About Obama's Negative Campaigning
Politics and Enterprise Sales
By blackhedd Posted in 2008 — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Reading the David Brooks piece that Pejman linked nearby, I thought to ask what would happen if I were to go negative in my own campaigns.
I'm frequently involved in selling high-ticket technology products to large corporations. If anything could benefit from a more civilized approach to sales, a new politics if you will, you'd think that would be it.
Read on...
David Brooks says that Obama won't be able to go negative against Hillary Clinton because he (rightly) perceived that people are tired of that mode of selling. So he constructed an entire political persona on being a nice guy, and that's the essence of his appeal to be made President of the United States. To go the other way now would eliminate the basis of his candidacy.
To be fair, you can easily see where he'd get the idea that this could be a winning strategy. Most of the people on his side of the political aisle will tell you with a straight face that acting aggressively to protect our national security is a bad idea because "no one likes us anymore."
Mrs. Clinton, for her part, well understands the value of power. In the pursuit of power, her ability to shift gears as the need arises is nothing short of Protean. She'll go from soft-and-cuddly to weepy to the woman-who-would-presumably-push-the-nuclear-button-at-3-AM, all in the blink of an eyelash. Such shape-shifting is easy when all of your shapes are substance-free chimeras.
This takes me back to my thought exercise.
In selling expensive products to people who know what they're buying, you simply can't fling around a lot of, well, bovine excreta. People know exactly what you're trying to say before you say it. And it matters enough for their self-importance that they'll call you on it every time. And they don't censor their language either. Later, they'll swap vendor-smackdown stories with their colleagues over beers.
(In truth, there are vendors who approach sales as a blood sport. These tactics do work, but only if you already hold a commanding market position. And people hate and resent you for it even as they cut checks to you.)
So the kind of mudslinging that political campaigns engage in, which would straightforwardly be libel and slander were it not targeted at public figures, backfires every time in a high-powered sales situation.
And Obama seems to have found a lode of voters who feel the same way. Perhaps the kind of voters who respond to mudslinging are the same people who allow car salesmen and mortgage brokers to browbeat and shame them. (To be sure, Obama voters also respond to Messianic charisma, which also tends to work in enterprise sales, but only to get you in the door, not to close the deal. And in any case, this says more about Obama's voters than it does about Him him.)
So if you can't go negative, in the sense of flinging groundless accusations that wouldn't be out of place on a grade-school playgound, what do you do instead?
In enterprise sales, you have to take an intelligent approach to the customer's problem, and show her why your product addresses it more effectively than your competition's product. You have to prove that doing business with you and your company is not risky, and you have to demonstrate unequivocally that you can and will follow through on your promises. (And of course, you have to make this case to her over lunch in the kind of restaurant she can't afford on her corporate vice-president's salary.)
In short, you have to have substance. That's the box Obama is in. He can't go negative on Clinton because his whole campaign is based on rejecting that kind of selling. But he'll have a hard time closing the deal because he has nothing to sell in the first place.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Trapped — Comments (2) »
About Obama's Negative Campaigning 18 Comments (0 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I think you're saying that there's nothing to the "New Politics" after all. In other words, you can't put together a winning coalition just from voters who don't respond to mudslinging.
If so, we're in for a long summer of Clinton and Obama beating each other bloody, with victory determined by who can stay standing the longest, while we sit back and enjoy the show.
Works for me.
Is that people somehow manage to forget they have seen it before.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I remember James Carville once said "People say they hate negative ads, but they sure do remember them."
I have no qualms about negative campaigning as I believe the ends justify the means in an election camapign [within the bounds of the law]. It is a simple prisoner's dilemna. Both sides would prefer not to use negative advertisements, but, given the stakes, neither trusts the other to follow through on the promise, especially if the pay-off for a negative campaign turns could lead to victory. So, unless you're commanding a Ronald Reagan in 1984 lead, all campaigns turn nasty, some nastier than others, but all will sling mud whenever it suits them. In this type of struggle, if you have to go down, you might as well go down with all cylinders empty.
I agree that voters claim to want more substance from their candidates, and this will hurt Obama, but I don't think that rules out using negative ads. I actually didn't think the "3 AM phone call" ad was negative campaigning. Is it negative campaigning to point out how your opponent's position or background differs from your own, especially if the media ignores substanative debate on the issue? For example, if McCain puts out an ad claiming he is the best qualified candidate to confront Al Qaeda, and says Obama is wrong on his assessment in Iraq, would rational people really call this "fear mongering" or "a slick campaign trick?"
Obama doesn't have to go negative on Hillary because his subordinates and the media will do it for him. Almost everyone has their mind made up on her, and those not disposed to like her will see a new validation of their views in every news cycle. Hillary, and McCain, cannot allow Obama's campaign and his enablers in the media define his his image. Going negative on Obama opens up valid debate on his policies and statements.
“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley
...is that there isn't any substansive difference in policy between the two of them. Consequently, Obama can't go negative by drawing a distinction between the ideas he and Hillary advocate, so he has to attack Hillary herself. However, Obama's entire appeal to Democratic and independent voters is his personality and rhetoric. His sell is that while Hillary's a witch who has to enact her policies through subterfuge and strongarm tactics, he's a nice guy who will enact the policies his voters want through sheer force of will and charisma. By entering a slugfest with Hillary, Obama risks looking almost as bad as she does when its done and completely obliterating his message in the process. Without this likeability advantage, voters have no reason to prefer him to Hillary, and so they won't.
Hillary's entire line of attack on is that Obama can't get the job done. They way to respond to that line is to demonstrate conclusively and forcefully that he can. McCain with his long list of accomplishments can do this; Obama can't. By going negative at this point, Obama is making the argument to the voters that "she can't do it either," which leads thhe voters to the ineviatble conclusion that "neither of you can do it" and rejecting both by either staying home or voting for McCain.
I'm not sure a big-ticket selling motion is the right one to use in our political campaigns. We political junkies might care about things like "issues," but we already know that most voters couldn't say, today, who the major candidates are... let alone what positions they've taken.
If the candidates all sound like Mighty Putty salesmen, it's probably what we deserve.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
The dichotomy between them is pretty stark: Hillary Clinton appeals to wonkish people who are interested in nitty-gritty details contained in thousands of pages of legislative effort. Barack Obama appeals to people who are interested in politics as a fable and who don't have much desire or competence to slog through boring legislation.
That's why in the end they're going to kiss, make up, and have a joint ticket, I think.
I know the democrats are hoping that somehow Hillary & Obama make up & run a joint ticket to Valhalla; I don't, however, see it happening. Neither want to give up the power, to become #2. Barring miraculous results, neither will be much closer to clinching the nomination once all the primaries have happened. Both will have arguments as to why they should be #1, & the wounds caused by the "spirited" campaign are very unlikely to be magically healed come convention time...
...I think BO appeals to people who not only don't have time to wade thru piles of legislation, but people who are just politically naive, people who wouldn't know the difference between a foreign policy and the domestic gross product, nor would they care to.
Today people are worried too much about remembering all their passwords and what have you, and they just want to feel good about themselves, and their country.
Thats why I say forget all these namby pamby politically correct tactics and take Obama out from the knees now, by calling the shots and being proactive about running a campaign against him, and not acquiescing to his every whim in regards to what the dialog is going to be about, or not about.
It should be about him, about his history, about his lack of any tangible legislation or political credentials that would qualify him to be the POTUS.
Now is the time to shaine a little light on the Obama hologram, and expose the whole shell game for what it is, an illusion.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich." ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
They don't have any choice and here is why..
http://noleftturnz.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/the-big-bang-theory-liberal-...
Let Obama except Jesus our Saviour on television and then light that cross on fire!
What do YOU think?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
whites are devils. The honorable Elijah Muhammad agrees.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Your/you're and there/they're/their are at least homophones.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
...friends, but while you probably do, you're probably very, very careful not to tell them how much you actually despise people almost identical to them.
I did not pull the trigger, but I would have.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Your systems and technology suck. We hear you're about to be sued for patent infringement and that major clients are abandoning your platform. The DOJ is knocking on the door for the latest option scandal, and the EEOC is about to initiate a landmark suit for your discrimination against minorities, as evidenced by your lily-white board, membership in lily-white country clubs and the breaking revelation that your secretary is barefoot and pregnant (with your child).
:>)
Surrogates, Blackhedd, surrogates. And after hearing about the Texas caucuses from people who went, the African-American community is mad at Team Hillary. Damn mad.
(Note to Obama team- stop firing the surrogates. An insincere apology, a transfer to another position and a pledge to live up to the standards of the non-divisive campaign will do the trick.) Photos of Bill at 3AM won't hurt either.
Hillary's 3AM call commercial is classic F.U.D. And as with F.U.D. the substance is mostly irrelevant. If you recall during the 90's the largest vendors were really fond of releasing checklists of features for future products that would never get implemented. Of those that did get implemented most never got used.
Can anyone honestly say they want Hillary answering the Red Phone at 3:00 am to decide how to deal with an attack on the nation ? What she managed to do is inspire doubt about Obama's capabilities. Exploiting a crack to get people that would otherwise lean towards him to introspect about the downside of doing so.
Obama can do much the same thing. There is the matter of Hillary and Bill's business ventures. Their post 9/11 activities across the board. He has already oversold her position on the war but he can open up a new can of worms about what motivated her to take those positions.
There are lots of ways for Obama to go negative. All he needs are issues that while he may not have much substance she either has negatives or less.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777