Now that you've watched The War Room documentary about the 1992 Clinton Campaign for the presidency, cite three specific examples of strategies the Clinton campaign used to win the election.
Would those strategies work in the 2016 race? Be sure to explain why or why not?
No, we rely to heavily on social media in the present day for traditional media strategy to work. I think the stump speech strategy used by all the candidates is still viable and effective in the present-day but the effort spent on TV ads, explaining specific policy that can't be distilled into a ten-second sound bite (ex: build a wall and make Mexico pay for it), and time spent trying to uncover dirt on the Bush and his campaign would not yield the same results today as they would in the 90s. Rather, general attacks on candidates and vague policy promises work much better today in a world of information overload and highly limited attention spans.
ReplyDelete-Adriel S.
Katelyn Wolfgang: They called out the Bush campaign on their advertisement in Brazil, they had Clinton walk around and shake hands with voters, they talked to voters that called in to the campaign to ask questions, created solid color signs with bold letters to have people display, they called Bush out on the read my lips campaign and not knowing the deficit. These campaign strategies would work for 2016. Lots of candadates call each other out on their actions such as with Hilary's emails. Signs are still created for people to show their support. The voters asking and commenting on radio and calling in would not work as most people rely on the Internet for discussing politics.
ReplyDeleteBill Clinton's campaign made use of many different strategies to win his election. Using rallies and speeches to organize support and attention, is still an effective method of winning an election even today. Many candidates make use of such methods to gain attention from the media, and voters. However, spending time to dig up dirt on opposing candidates is something that won't work. Attempting to do so is seen as more of a waste, and instead takes too much time for it to be viable when other candidates will be throwing general attacks at each other. Another method the Clinton campaign used was explaining specific policies. When Clinton did it, the voters weren't being delivered empty promises but instead they were given a full on explanation of what the policy is, and what it will do. This won't work today since the promises that other candidates give are phrased to give the voters what they want to hear, as opposed to the truth on the matter.
ReplyDelete~Eyad H.
1. The Clinton campaign was able to attack the "Read My Lips" pledge that George Bush made in his 1988 campaign. He made the promise to 'get elected' according to Bill Clinton, and he wasn't able to keep this promise since new taxes were establish during Bush's presidential term. This strategy will most likely not work in 2016 because there is no candidate who was a president in prior years.
ReplyDelete2. Another strategy that was useful (but not totally on purpose) was the fact that Bill Clinton was from Arkansas. Having a candidate from the south on the democratic side was a good way to get southern states to possibly vote democrat. The Vice President Al Gore was also from the south, Tennessee, which helped the campaign. This could be possible in 2016 because Hillary is also from Arkansas.
3. The 3rd important strategy that happened by chance was that a republican candidate ran as an independent. This was able to divide the republican vote and help Bill Clinton pull out the win. This seems to be unlikely for the republican party since all candidates signed saying they would not run as 3rd parties but it could be possible that a candidate does.
4. DENIM. It seems like Clinton's campaign workers had a very obsessive relationship with denim. Maybe it's a useful campaign strategy and a reason why they won. I think this could possibly work in 2016, it seems like jean jackets are making a comeback.
-Sofia Ackerman
Three strategies that stood out to me were:
ReplyDelete1) Bill Clinton refused to lose the young vote; he made sure that he was charismatic and "cool" besides intelligent. He played the saxophone at some event, which Bush (or perhaps it was Matalin) attacked later, to no success. Clinton had won the "charismatic" card.
2) The Clinton adviser board was no group of dolts, although sometimes their strategies appeared oddly childish. During The War Room, there was a clip of a meeting where they argued over signs (as is signs Clinton supporters held up) and their impacts. At first it appeared to be a waste of time, but the scene in fact shows the dedication to detail that Clinton's committee had, which helped him in the long run.
3) Clinton used his Democratic platform to his advantage during a economic downturn. His platform consisted of better health care, education, and other various welfare, social, and economic reforms the public deemed necessary.
Attacks on candidates no longer seems to be successful in today's politics. Attacking the "Read my lips" pledge may have been successful in the past, but these blind promises seem to have lost their value over time. When candidates are attacked now, it seems as though there is very little impact on that candidate.
ReplyDeleteInteraction, however, still works today. When presidential candidates interact more with their supporters and potential voters, it establishes a strong connection between candidate and voter. This worked in the past with Clinton, where his musical abilities won him the younger votes.
The undying efforts of committees also have incredible impacts on their respective candidates. In "The War Room", the committee was always hard at work and refused to give in, implementing every bit of their knowledge and prior experiences into making their campaign a success. It seems as though that desire to succeed and the ambitious nature of candidates has disappeared, which would only rub off on their respective committees.
The first example was the read my lips promise George Bush made that Clinton then turned against him because of the new taxes established. This obviously cant be used again since there isn't a candidate running for re-election.
ReplyDeleteAnother example would be how Bill Clinton acted very relaxed and cool at his events. Any candidate could use this in the election this year because they would look normal compared to Trump and Sanders.
Finally, rallies and speeches are still a prominent way to win votes. Trump definitely showed this in South Carolina.
Though these strategies are effective, Social Media plays a huge role now. Donald Trump has tweeted some pretty stupid things on twitter. It also creates a larger group opinion as people tweet out their opinions. Personally, I hate seeing that because voters arent making informed decisions anymore, but instead listening to someone with a lot of followers.
-Nick Pignetti
Three strategies that the Clinton Campaign used to win the 1992 election were a) spending a large amount of time perfecting speeches and debate language (i.e. how they would word and say "Mr. President, we need to focus on other problems."), b) choosing to campaign in the South and show this section of the U.S. that Clinton wanted the same change once Ross Perot did not deem to be so popular there, and c) attacking Bush with respect to his "Read My Lips" campaign (also, the "poultry in a bush" idea). Strategies A and B may work in the 2016 campaign because it is important to stand out and make one's voice heard in a debate or speech that appeals to the American people. Strategy C would not work as well because none of the candidates are up against the current president. It would work, for example, if the candidates choose to attack bills previous senators agreed with.
ReplyDeleteWhile Clinton used rallies and speeches to gain support for his 1992 campaign, as would any Democratic nominee, he also used the strategy in which he would brush off personal attacks such as his relations with Gennifer Flowers. It appeared to me that while the media was extremely interested in Clinton's personal affairs, the voters themselves weren't as engaged in the scandal and the idea did not affect their turnout at rallies or in votes. Clinton also had a deep connection with the people when he went to rally in the South, where he was seen on camera signing things and shaking hands with those around him. He certainly used the strategy of personal connection to get on his people's good side. Clinton's campaign also took great advantage of publicizing Bush's advertisement in Brazil, which they used to their advantage. While Clinton's campaign seemed to worry about Bush attacking him, they were one step ahead of him in calling out his mistakes.
ReplyDeleteAs for the strategy of rallying and making speeches, this would definitely work in the 2016 campaign, as it is necessary for a successful election. I'm not sure if "brushing off" personal attacks would quiet work in today;s society, as we have more advanced forms of technology that are able to track a multitude of things; however, Trump has done a good job of not answering any question he has been asked, so I stand corrected. Finally, I feel that everyone calls each other out in the presidential election and in politics in general because it is a way to get ahead in the polls and weaken your opponent, just as Bush was weakened by Clinton.
The first strategy the Clinton campaign used was attacking Bush; specifically his "Read my lips" statement. This would clearly not work in 2016 because no candidates are up for reelection. Voters also don't seem to be responding strongly to attacks by candidates on other candidates. Another strategy the Clinton campaign used was emphasizing Clinton's love for his wife in the midst of scandal. Clinton often defended Hilary and they were shown hugging, holding hands, etc. This strategy could work for some voters, however, I think the majority of voters would't care and it wouldn't affect their voting decision. The final strategy the Clinton campaign used was rallies and speeches to gain support and attract voters. In one scene they even discussed how to design the posters, including what color they should be and how big to make the lettering. This is a very important strategy and would definitely work in 2016 because it appeals to voters and attracts votes.
ReplyDeleteBetween 1990-1992 there was a slight economic recession in America. The Clinton campaign capitalized on this opportunity. Carville constantly hammered out the mantra of sticking to economic subjects: hence "it's the economy stupid". This leads into the second strategy which was to pounce on Bush's failed promises of his 1988 campaign. He swore that he would 1. Fix the economy, and 2. Not to raise taxes. He failed in both of these respects, and the Clinton Campaign hounded on this by using Bush's "Read my lips" statement against him. Also the Clinton Campaign enforced the idea of "buying American", and "the American dream" by talking painting our the president's dealings in the middle east in a negative light; Clinton suggested that he was more focused on conquering other countries than fixing ours. We saw this also in the excitement of the Brasil-flyer incident. The world we live in is much too globalized for this to matter today. Americans pretty much accept that we are involved in foreign affairs, and always will be. Also candidates reneging on campaign promises is pretty much standard today. As for a 2016 race... I don't believe a Bush-like candidate could even be elected president in the 21st century. Candidates are elected based on their star-power. So these strategies would be pretty obsolete.
ReplyDelete1: It struck me as interesting when Clinton pledged not to lose the young vote. It seems that he thought if he was charismatic enough, he would persuade enough young voters to vote. That wouldn't really work today because voter turnout is so low.
ReplyDelete2: Trying to get dirt on the Bush campaign for an attack ad wouldn't work in modern day politics. People seem to care less and less about attack ads.
3: The emphasis on easy-to-read signs and very big, attention hogging letters would easily work in todays world. Ad design matters more and more as the lives of people in modern day america are flooded with distractions and these signs would easily help the Clinton campaign gain some ground on their opponents.
-Attacking Bush by using his "read my lips" statement against him was a successful Clinton campaign strategy. Since Bush did not keep his promise of not increasing/adding taxes, Clinton was able to publicly use this phrase during the general election to question Bush's trustworthiness, therefore, he made Bush look bad. The strategy of publicly calling out candidates on their faults has been successful so far during the current presidential race. For example, Sanders called out Hillary's ties to Wall Street when Hillary stated she wanted to level out the (economic) playing field. Sanders refuted Hillary's statement by pointing out the fact that Hillary has been accepting money from major corporations for years. Thus, she would work in favor of them. This made Hillary look bad, similar to how Bill Clinton's statements successfully made Bush look bad.
ReplyDelete-Another campaign strategy used by the Clinton campaign was a focus on Clinton's charisma. The combination of Clinton having considerably great public speaking skills, debate skills, and charisma resulted in Clinton being able to attract his audience. Another advantage of Clinton being charismatic was him being able to get the youth vote. His promise of change (and appearance on MTV) excited the youth of the time. The strategy of focusing on candidates charisma has been successfully used during the current presidential election. Hillary Clinton displays charisma by focusing on her advocacy of women's rights, using bright and colorful posters, and using phrases to appeal to the youth such as "may the force be with you". Even if people do not know Clinton's stances on the issues, they know about her charisma which solely attracts some people to her.
-Lastly, Clinton took advantage of the fact that there was a recession at the time. He used the strategy of focusing on an economic platform which supported human capital, focused on low interest rates, and addressed the deficit. By focusing on the issue of the economy at the perfect time, Clinton had an advantage. During the current presidential race, Trump has successfully taken advantage on focusing on a current key issue that is worrying people: Isis. Since many Americans are worried Isis, Trump's intense speeches/ commercials/ etc. in regards to Isis are giving him a political advantage.
While the political world has drastically changed since 1992 many of the underlying strategies have not. In 1992, Clinton made attempts to appeal to younger voters, he went on late night TV and played the saxophone, compared to his political rivals at the time that probably made him appear "cooler" to younger voters. Also, in 1992 Clinton simplified issues to make them sound like things he could fix or understood, lines like "It's the economy stupid," "change vs. more of the same," and "Don't forget healthcare" made Clinton's campaign platform concise and easily understandable, allowing a wider audience to understand them. Lastly, his background played a large part in his success. Being a democrat from the south, he likely won over some voted because of it.
ReplyDeleteThese are all strategies that more or less could be used today, but maybe in different ways. Now more than ever it is easy to reach out to the younger voters. Mediums like twitter and other social media sites even offer the ability to interact with these candidates, at times I even find it difficult to scroll down my news feed and not see a tweet from a candidate I do not even follow. The concise nature of Clinton's platform is another thing that in one way or another we see in this election cycle. Phrases like "Campaign finance reform," "Free college education," and "Break up the banks" instantly give voters an idea of the type of candidate Bernie Sanders is, and as such have become synonymous with his campaign. Lastly, the background card, while not something that can be changed can be an advantage to some candidates. Rubio's Hispanic background and history of immigration within his family have a good shot at winning over Hispanic or immigrant voters, and his connection with the swing state of Florida may translate to support in the general election.
While the political world has drastically changed since 1992 many of the underlying strategies have not. In 1992, Clinton made attempts to appeal to younger voters, he went on late night TV and played the saxophone, compared to his political rivals at the time that probably made him appear "cooler" to younger voters. Also, in 1992 Clinton simplified issues to make them sound like things he could fix or understood, lines like "It's the economy stupid," "change vs. more of the same," and "Don't forget healthcare" made Clinton's campaign platform concise and easily understandable, allowing a wider audience to understand them. Lastly, his background played a large part in his success. Being a democrat from the south, he likely won over some voted because of it.
ReplyDeleteThese are all strategies that more or less could be used today, but maybe in different ways. Now more than ever it is easy to reach out to the younger voters. Mediums like twitter and other social media sites even offer the ability to interact with these candidates, at times I even find it difficult to scroll down my news feed and not see a tweet from a candidate I do not even follow. The concise nature of Clinton's platform is another thing that in one way or another we see in this election cycle. Phrases like "Campaign finance reform," "Free college education," and "Break up the banks" instantly give voters an idea of the type of candidate Bernie Sanders is, and as such have become synonymous with his campaign. Lastly, the background card, while not something that can be changed can be an advantage to some candidates. Rubio's Hispanic background and history of immigration within his family have a good shot at winning over Hispanic or immigrant voters, and his connection with the swing state of Florida may translate to support in the general election.
The first strategy the Clinton used was attacking President Bush's "Read My Lips" Pledge. Many of the running candidates for 2016 have attacked other candidates, but everyone's attacks are not seemed to be valued much anymore because of the commonality of it. Sometimes in the debates, it seems as if they focus on attacking the others rather than focusing on the
ReplyDeletetopic. Therefore, this strategy is still used but isn't as effective as it used to be because all candidates are attacked by someone and all candidates attack someone else. The second strategy used in the Clinton campaign is the way Clinton acted. He was always so calmed and poised. He also had wonderful speaking skills and it definitely helped him get elected. During Nixon's presidency, we see the importance in being poised and having good speaking skills like Clinton did. Nixon could have had more supporters, done better in debates, etc. Yes, the strategy of being calm and poised while having great speaking skills still is used today and is very effective because citizens don't want a president who is nervous that doesn't have good speaking skills. It shows strength and everyone wants a strong leader. The third strategy Clinton used was focusing on the pressing issue of that time, which was the economic recession. This would definitely work in today's election as well because the economy is something that the US citizens will always be concerned about.
In 1992 the Clinton campaign used different techniques to win the election. One of which was the site simplifying of slogans to "its the economy stupid" and their works now because of how Obama won in 2008 with just one word "change."
ReplyDeleteAnother idea they used was TV ads. They wold use ads to their advantage to either call out their opponents on mistakes or to get their message out which is still used today.
A third tactic that was used was to question the backgrounds of the candidates Wethersfield it was broken promises or whether or not he hadid sexual relations with that woman.
-Rishabh Mistry
The first strategy that stood out to me was how Clinton attacked Bush's "Read My Lips" statement. Attacks like these are used today and will probably be used in future elections. The second strategy I noticed was how Bill Clinton tried to appeal to younger voters. That made sense because younger voters tend to like "cooler" presidents. I'm not entirely convinced that this strategy is effective, but it is very obvious Hillary is trying this too. Why else would Hillary have made videos trying to sound young, and why would she say "May the force be with you" at the end of a debate. Lastly, both sides in 1992 utilized rallies and speeches to gain support. Since this is probably on of the most effective ways to gain voters, I think most elections in the future will have rallies and speeches. The current election has already had many speeches and rallies, so it is obvious how effective it is.
ReplyDelete-Justin Ceresa
The Clinton campaign called out the Bush campaign for printing signs overseas in Brazil. Clinton also came out accusing Bush of focusing too much over seas and not focusing on the people of our country. Finally they used media (newspapers and television) to reach more voters and to try and turn voters away from Bush with accusatory advertisements. I think a majority of these strategies would work in the 2016 race because they are strategies that are simple and have been used in many years past. Many candidates will focus on accusing others of their wrong doings while they will try to appeal to as many voters as possible.
ReplyDeleteThe attack against George Bush for the "Read My Lips" statement made in the prior election was an important strategy for the Clinton campaign. The campaign called out the incumbent president for failing to follow through on his promises, and because taxes are such an important issue for many Americans, it was an effective attack. The candidates in the 2016 election are attacking each other left and right for similar fake promises and failed policies, but without an incumbent president running, these attacks are only against candidates' proposed promises during the campaign or during their tenures as governor, senator, etc., and aren't as effective.
ReplyDeleteAnother important strategy is focusing on the downturn in the economy, which was happening during the campaign, as a major point in the campaign. James Carville made it clear that this was an important part of the campaign strategy by saying "It's the economy, stupid." While the exact issue with the economy may not work in the 2016 election, there are plenty of immediate issues that are important to discuss and are prominent in debates and rallies, such as immigration, the refugee crisis, and ISIS.
Finally, Bill Clinton really made an effort to appeal to a younger audience, for example by appearing on TV and playing the saxophone. He wanted to show the younger voters in America that he was "cool" and "charismatic". While this may or may not be effective in this year's election, it obvious that there are some candidates (*cough* Hilary) who are trying to appeal to the younger audience.
The first strategy of Clintons campaign was to attack Bush on the economic recession. Bush had high approval ratings in foreign policy, but Clinton was able to call out Bush on his failed "Read my Lips" campaign promise of no new taxes. Republicans can use this idea of focusing on the other pary's failures by attacking Obama's foreign policy ideas. Another strategy of Bill Clinton's campaign was to appeal to young voters. I don't think that this will work for Hillary clinton in the 2016 election. Another strategy was attacking Bush for his Brazilian campaign sign maunufacturing, but I feel like attacks on the character of a candidate are not as effective as they used to be but will undoubtedly be user in this campaign as well.
ReplyDeleteBill Clinton was an effective candidate for the presidency due to his strong staff. They were highly dedicated to their work watching every debate and shred of news that came out. They were able to diffuse situations with the infidelity scandal. I think that having a good group of staff while always be effective in a campaign. Another way they won was by getting the young vote. He played to the college students by seeming hip which was highly effective. You can really see this with Bernie Sander right now when he appeals to them with legalization of weed and free college. The final strategy I saw Clinton use was sort of a smear campaign on Bush. He really wanted to push that Bush used Brazil for labor instead of giving American jobs which contradicts his platform. I personally don't like this strategy because it seems desperate and shows the character of the candidate.
ReplyDelete- Jake Haines
Two of the campaign strategies that the Clinton's used in their 1992 campaign that would work today, were being personal with the voters and bringing awareness to the other campaigns flaws. By shaking hands and taking pictures with voters and rallies and speeches, it allowed them to feel more connected to Clinton, which accounted for much of the youth vote. With social media playing such an important role in elections, pointing out flaws in the Bush campaign would also help win an election today. The Clinton campaign would only have to subtly mention a flaw, and social media would do the rest of the work uncovering the falsities and problems; which would help the campaign get less blood on their hands.
ReplyDeleteHowever, one of the campaign strategies that would not have an affect at all would be the poster designs. The Clinton campaign seemed to be obsessively focused on the poster design and colors for their campaign, but in reality I do not think that having a better poster will convince voters to vote a certain way.
The "read my lips" attack was very effective in the Clinton campaign. By questioning Bush's trustworthiness in regards to a subject that is very important to people (taxes), it was easy for Clinton to sway voters who felt uncomfortable with Bush. Such a strategy still works today and is even rampant, with negative attack ads prevailing during elections.
ReplyDeleteInteraction with voters was another strategy that worked for Clinton and still works today. Today this strategy is seen in the Sanders campaign, whose rallies have been attracting record number of voters. On the other hand, Bernie has less person to person interaction, which was another core part of the Clinton strategy.
Clinton attacked Bush's character by questioning how his campaign signs were manufactured overseas. This worked for Clinton, but would not work today. Hypocrisy is not really that important with voters, as seen by the popularity of candidates like Trump, who have trade imbalance as one of the biggest issues on his platform, but manufacture his campaign items in China.
By attacking the failed "Read My Lips" campaign of Bush, the Clinton campaign was able to gain the votes of those disillusioned by the ineffectiveness of the previous administration. Such a tactic is standard, showing dissatisfaction with the current system and often paired with a promise for something better, and it is certainly effective in garnering interest for one's campaign.
ReplyDeleteThe second way the Clinton campaign was able to win was through its numerous speeches and rallies. These allowed the campaign to send its message to a wide amount of people in a short amount of time, and remain a staple in today's campaigning toolbox. However, its effect seems to be diminishing with the advent of social media, which is able to reach a wider demographic in an even shorter amount of time.
Finally, the attention to detail and clarity of the Clinton campaign's public policy helped enormously. With clear and concise public policy delineated, it is easier to communicate what and how a candidate seeks to achieve the change they propose. This focus on fleshed out and relatable policy may seem to be losing steam to inflammatory comments against candidates or outlandish, borderline-unconstitutional policy, but it will remain a tactic of the more moderate vote, and thus a standard method of garnering vote in the evolving political sphere.
Teddy Chu
One tactic Clinton used was declaring himself as the "comeback kid", he didn't win but when he gave his speech, he made it sound as if he had emerged victorious despite him losing by 8 points. This was an effective strategy that could also be used (and is used by Hillary) in today's elections because when you reflect on the New Hampshire caucus (I think) it's harder to recall who won because Clinton made a huge statement when he said he was the comeback kid. We see this same tactic used in the 2016 Iowa caucus when Hillary Clinton claimed victory despite the race not being over. It moved the attention over to her statement and made her the more memorable candidate.
ReplyDeleteThe use of presentation was also a heavily used strategy by the Clinton campaign. In one scene of the movie, we see Bill's team arguing about simple matters e.g. the organization of Bill's campaign signs and what their color scheme should have been. Today, that would not be a very effective tactic because of social media, investing all their time into signs won't get you much recognition; however, using media outlets such as instagram, twitter and snapchat would earn you way more recognition from the people, especially the younger ones.
Attacking the opposition was a successful attack on the Bush campaign because he made an official commercial promising that he would not introduce a new tax, then went on to give America the second biggest tax increase in American history. Bill attacking Bush's failed promise proved effective and will remain an effective tactic in politics forever because once you find a major mistake made by an opponent, it decreases voter percentage and makes them less popular.
Gerald Bonsu