This was a feature written for one of my classes, on the importance of segmenting your audience in political strategy.
When presidential hopeful, John McCain, chose a little known Alaskan Governor to run for Office with him, no one expected the appeal that a “hockey mum” would have on the fickle voting public. Whilst Sarah Palin has drawn the ire of Democrats and supporters alike – being a transparent manoeuvre by the McCain camp that reeks of tokenism – the appointment has, nonetheless, boosted the momentum of McCain’s campaign. So, the question remains, why? Make no mistake that Palin is being used to compete for the voting bloc that Hillary Clinton’s failed bid has left in its wake.
It has long been held that political strategy focuses not only on public perception but also appealing to the ‘safe’ constituents – the voters who fall in to the same patterns of voting – and consolidating these likely voters. The task would remain, then, to source voters outside of these established voting groups. Barack Obama’s campaign focused on non-voters, with an aggressive initiative encouraging voter registration, managing to tap in to the youth market. In doing so he mobilised a completely new constituent of voters beyond regular voters, which would push him to victory in the primaries.
Historically, this is not the first time that a Democrat has done this to get to the White House. John F. Kennedy’s successful presidential bid mobilised the Catholic vote, a constituent of citizens otherwise inactive in elections. The mobilisation of the new voters lay in Obama’s appeal for them, and as such his campaign revolved around the rhetoric of ‘change.’ Rather than appealing to their anxieties he presented himself as an accomplished, young, demagogue that would inspire the imaginations of these citizens and be the change the country needed. But the question is whether Obama has been able to capture the imagination of all possible voters
As a candidate, Obama’s appeal is limited, and whilst he capitalises on strong support from the youth contingency he alienates others. With regular Democrat voters split between both Obama and Clinton, the nominees attempted to ‘connect’ to their safe constituents; and, for Clinton, there were two: women and the white working-class, especially in the American heartland. Clinton’s win in the Pennsylvania primary exemplified how the ‘everyday’ American did not identify with Obama. But to what extent has he reached out to them?
Obama has been branded an elitist, a label aided by his political gaffe preceding Pennsylvania, in calling people of the Midwest “bitter,” who were xenophobic, anti-trade, and clung on to religion and guns – in effect dubbing them as socially regressive – and the reason he wasn’t connecting with Pennsylvanians. Irrespective of whether this sentiment is a common one, it is characteristic of how he has not managed to engage the traditional political base of Democratic voters: the working-class. His campaign has not addressed the needs and interests of this important voting bloc, as characterised not only by his persona but his political rhetoric. Whilst the ‘change’ banner has done well to appeal to voters disillusioned with the parochial nature of the system, it has not promised what is most important to the white working-class constituent: financial and job security.
Clinton’s eventual loss of the nomination only crystallised the divide in the Democrat Party. According to the CBS statistical breakdown of the results of Pennsylvania, 52% of Clinton voters would not support Obama in an election against McCain, compared to 64% of Obama voters who claimed they would support Clinton in a presidential bid. It is no fluke that the voter profile of Clinton supporters matches the same group that Obama ostracised with his campaign and blithe comments. With Clinton supporters left in limbo after her loss, upset by how the Party effectively turned their back on her, McCain’s team fired a shot that seemed to be the silver bullet to the Obama machine.
Palin’s addition to the Republican ticket seemed to have come from left field, in an attempt to revitalise the McCain campaign. With her liberal reference to “Joe Sixpack” and the image being pushed of her as a working mother, Palin represented the ‘everyday’ citizen that Clinton’s former supporters could identify with. Of course, the support of the American heartland for the Republican Party, what should be a traditional Democratic base, is a political conundrum, considering their economic interests should be incompatible with that of the Republican ethos.
In his book, “What’s the Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,” Thomas Frank posits that support for Republicans in what should be a Democratic stronghold is due to “Great Backlash.” By respecting the social values of the working class, Republicans are able to convince them to vote against their economic interests. Coupled with Obama’s apparent elitism and supposed disdain towards this important constituent, the Kansas Theory has taken full effect, and Palin has been an almost perfect vessel to carry these social ideals in to the general election.
Her initial nomination generated widespread interest, from media, members from both Parties, and the general public. But as the months passed Palin’s popularity waned. Her relative inexperience made sure she lost some of her shine; however she is not out of the game completely. Her appeal for the working class and some women remain. As November 4 looms closer it is difficult to choose a winner. In one of the most dynamic and hyped elections in recent memory, the most recent Gallup Poll has revealed a 7% margin in favour of Obama. The largest contributing factor to the margin between the candidates is age, with 64% of 18 to 29 year olds supporting Obama.
So, perhaps this niche constituent may indeed have been a beneficial campaign strategy for Obama, but in doing so he has alienated an important voting bloc. He has not completely consolidated his support base and may just reinforce Frank’s Kansas Theory. After all, even Michael Dukakis, in his 1988 bid for the presidency, was ahead in the polls before losing to George W. Bush Sr. in the general election. But Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama may seal the deal for the Illinois Senator, assuming that the impressive turnout of new voters in the primaries will be replicated in the general election.
Essentially, as practitioners and strategists, we should recognise the value of engaging with more than a single public, and capitalising not just on a specific constituent, but all possible ones; to serve and address the needs and interests of these groups and ultimately our own. Whilst McCain’s appointment of Palin attempted to do this, her inexperience has failed her. It was the right idea executed wrongly. Had Palin been more experienced, and well versed in foreign affairs, the election result may be very different to the one the world is anticipating come Election Day.
