this as an admission that the ad was not effective. I, however, disagree.


(view the ad at YouTube.com)

Here is the text (personal transcript; you can see the transcript from the original ad, which appears very similar):

We are in a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war, the planet is in pearl, the dream that so many generations fought for feels as if it is slowly slipping away. And that is why the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won't do. That's why telling the American people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won't do.

America, our moment is now.

I don't want to spent the next year or the next four years refighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s. I don't want to pit red America against blue America. I want to be the president of the United States of America.

Why This Ad Is Persuasive

Subtle Attack on Clinton

"I don't want to spent the next year or the next four years refighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s"
"the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won't do."

Obama is putting the campaign in terms of past vs. future (an argument Clinton cannot win) not experience vs. inexperience (an argument Clinton can win).

Gain Ground on Straight Talk

"That's why telling the American people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won't do."

The Obama campaign, realizing it will face the McCain campaign, is trying to gain ground on the issue of "straight talk."

Inspiring
There is no way to empirically prove this. Inspiration is felt in the gut, not proved in the head. However, I believe most viewers would see this ad and feel inspired.

Momentum

"Our moment is now"

Obama is ridding a wave of momentum (10 straight wins) and is trying to capitalize on this.

Patriotism

"I don't want to pit red America against blue America. I want to be the president of the United States of America."

In addition, the ad shows many images of individuals in red, blue, or white. Consider the following image:


Local Appeal

Although the text of the ad is from a speech Obama gave at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner in Des Moines, Iowa., the ad is customized to Texas. Consider the following screen-shots (which all feature Texas papers):





In this bottom shot, notice the Texas-Obama website and also notice the appeal to vote early.

Additional Comments

• For more info, see the NPR story on the original ad.
• This ad is somewhat similar to an ad George Bush put out in 2004 (similarities in terms of patriotism, leadership, and inspiration). However, the Bush ad is not quite as natural and feels more forced (especially at the end).
• The sound at the end of the Obama ad is somewhat phony as the audience did not clap and cheer in a crescendo during the closing remarks. Nonetheless, it feels much more natural to the casual viewer than the Bush 2004 ad.
  

CNN Democratic Debate (Texas): Analysis

In light of tonight's upcoming debate, I wanted to make a few points about last Thursday night's presidential debate.


Emphasis on Change

• The term change was mentioned 28 times.
• Both Obama and Clinton vied for the ownership of this crucial concept.
  

Clinton Failed to Attack

• Hillary Clinton, despite being down in the polls, failed to attack Obama. In fact, she almost sounded like she was conceding the race. Clinton closed the debate by saying: "And, you know, no matter what happens in this contest -- and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (APPLAUSE) Whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that's what this election should be about." (source).
  

Obama Emphasized Commonality

• The term agree was used over 10 times. On numerous occasions, Senator Obama emphasized that he and Hillary "agree" on many of the issues.
  

So, what should we expect at tonight's presidential debate in Ohio? Well, I would think that Hillary will come out and attack. But, the Clinton campaign has proved to be quite sporadic in its strategy.

Heart Over Head: The Persuasive Strategy of Barack Obama

As I watched the democratic debate tonight on CNN (transcript here or here), I could not help but realize again that, at least in my opinion, Hillary Clinton is offering far more in terms of substantiative policy. Her grasp of the details of policy has always impressed me (although I have, of course, not always agreed with her). So, why is Barack Obama so appealing? Why has Barack Obama overcame so many disadvantages (e.g., money, inevitability, Clinton name, race) to move into a position of being the likely nominee and very possibly the next president?

As I reflected on these questions, I could not help but think that it is due in large part to Barack Obama's inspirational appeal and--here is the key persuasive point--ability to connect with voters on a heart level instead of a purely head level. He, unlike so many traditional politicians (of which Hillary is certainly one), Barack is in a league of his own (at least in this election).

Now, as I have always tried to do in this blog, before I brought my thoughts to you, I wanted to see if anybody else was thinking the same thing. Sure enough, there are other (including academics) who have done work in the area of persuasion and heart/head appeal and have consistently shown that appeals to the heart are more effective than appeals to the head.

In a front-page article in the February 11 Wall Street Journal, Monica Langley wrote:

On a conference call to prepare for a recent debate, Barack Obama brainstormed with his top advisers on the fine points of his positions. Michelle Obama had dialed in to listen, but finally couldn't stay silent any longer.

"Barack," she interjected, "Feel -- don't think!" Telling her husband his "over-thinking" during past debates had tripped him up with rival Hillary Clinton, she said: "Don't get caught in the weeds. Be visceral. Use your heart -- and your head."

In a recent and fascinating Newsweek article (which I highly recommend you read) entitled When It’s Head Versus Heart, The Heart Wins, columnist Sharon Begley writes:

It is a core tenet of political psychology that voters know nothing.
...
The fact that people have what is euphemistically called cognitive-processing limitations—most cannot or will not learn about and remember candidates' records or positions—means voters must substitute something else for that missing knowledge. What that something is has become a heated topic among scientists who study decision-making, and, of course, campaign strategists and pollsters. Some answers are clear, however.
...[political scientist Richard Lau of Rutgers University notes:] "That's when you get people voting by heuristics [cognitive shortcuts] and going with their gut, with who they most identify with, or with how the candidates make them feel." What has emerged from the volatile and unpredictable primary season so far is that the candidates who can make voters feel enthusiasm and empathy—and, perhaps paradoxically, anxiety—are going to make it to November and maybe beyond.
...
With these and countless other instances of voters following their guts, the debate about whether the electorate is guided by its head or its heart, by reason or emotion, is over. "More important than what people think is how they feel," says Luntz, a view expressed by almost every expert NEWSWEEK interviewed.

Persuasion and Fear

In light of Bill Clinton's recent comments and bytwerk's response, I wanted to discuss a few historical examples of fear and persuasion. Specifically, I want to point out a previous example of an attempt to persuade that Bill Clinton used in Iowa to no avail.

• Shortly before the Iowa caucus in January 2008, Bill Clinton upped the pressure: "You realize, of course, the future of the free world is riding on your performance" (source)

As you may recall, Hillary came in a surprising third place in Iowa--a shock to many political observers (source). However, Bill Clinton never followed up with his threat. It seems that these warnings are nothing but empty rhetoric. Let's look in history and see some examples of effective attempts to persuade using fear.

• About eight weeks before the 2004 election, Dick Cheney unloaded a fearful prediction about what would happen if John Kerry won--The following quote is from a CBS News story: "Vice President Dick Cheney says the United States will risk another terrorist attack if voters make the wrong choice on Election Day, suggesting Sen. John Kerry would follow a pre-Sept. 11 policy of reacting defensively.
  
  'It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,' Cheney told supporters at a town-hall meeting Tuesday." (source; source; source;)
  

As you may imagine, this comment infuriated democrats. They responded by appealing to yet another form of fear-persuasion--calling Cheney's comments 'un-American':

The Kerry campaign called Cheney's allegation "un-American" and said Bush would not be able to "distract the American people" from problems in Iraq and with the U.S. economy. But in a tacit acknowledgment that Kerry has had difficulty presenting a convincing critique of Bush, Kerry aides are promising a major new front in Kerry's stepped-up attack on Bush's policies beginning Wednesday: a series of speeches laying out the administration's "miscalculations" in taking the nation to war in Iraq.

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, interviewed aboard his plane after leaving Ohio, said of Cheney's comments: "What he said was meant to scare voters, period. And it's completely contrary to what's in the best interest of the American people. . . . It was way over the top and I think un-American."

(source: Washington Post)

• Shortly before the 2004 election, George Bush said to an audience in Ohio: "And I want you to remind your friends and neighbors that my opponent will raise the taxes on Ohio's families and Ohio's small businesses." (source)
• Note: There is nothing extraordinary about republicans threatening that democrats will raise taxes if elected. The examples of this are countless.

My conclusion is that some amount of fear can persuade. However, like negative attacks, persuading with fear must be done carefully.

Persuasion and Desperation

As I've been pouring over the news for the past few hours, I've sensed an aura (or feeling) coming from the Clinton camp: desperation. Although enough time has not elapsed to document the effect that desperation will have on the voters, I want to make a prediction: Hillary's desperation is not going to be persuasive.

Consider the following evidence of desperation:

• Early this morning, I received the following email from "Hillary Clinton" (obviously, she did not write it. It was a mass email sent to her e-mail list in her name).
• "Dear John [the alias I used], Here's what you need to know this morning. We were outspent in Wisconsin by a 4 to 1 margin on ads -- and we can't let that happen on March 4.
  
  If we want to win in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont, we've got to even the odds. We can't let the Obama campaign overwhelm us financially. Today, I am calling on you and other online supporters to act together, making sure we have the resources to create a fair, level playing field on March 4." (bold in original email).
• Early this morning, Hillary Clinton said the following: "But it is time to get real – to get real about how we actually win this election and get real about the challenges facing America. It’s time that we moved from good words to good work, from sound bites to sound solutions." (source)
• Early this morning, Bill Clinton said the following: "If she wins in Texas and Ohio, I think she'll be the nominee...If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be. ... This whole nominating process has come down to Texas and Ohio" (source).

Persuasive Attacks and the Use of Humor (Pt. 2)

In a previous post, I highlighted the importance of humor in political attacks. I noted that George Bush effectively used humor while attacking John Kerry. I this post, I want to point out how Vice President Dick Cheney did the same thing. However, I want to also point out how Dick Cheney's attacks were much more intense and along the lines of ad hominem attacks. Consider the following remarks from Cheney, which are representative of his stump speech used during the close of the 2004 campaign.

Again, the point of this post and the previous is to elucidate the importance of using humor while attacking political opponents.

On October 31, 2004 in Los Lunas, New Mexico - 5pm MST (text here)

• "Well, I don't know how much you've noticed about our opponent, Senator Kerry, of course. He went goose hunting the other day in Ohio. (Laughter.) He wore a new camouflage jacket for the occasion -- (laughter) -- which made me wonder how often he'd been goose hunting before. (Laughter.) My personal opinion is his camo jacket is an October disguise. (Laughter.) It's an effort he's making to hide the fact that he votes against gun owners every chance he gets. You want my opinion of the whole thing: John Kerry's goose is cooked. (Laughter and applause.)"
• "For John Kerry it's all about politics rather than principle. After the bin Laden tape aired the other night, John Kerry's campaign ran a poll to see what his response should be. (Laughter.) He put his finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing. My friends, let me say that George Bush doesn't need a poll to know where he stands in the war on terror. (Applause.)"
• "He offered a ridiculous explanation which, frankly, I think will go down in the history of American politics. He said, and I quote, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (Laughter.) But the real reason he turned his back on our troops was Howard Dean -- Dean was the antiwar candidate; Dean was surging ahead in the polls; and so John Kerry in order to advance himself in the primaries, turned his back on our troops. He said his vote was "complicated." (Laughter.) But, my friends, supporting American troops in combat should never be a complicated matter. (Applause.)"
• "Now in the closing days of the campaign, John Kerry is running around, talking tough. He's trying every which way to cover up his record of weakness on national defense. But he can't do it. It won't work. As we like to say in Wyoming, you can put all the lipstick you want on that pig, but it's still a pig. (Laughter and applause.) That's my favorite line. (Laughter.) You want to hear it again?

  AUDIENCE: Yes!

  THE VICE PRESIDENT: As we say in Wyoming -- (laughter) -- you can put all the lipstick you want on that pig, but at the end of the day it's still a pig. (Applause.) All right, I've got to concentrate here. (Laughter.) John Kerry does not have the judgment or the conviction that America needs in a President. He is not a steadfast leader."

Persuasive Attacks and the Use of Humor

In light of Hillary Clinton's recent and dramatic increase in negative attacks (NY Times), I want to illustrate the importance of humor in attacking political opponents (a lesson I do not believe Hillary has learned). Perhaps nobody in recent history is better at this than George W. Bush. As some of you may know, this blog has a somewhat (emphasis on somewhat) academic focus. In other words, I aim to develop cogent and well-sourced observations. In this post, I want to examine George Bush's use of humor in attacks. Let's consider the stump speech he used during the closing days of the 2004 election. (note: all of Bush's speeches during October 2004 are available here). Notice how many times (Laughter.) appears in the transcript. This is an indication of the attitude and demeanor with which George Bush delivered the attack lines. Also, a majority of the speech is focused on attacking. (So much for the mantra that "negative" politics do not work).

October 31, 2004 - Cincinnati, OH (8pm EST) (text here)

• "I'm proud of my running mate, Dick Cheney. I admit it, he does not have the waviest hair in the race. (Laughter.) You all will be happy to know I didn't pick him because of his hairdo. I picked him because of his judgment, his experience. He's getting the job done for the American people. (Applause.)"
• Attack: John Kerry choose John Edwards because of shallow reasons such as his good looks.
• "But all the time, whether you agree with me or not, you know where I stand, what I believe, and where I'm going to lead.... You cannot say that about my opponent.... I think it's fair to say that consistency is not his strong suit. (Laughter.)"
• Attack: John Kerry is a flip-flopper.
• "I've traveled your state a lot. I know that in certain areas of this state, people are struggling. But we're making progress. Ohio added 5,500 new jobs last month. Your unemployment rate has gone from 6.3 percent to 6 percent in one month. This economy is strong, and it is getting stronger. (Applause.)

  My opponent has an economic plan, too. He voted to increase taxes 98 times in the 20 years he's been in the United States Senate.

  AUDIENCE: Boo!

  THE PRESIDENT: That's five times every year he's been in the Senate. I would call that a leading indicator -- (laughter) -- a predictable pattern. Couple that with the fact that he's promised $2.2 trillion in new federal spending -- that's trillion with a "T." That's a lot -- (laughter) -- even for a senator from Massachusetts. (Laughter.)"

• Attack: John Kerry is a big-government liberal who will increase taxes.
• "As you can imagine, my opponent has a different approach [to health care]. He voted for the education reform, but now wants to weaken the accountability standards. He's proposing a big-government health care plan. I don't know if you remember the debate when they said, tell us about your health care plan. And one of the things he said was, the government doesn't have anything to do with it. I could barely contain myself. (Laughter.) The government has got a lot to do with it. Eighty percent of the people would end up on the government plan with his vision. And that is the wrong prescription for American families."
• Attack: John Kerry will create a big-government health care system.
• "On national TV, Senator Kerry said it would be irresponsible to vote against the troops. And then when the vote came around, he did the irresponsible thing and voted against the troops.

  AUDIENCE: Boo!

  THE PRESIDENT: And then he entered the flip-flop hall of fame by saying this -- (laughter) -- "I actually did vote for the $87 billion right before I voted against it."

• Attack: John Kerry is a flip-flop who cannot be trusted on national security.
• "Only a year after the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the Senator proposed massive cuts in America's intelligence, cuts so extreme that his fellow Massachusetts Senator opposed them. History has shown that Senator Kerry was wrong -- and we've got to be fair -- Senator Kennedy was right. (Laughter.)"
• Attack: John Kerry is even more liberal than Senator Kennedy.
• "We have big differences about how to protect you, about how to protect America's families. In one of the debates, Senator Kerry said we must be subject to a global test before we commit troops.

  AUDIENCE: Boo!

  THE PRESIDENT: I'm not making that up. (Laughter.) He wasn't standing that far away from me when he said it. (Laughter.) The best I can tell, my opponent's global test means that America must get permission from foreign capitals before taking action to defend our country."

• Attack: John Kerry will not protect America.

A Response to An Insightful Comment

I wanted to take the opportunity to respond to bytwerk's insightful comments on my post about persuasive strategies that McCain could employ. In general, I will stand by my advice. But, I want to clarify and elaborate.

(1) It is essential that John McCain not do the attacking. As academics have known for years, individuals who bear bad news are not well received (even if the bad news is true, which is rarely the case in politics). Hence my comment that "John McCain must pick a strong VP who can effectively smear and destroy the Obama aura." In my opinion, for whatever it is worth, bytwerk is correct that it would be out of character for John McCain to make these types of attacks. However, through a VP, PAC, and 527 group, McCain must smear Obama and remove the aura from him.

(2) I would not attack Obama's patriotism with anything but his own comments and actions. Attacking people's patriotism can be, as bytwerk pointed out, extremely dangerous business. But, it can also be very effective (we'll let John Kerry confirm this as he should know about how damaging it can be when you are Swiftboated). So, for example, I would use the following recent quote from Michelle Obama: "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country" (source)
I would also pick up on Obama's decision to stop wearing the American flag on a suit-pin (source). Granted both of these examples are really minor when it comes to the grand scheme of things, but many political attacks take minor things and blow them out of proportion.

In my opinion, John McCain is going to have to use some element of fear to motivate conservatives to go out to the pole. The bottom line is that these voters are not enthused about John McCain (consider, for example, Mike Huckabee's astonishing success given his low budget an John McCain's inevitability.) But, John McCain could motivate these voters with fear about an Obama presidency on the following fronts:

• "Surrender" and "defeat" in the war on terror
  
• Higher taxes
• "Amnesty" for illegals
• "Judges who legislate" from the bench
• Pro-Choice

Unfortunately for McCain, it is going to be hard to convince conservative voters to be for him. So, he (or, more specifically, his VP) would be best to use a strong dose of fear to attract conservatives and a good dose of "straight talk" experience to attract independents.

Let me take this opportunity to make one final observation concerning the argument that John McCain should make this election about experience.

Although there is no doubt that John McCain should emphasize his experience and Obama's inexperience, I am not as convinced as many that this line of persuasion will work (unless it is done very carefully). Here's why:

• Hillary Clinton has tried this extensively and it has failed miserably. Granted, John McCain has spent more time in Washington than Hillary Clinton. However, the point still remains that Hillary is far more qualified and experienced than Obama yet voters have utterly rejected this (e.g., Hillary's line has been that she will be "ready on day one") (source; source).
• When the election becomes about "experience," it is easy for Obama to make it about "change"--an argument that John McCain cannot win. McCain must make the election about national security experience and determination to defeat terrorists (whether this is using 9/11 to scare up votes, as Obama claims, is for another matter)--two areas where McCain can beat Obama.
  

One final comment: I realize that, to some extent, I am advocating the "same old politics" of slash and burn. Personally, I could not do this as a candidate--especially ad hominem attacks. I feel morally compelled to not engage in these attacks. However, if asked by a candidate what I felt would be the most persuasive strategy, the above is what I would feel bound to say, as I really do believe that a carefully constructed series of attacks on Obama's liberal record and weak national security credentials coupled with a series of targeted ad hominem attacks would be effective.

Advice to John McCain on Persuasive Strategies

In recent days, I have heard from some conservatives that John McCain's fate is already sealed. These individuals reason it is impossible for McCain to win. However, these individuals should not forget that George Bush overcame a 17 point gap and defeated John Kerry (source). Here are some rough thoughts on what McCain could do in attempting to persuade voters:

What John McCain Can Do

• Make the Election About National Security
• Follow the Bush play book from 2004
• Play upon voter's reliance on the sunk-cost fallacy ("we've invested so much in Iraq, we cannot quit now")
  
• Highlight Barack Obama's Liberal Record
• Scare voters with fears of higher taxes etc.
  
• Scare the "value voters" with Supreme Court nominations
  
• Question Barack Obama's Patriotism

John McCain must pick a strong VP who can effectively smear and destroy the Obama aura. Granted, negative attacks can backfire. But, if done properly, they are extremely effective (just ask Al Gore and John Kerry).

Why Barack Obama Will Be Much Stronger Than John Kerry

• The democratic base is incredibly enthused--far more than in 2004 and, more importantly, far more than republicans. (source; source; source; source; source; source)
  
• John McCain is struggling to hold onto the conservative base while George Bush had the conservative base turn out in record numbers in 2004.
• Barack has built his own coalition, drawing thousands of new voters into the process.
• Barack will almost certainly have a strong financial advantage.
  

Obama Strategy: Personal Persuasion

In order to better monitor the persuasion employed in this campaign, I have signed up for emails from the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Recently, I received the following email and noticed some things that I believe deserve elucidation.

As you've probably heard, there could be a wildcard in the race for the Democratic nomination.

We firmly believe that the candidate who has won the most pledged delegates -- the result of having more voters in more places supporting your campaign -- will be the Democratic nominee.

But to be safe, we are working to attract the support of "superdelegates" -- party officials and Democratic officeholders from across the country -- who also have a vote at the Democratic National Convention.

You may already know some superdelegates -- they include senators, governors, and even former presidents and vice presidents. But many others are ordinary people who hold positions in the state and local party operations.

These nearly 800 superdelegates will vote alongside the more than 3,000 pledged delegates who are chosen in the various state primaries and caucuses. The candidate that gets a majority of all delegates (superdelegates and pledged delegates combined) will be the Democratic nominee for president.

Right now, Barack is ahead in the contest for pledged delegates. We've won 23 contests out of the 35 that have been held so far -- including the last 8 in a row. And with our decisive victories in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, DC on Tuesday, we now lead by more than 135 pledged delegates in the race for the Democratic nomination.

While we intend to continue winning states and expanding our lead among the pledged delegates, and believe that will likely ensure that Barack is the Democratic nominee, we're also doing the work of reaching out to superdelegates and making sure as many as possible support Barack Obama.

Here's where you can play a key role.

Our work so far has taught us one important lesson: that your personal story about why you support Barack Obama is often the most powerful persuasion tool for someone who's undecided. That's true whether that undecided voter is your neighbor or a superdelegate.

The story of where you're from, what brought you into the political process, the issues that matter to you, and why you became part of this movement has the potential to inspire someone who could cast a deciding vote in this contest.

Our staff will compile stories from supporters like you and make them a key part of the conversation with superdelegates as Barack asks for their support.

Share your story to help persuade superdelegates now:

http://my.barackobama.com/superdelegates

I've received a lot of email from folks asking how best to help with the superdelegate effort, and this is it.

Your note, combined with those of other Obama supporters, will tell the story of an extraordinary movement of ordinary people -- a story with a common thread of hope that becomes all the more powerful when it brings together the diverse backgrounds and experiences of our supporters.

Together we're building something historic, and your story can help make someone else a part of it.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Let's break down some persuasive elements in this email:

• The campaign first attracts the attention of the reader ("there could be a wildcard", located in the first line of the email). This is indented to scare the reader into believing that all his hard work could be overturned.
  
• After attracting the attention of the reader and informing the reader about the situation, the email contains a call to action ("Here's where you can play a key role")
• The call to action empowers the reader, making him or her feel important and needed ("your personal story about why you support Barack Obama is often the most powerful persuasion tool for someone who's undecided. That's true whether that undecided voter is your neighbor or a superdelegate.")
• Part of the entire Obama election strategy comes through in this email ("your personal story about why you support Barack Obama is often the most powerful persuasion tool"). Personal persuasion and narratives (not loads of facts and policies) change minds.
  
• The email ends with a simple call to action: go to a website (http://my.barackobama.com/superdelegates)
• The "share your story" website is simple and easy.
  

Hillary Goes Negative

As we've been stating, Hillary Clinton's persuasive strategy has changed dramatically after her stunning losses in the potomac primaries. Instead of running a positive campaign, she has changed her strategy again. This marks yet another change in strategy.

Prior to Iowa, Hillary ran a positive campaign.
After her loss in Iowa, she and her husband turned modestly negative.
After her win in New Hampshire, she and her husband turned incredibly negative.
After her stinging loss in South Carolina, she learned the ostensible lesson and became positive.
After her string of eight losses, she has now turned negative again.

Consider the following examples of her attacks (also note my previous blog on a mailer Senator Clinton sent out to residents of WI):

• Senator Clinton: "I am in the solutions business. My opponent is in the promises business."(source)
• Senator Clinton: "There's a big difference between us - speeches versus solutions, talk versus action." (source)
• Howard Wolfson, Mrs Clinton's spokesman, said: "We are seeing a pattern here. Senator Obama does not have long record of public service. He is running on powerful oratory...So when he is found to have lifted passages from another elected official it is significant." (source)
• Bill Clinton said: "It would be truly tragic if the Democratic Party walked away from universal health care for the first time in 60 years when we finally got the business community and the medical community in line behind us," (source)
• Clinton also accused Obama of supporting "billions of dollars of breaks for the oil industry" (source)
  
• "My opponent says that he'll take on the special interests," she said. "Well, he told people he stood up to the nuclear industry and passed a bill against them. But he actually let the nuclear industry water down his bill -- the bill never actually passed."(source)
• Clinton also accused Obama of supporting "billions of dollars of breaks for the oil industry" by voting for an energy bill she opposed and said he did not support the workers of a Maytag Corp. plant that closed in his home state of Illinois.(source)
• "Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank or fill your prescription or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night."(source)

Clinton is trying to attack Obama's greatest strength: oratory.
However, in order for attacks to be effective, the attacker cannot stop attacking after a few days.
Hillary needs to attack consistently and begin to create impressions and stigmas about Obama.

Hillary's Inability to Persuade on Iraq

In trying to ascertain what went so wrong for the Clinton campaign, which now appears to be on the verge of loosing, I am doing research on Hillary's record regarding Iraq as this is a pivotal issue for many far-left voters. Although many main-stream voters do not know the ins-and-outs of Hillary's record, the far-left voters are well aware of these issues.

Consider the following other facts:

• Hillary Clinton has changed her position on the war in Iraq many times.
• Hillary Clinton's floor speech October 10, 2002 on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq : "This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.... So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. "
• On April 21, 2004, Hillary said the following: [Do you regret your vote about Iraq?] "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." (source)
• On December 12, 2005, the Washington Post wrote the following: "Clinton has stayed steadfastly on a centrist path, criticizing President Bush but refusing to embrace the early troop withdrawal options that are gaining rapid favor in her party. This careful balance is drawing increasing scorn from liberal activists, frustrated that one of the party's leading lights has shown little appetite to challenge Bush's policy more directly and embrace a plan to set a timetable for bringing U.S. forces home." (source).
• On December 20, 2007, Bill Richardson pointed out a flip-flop by Hillary: “Senator Clinton’s comments are a stunning flip-flop — she’s been saying she would keep troops in Iraq for five years, until 2013, and now she comes up with an inconsistent, incredible turnaround,” (source)
  
• On Tuesday, February 19, 2008, Hillary Clinton's website said: "Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today." (source)

Persuasion and Presence

After reflecting on the primaries that have already occurred, I am beginning to make a connection between Persuasion and Presence. Consider the following:

• Rudy Giuliani left every state but Florida, and lost them all (source; source; source; source)
• Hillary Clinton all but left South Carolina to her husband and she lost miserably (source; source; source)
• Mike Huckabee left Wisconsin right before the primary to go to the Grand Cayman (this is not a typo...he really did go to the Grand Cayman; source: NY Times) and he lost
  
• Mike Huckabee left Michigan early and lost
  
• Fred Thompson left New Hampshire early and lost
• John McCain abandoned Iowa and lost
  

Now, one could argue that correlation and causation are being confused in my argument and perhaps there is some truth to this. Perhaps the correlation is the result of a candidate who, after campaigning hard in a state, realizes that he is going to lose so he pulls out. But, I do believe that there is a subtle persuasive message that is sent to voters when a candidate decided to not spend time in a state, especially when other candidates are still campaigning hard.

Clinton and Fear Persuasion

I came across the following mailer from Hillay Clinton and noticed the strong element of fear and shame that is used in an attempt to persuade voters. This seems to be a sign of desperation that Hillary is turning so negative.

Elements of persuasion at work:

• A diverse group of individuals are present in the ad
• Individuals of many races: white/black/Asian
  
• Individuals of many ages: old and young
• Individuals with many different types of clothes: man in a tie, man in an unbuttoned shirt, etc.
  
• The ad uses moody colors that engender sympathy
• The individuals in the photo are not ecstatically happy nor depressingly sad. However, they look sympathetically concerned.
  

The second page of the mailer is as follows:
Elements of persuasion at use here

• The use of red, white, and blue in the ad is designed to evoke patriotic feelings.
• The check box to the left of Obama's face (without a check in it) is a subtle message trying to condition voters to not check the box next to Obama (i.e., not vote for him).
• "Barack Obama's plan says, 'No We Can't'" is a not so-subtle jab at Barack Obama as a major slogan in his campaign has been "Yes We Can"
  

Some commentators have expressed disgust at this ad (see Daily Kos and Ted Kennedy).

Unspinning Inevitability (Pt. 2)

After posting my first blog on this topic (where I tried to show how difficult it would be for Clinton to secure the nomination), I received an email from a friend who challenged my assertion and contended that Clinton could still win.

In fairness, let me offer what I see as the most plausible Clinton victory scenario:
(Note: A major assumption of the following is that the delegates from FL and MI do not get counted, as the DNC originally stated would be the case. Hillary's best shot at the nomination is for these delegates to be counted, but this will really anger many Obama supporters who will feel that the nomination was stolen).



(source: personal calculations; data from RCP)

Notice under this scenario how tough things will be for Hillary: She has to basically tie Obama in every state except for PA, TX, and OH, where she must blow him out. Unfortunately for Hillary, I still cannot see this happening.

Hillary's plan for victory must include the following:

• Win TX and OH by a comfortable margin (at least 10 points)
• Procure the endorsement of John Edwards and Al Gore
• Use this momentum to win PA by a large margin (at least 15 points)
• Out perform Obama in procuring outstanding super delegates (secure at least 55%)
• Manage not to get blown out in any other primaries (no losses by more than 10 points)

Unspinning Inevitability

In recent days, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been fighting about how much Hillary needs to do to win the nomination. Obama claims Hillary is in a position where she basically cannot win (without undue bias from super delegates), while Hillary rejects this and instead puts her hopes on Ohio and Texas (source; source; source).

In trying to unspin the rhetoric, I decided to do some math. Here is what I found:


(source: personal calculations)
Under this scenario, Obama wins every remaining primary and takes two times the number of delegates as Clinton and the super delegates play no role. The result is that nobody has enough delegates to win the nomination. Under a scenario where Obama wins handily (it is doubtful Obama will win this many delegates in the primaries), the super delegates play the deciding role. The bottom line: super delegates will determine this nomination.

Let's consider a likely scenario:



(source: personal calculations).
Under this scenario: (1) Obama wins every remaining primary and takes (5/8) of the delegates in each remaining state. (2) Currently committed super delegates do not change. (3) Uncommitted super delegates break (5/8) for Obama.
The result: Obama wins.

Consider the following scenario:


In this scenario: (1) the delegates and super delegates are split 50/50 (2) except, the won delegates from PA, TX, and OH go 70/30 for Clinton over Omaba (an unbelievable margin, not supported by polls).
The result, Hillary barely wins.

The bottom line is that, unless something remarkable happens, Barack Obama will win the nomination. We just cannot rationally expect Hillary to win PA, TX, and OH by such wide margins while Obama will only break-even in other states. Keep this in mind when you hear Hillary and her surrogates speaking about how she will "wrap up" the nomination in June (source).

A Tale of Two Photos

Watching the post-Feb 12 primary speeches from Senator Barack Omaba and Senator John McCain, I could not help but notice the incredible differences in setting and crowd mood.

(source: AP)

• Crowd Size: 15,000
• Individuals Behind Obama in TV Close-Up: Diverse group of energetic voters.
• Enthusiasm: Absolutely ecstatic (A friend of mine attended the rally and waited 6 hours in line to get in; he stood at the very front and met Obama afterward.)
  

(source: Fox News)

• Crowd Size: Unknown (event was in a ballroom of a Virginia hotel--could not be more than 1500)
  
• Individuals Behind McCain in TV Close-Up: Group of white old politicians (almost all men)
  
• Enthusiasm: Very minimal
  

Two important elements of persuasion are: (1) conveying enthusiasm (2) conveying similarity to the target audience.

On both of these fronts, Obama absolutely demolished McCain. (1) The Obama crowd screamed so loud that it drowned out Obama occasionally. However, the McCain crowd appeared reticent to even clap. (2) The McCain rally showed a bunch of old white male politicians surrounding the candidate while the Obama rally showed a diverse group of enthusiastic voters.

In short, there is a tremendous persuasion gap between the two candidates. Senator Obama is drawing absolutely breathtaking crowds (both in size and enthusiasm) while Senator McCain is drawing small and less enthusiastic crowds. A very close friend of mine attended a McCain rally in Grand Rapids, MI in early January and said that many of the attendees appeared to have been under-age kids from schools "bussed in" for TV (my friend postulated that the McCain campaign asked teachers to have high school kids come out for a field trip). In contrast, my friend who attended the Obama rally in Wisconsin on February 12 said he and countless others waited 6 hours in line and the whole arena (a large sports complex) was packed.

Consider the following photos, which further show the immense disparity.


(source: NY Times Article)


(source: AP)

One other note: Mr. McCain knew that TV networks would rather cover Mr. Obama's speech than his own speech so, as the NYT reports, "Senator John McCain waited in a hotel back room for Mr. Obama to finish his speech before Mr. McCain greeted supporters at his victory party in Alexandria, Va." (source).

Unpersuasive Sources

Over the past few days, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been locked in a nasty battle about debates in Wisconsin. Hillary Clinton released an ad accusing Obama of ducking debates, Obama responded, and now Hillary responded to Barack's response with a new attack ad. The Obama campaign responded to Hillary's response with the following statement:

Bill Burton, the spokesman for the Obama campaign, emailed [the NYT] this reply: “We’ve had 18 debates and we’re scheduled for even more. Clinton appears to enjoy debating so much that she has engaged a quite vigorous debate with her own record of supporting NAFTA.”

Sounds like the same old politics to me?

Nonetheless, while I was watching Obama's responding attack ad (NYT, YouTube), which accused Hillary of "the same out politics of phony charges and false attacks," I was surprised to see the persuasive spin used in citing sources. Consider the transcript of the ad with pertinent accompanying images (shown below). Look and see if you can spot a subtle manipulation of sources (source: NY Times).

After 18 debates, with two more coming, Hillary says Barack Obama is ducking debates? It’s the same old politics, of phony charges and false attacks.

On health care, even Bill Clinton’s own labor secretary says Obama covers more people than Hillary and does more to cut costs...

... saving $2,500 for the typical family.

Obama’s housing plan — it stems foreclosures and cracks down on crooked lenders.

That’s change we can believe in.

Notice how Obama begins by emphasizing that Clinton's labor secretary is supporting Obama's claims. However, Obama quickly changes his sourcing and the announcer finishes his sentence while the sourcing changes to BarackObama.com

This seems like the same old politics to me...