Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

Here are some election visualization links (many maps, few graphs):
· CNN ElectionCenter Map
· Fox News Interactive Map
· ABC News Map
· Yahoo Election Dashboard
· MSN Election Map Room
· MSNBC Election Map
· NPR Election Map
· Wall Street Journal Electoral College Calculator (browser resize!)
· 270towin.com
· idashboards.com Election 2008 (results?)
· NYTimes Election 2008 (results?)
· BBC News Elections 2008 (results?)
· USA Today (results?)
· Newsweek Politics (results?)
· Time Magazine (results?)
· Google Maps 2008 Elections Gallery
· Forst and the Trees Election Center (results?)
· Color-Weighted Election 2008 Cartograms (results on 5 November).

Anyone who has turned on a TV, logged on to Facebook or even played a video game in the past couple of months realizes that this year's presidential campaign truly does represent change.

I'm not talking about change of race or gender in the White House, but in the way the campaign has been advertised.

Not one to ever hide my political views, I have openly supported Barack Obama since early this year. (There's your warning that I recognize my view of the two campaigns is biased.) However, I feel like there are some undeniable differences in the way the candidates have run there campaign, especially when it comes to advertising it.

For the first time in presidential campaigning history, Obama advertised in video games. Several EA Sports games, including NASCAR 09, NHL 09 and NBA Live 08, showed billboards advertising for Obama in the background.

In 2007, the Obama camp hired Chris Hughes, one of the founders of Facebook, to develop their official Web site. Before agreeing to leave his job at Facebook, Hughes insisted that Obama agree to use the site as a serious campaigning medium. And that they have. The Obama campaign spent $3 million on online advertising in the first four months of 2008 alone, according to the New York Times.

Last week's infomercial released by the Obama campaign was the "most-watched telecast in U.S. prime time on Wednesday, drawing an ‘American Idol'-size audience that easily eclipsed even the climax to baseball's World Series," Reuters reported.

And, of course, who could forget Obama's 3 a.m. text message announcing Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential nominee?

Perhaps this new wave of advertising is because of their target audience, or maybe just because Barack Obama is just cooler than John McCain.

Either way, election coverage is flooding blogs, Facebook, Twitter and practically every other means of communication. No matter where you go, you're constantly bombarded with election news. Forget the 2004 election, where you had to catch up on election coverage during the evening news. This is certainly the year of change.

We’ve heard a lot about change lately. In the daily ad bombardment about candidates, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, the word seems to be overused on every front. Like many baby boomers, I’m not only facing change in my elected leaders and change in my financial portfolio -- I’m also dealing with changes to my diet and exercise plans and changes related to my aging parents. So today, the word “change” doesn’t seem far off and distant to me; it feels like a very active verb working in the here and now. It means in many areas of my life I have to adjust my focus and shift directions. But it also forces me to review my goals and determine how best to move forward.

I’ve learned that much of life is about adapting to change. But I’ve also learned through experience that if I have access to good information and I’m clear about what I want to achieve, I’m better equipped to plan for change instead of just having to react to it. If I can anticipate or initiate the change, I’m in control.

That’s what I like most about my “day job.” Having spent my career working in  government relations, I’m keenly aware of how important is it for companies and organizations to appropriately assess when it’s time to adjust their focus or shift direction. Change may be necessary because of circumstances beyond their control, but it can also be called for when new opportunities present themselves. I like to help clients assess where they are and where they want to go. I like to work with them to plan ahead before a crisis occurs. I like to talk with them about their goals and then strategically look at how best to proactively achieve those goals. I like to bounce ideas and strategies off the great team of professionals in my office. And at the end of the day, I like to feel that we’ve helped clients consider their options and make really good strategic decisions.

In less than two weeks, we’ll be electing a new president and a new governor. We’ll be electing new members of Congress, new legislators and new members of the Council of State. As I sit here today thinking about the upcoming elections, I’m excited about the new opportunities. And I know that regardless of the outcome of the elections, there will be new opportunities for education and outreach. There will be opportunities to pursue new issues and advocate new ideas. As difficult as some of the changes in my life feel right now, I think I’ll try to stay focused on how exciting some of these changes will be beginning on November 5!

What if the whole world could vote in the November election? Here's how a global electoral college might look if the election were today:

GLOBAL ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Of course you have to take this juicy little morsel with a grain of salt. I'm guessing the readership of theeconomist.com is not entirely representative of the larger global population. Still, even taken at face value - this is staggeringly one-sided.

Also - neato infographic...

As Barack Obama continues to garner widespread support and momentum on the road toward Super Tuesday, parallels and comparisons between himself and the late President Kennedy are being drawn more and more frequently. Senator Obama is gracious in his acceptance of the compliments that such a characterization imply, but visibly reluctant to embrace or buy into his own hype.

Coming on the heels of a huge victory in South Carolina this weekend, Barack Obama's campaign scored big with public endorsements by two members of the influential Kennedy clan. Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President Kennedy, ran a glowing op-ed piece in yesterday's New York Times, formally throwing her support behind Obama. Senator Ted Kennedy is set to appear with Obama and Caroline on the campus of American University in Washington, D.C., where he is expected to offer a similar show of support. What sort of shot in the arm can Obama's campaign expect from such a glowing endorsement by not one, but TWO members of America's Royal Family? More important, how much of a punch in the nose will this prove to be for Hillary Clinton's campaign?

My interest piqued, I decided to dig up some details of JFK's race for the White House in 1960, to compare against this year's epic battle for the Democratic nomination. Thanks Wikipedia.

In 1960, Democratic party leaders united in a call for change - for a fresh face. Adlai Stevenson, the party contender in both 1952 and 1956, had offered little competition, getting trounced in both general elections. Neither himself nor Lyndon Johnson, the party's other Establishment figure, could compete with John Kennedy's ability to ignite and motivate throngs of people. Kennedy handily won the nomination. In what would later be called a brilliant campaign maneuver, Kennedy offered LBJ a spot on his ticket going into the general election. Johnson threw the full support of his Establishment behind Kennedy, ultimately helping secure major victories in critical states - among them, Johnson's home state of Texas, an historically devoutly red state. Kennedy went on to win the Presidency in a close battle with Richard Nixon. I will stop short of drawing any conclusions or making any predictions based on historical record. Rather, let's call it further physical evidence that having friends in high places can benefit your cause.

Those critical of this weekend's endorsements are quick to point out the perceived shortcomings of the Kennedy clan. Here's one particularly scathing response I found in combing the blogosphere:

Just Like Her Daddy and Worse

The Princess Royal of the Kennedy clan, who has herself accomplished nothing in life except being born to wealth and privilege, has draped her father’s moth-eaten cloak on Barack Obama, who, in her father’s White House, would have been a footman or cook. Say what you will about Obama, he got there himself without the benefit of a rich daddy or corrupt political machine. He may be more unprepared to be president and more disastrous for this country than was JFK, but we hope, at least, that he will be impervious to “love notes” from middle-aged political camp followers who are still trying to be influential without ever being relevant.

Ouch.

I cry distraction! I'm well aware of the Kennedys' checkered past. I'm well aware that the legacy of wealth and privilege that the Kennedy name implies is worlds away from my own. And knowing this, I could not care less in this context. Caroline Kennedy voiced her opinion. Using the power and influence of her position, she did so in a very public way - but the fact remains, she gave her own personal opinion, love it or hate it. Like her, I've never been truly inspired by a president. To my generation, the legacy of JFK has been abstracted to a collection of nostalgic anecdotes of an inspired America and an over-analyzed snuffing out of the voice behind it. The authors of such nasty criticism as this are missing the point entirely. The point is, I can't write my little campaign contribution check to Obama fast enough. I am glued to the television/radio/web anytime the man speaks, and it is ELECTRIFYING. I want to help. I want to get involved. I want to participate in the reclamation of my nation and its good name.  

Endorsements are a normal, natural, and some would say necessary part of the modern election process. Governors, religious leaders and socialites of all grade and color of celebrity are clamoring to publicly voice support for the race horse of their choosing. Candidates depend on the buzz generated for and about them to promote name recognition and voter awareness. At nearly 300 million strong, the American populus is, more than ever, a moving target, difficult for a campaign to hit with any effectiveness. I read Caroline Kennedy's endorsement and I think, 'Well, okay. That's how Caroline Kennedy feels about Barack Obama.' I do not feel like I am in any jeopardy of compromising my integrity or ethical standards because I agree with something a Kennedy said. If I had to pull one sentence out as a summation of her points, it is this:

"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it."

Rather than offer up my NY Times login info, I'm just going to list the full text of the op-ed piece at the end of this article. Have a read and decide for yourself - does this sound like something you might be interested in? For the record - Robert Kennedy, Jr. endorsed Hillary way back in November.

---------------------------

A President Like My Father
(As run in NY Times, January 27, 2008)

By Caroline Kennedy, Op-Ed Contributor

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

 

Experience is proving to be a key issue on both sides of the aisle in the '08 presidential elections.  I've noticed throughout the pre-caucus melee that experience has been talked about far more amongst the candidates themselves than in my supermarket or my local watering hole. Those with have attacked relentlessly those without, and those without (or with less) have set their jaw and refused to be shaken. Wednesday's events in Pakistan have thrown a curve ball to the candidates, putting their foreign policy credentials under the microscope with little time for them to prepare their statements.

Clever strategists have armed their people with back doors and sidesteps and comebacks and Ooooooooh no he DIDN'T! answers for every attack. Noone wants to take a stance on anything! It's all about who's experienced enough to make the best decision, should that decision need to be made anytime in the next four years. Consequently, we are getting a bounty of absolutely riveting political drama. CNN has turned SportsCenter; I can tune in on the half-hour to get a fresh highlight montage of one-liners, sound bytes and eloquent-yet-completely-bewildering-and-incomprehensible question dodges. Taking advantage of the free press, this week the presidential candidates have offered more of the same.

Huckabee apologized to Pakistan for the assassination. A small misstatement; his good intentions were obvious and sincere. But the blogosphere is sparkling with questions of his ability to manage policy issues. Zoinks! It's common knowledge that he has little foreign policy experience. But if you heart Huckabee...it's probably not going to rock your opinion of the man. It's fun to laugh and point, but honestly, in a few days it'll be forgotten, and his charismatic thing that he's working will shine through again, and it's back to the races. You can't not like the guy, you know?

Clinton...okay, touché, Hillary. She's hit a little smooth patch with this one. She's mostly letting the experience she gained with Bhutto during the nineties speak for itself.

Giuliani had what seemed to me a small, muted Howard Dean moment, blurting out that blame was with 'the Islamic terrorists' and soothsaying ominously that the same could happen in OUR cities unless...

Obama did his thing, too. I don't even remember what he said, but it was beautiful. And he really, really meant it. 

All of the candidates released statements of sadness and concern for the family and loved ones of Bhutto, and concern for the region in general. It is indeed sad, and we should be concerned. Benazir Bhutto was a [re-]rising star in Pakistan, with a promise of diplomacy and moderation that has left a void in it's absence. The candidates were correct and responsible in offering their condolences. But beyond that? Pure opportunistic theater. Those with direct or indirect foreign policy experience with Pakistan positively wiggled with excitement (I am imagining my little dog Maddie being wagged by her spastic tail after seeing me for the first time in 8 hours) at the opportunity to show it off. Those without barely broke stride in falling back on their individual strengths, lulling me into tranquil assuredness that their lack of experience won't be a problem.

I can't speak for others, but for myself, I am trying to really get a sense of who all of these people are, and how they are. Voting records are important to me, but not nearly as important as the character of the candidates. A person with strength of character will vote to make the right decision, and it may not always follow party lines. I see right through all the finger-pointing. I'm barely paying attention to the watered-down droll anymore - talk to me in six months. But you better believe I'm tuning in for my highlights. Da da da. Da da da...

Mitt Romney's speech yesterday was a bold move that evoked favorable comparisons among many pundits and observers to the much revered John F. Kennedy. But was it a wise choice for the candidate to put himself and his controversial beliefs in the spotlight? My unequivocal answer is, yes. Here are just a few reasons why: 

The issue was already the elephant in the living room. You could not read an article or watch a news report that alluded to Romney without some mention of his faith. By addressing the issue head on he has been able to own the issue, better control the message and put himself on the offensive.

He had nothing to lose. According to polls, one-fourth of voters admitted that they would not vote for him solely because of his Mormon faith. Stepping up and facing the critiques with a well-covered press conference pushed voters to question their rationales and prejudices. Shining a light on this type of prejudice is the best cure.

What  better affinity brand than JFK. A Google search of mentions of JFK's 1960 speech about his Catholic beliefs in just the 12 hours after Romney's speech returned more than 1,300 hits. Talk about riding coattails. Even though the two approached the issue differently, by following the path of one of the most revered and respected leaders of modern history, Romney has positioned himself as this generation's JFK on this issue. What better way to appear presidential than to be associated with one of the highest rated Presidents in history.

Politics and religion are the ultimate taboo subjects according to some. By tackling the two in a straight-forward and respectful way, Mitt Romney has created an opportunity for his campaign to move beyond the issue and positioned him as presidential and electable. Will it be enough to get him to the White House? Only time will tell.