I enjoyed this week’s On The Media. With Presidential elections only occurring every four years, there is an overwhelming amount of information being given to us. On a personal note, I have been using this election season as a measuring stick of my own political leanings and interest in campaign coverages. This is the third election that I have been eligible to participate, in the form of voting. While I’m choosing to refrain from sharing the evolution of my political stance, I will say that this is the most interested I have been.
Being that On The Media is an hour show, with a lot of material to digest; I am selecting a particular segment that I found to be interesting: the preparation and research involved in targeting specific voters. The show referred to the previous, and longstanding, strategy of targeting demographics. Elections, and subsequent campaigning and marketing, are so calculated in their every move. Politicians are merely a vessel for an entire political party to channel their wants and beliefs through. I wonder, what percent of words a candidate speaks do they even believe themselves? Before I go on a tangent, I want to bring it back to the point. This week’s show talked about how parties are now targeting specific people.It is scary how much information is available to campaign strategists about each and every one of us. I also find it fascinating, how much work a campaign puts in to every move, speech and appearance by its respective candidate.
The example of the mailing tactics studied by a university (can’t remember which one, or what state) speaks to the volume of information and research being conducted. Four mailings were sent to people of a designated area, each one with different content, but all with the goal of motivating people to vote. I don’t want to regurgitate the show, but if you didn’t listen to this part, I would recommend doing so.
Something I’ll be paying attention to, in the third and final debate, is when the candidates refer to specific people they’ve met along the way. Both men have met and talked to thousands upon thousands of people, so why do you think they refer to a selected few? My guess would be that the people they mention are calculated to a science. Either they represent voters who are commonly still undecided, or they are pawns in a political move I’m not aware of. I would put down all the money I have (full disclosure: it’s not much) that every person named in speeches, debates, interviews, etc, is calculated and tirelessly screened as the perfect selection.
Politics are a game of chess.