5 Early Lessons From Election 2012 By Ed Cafasso April 11, 2012

5 Early Lessons From Election 2012
By Ed Cafasso
April 11, 2012

If only renowned Gonzo journalist
Hunter S. Thompson were still alive
to cover the hot swirling mess that
has become the 2012 presidential
campaign.

A year ago, even late in 2011, it all
seemed so straightforward. The
themes of the election would be
about what voters cared about most:
the economy, jobs and debt.

But February’s headlines featured decidedly non-economic matters, including
contraception, ultrasounds, abortion and Satan. As the nation approached the
Super Tuesday primaries on March 6, audiences had already witnessed a bizarre
communications buffet of sexual harassment allegations, tone-deaf candidates,
an unpredictable rotation of fringe social and religious issues, and the shadowy
clout of deep-pocketed kingmakers.

So much for conventional communications wisdom. The candidates’ need for
both strategic and tactical flexibility is an enduring communications lesson of the
2012 campaign.

Communication plans often look invincible on paper, but people must revisit and
refine them regularly.

Authenticity is imperative
By Feb. 29, Rick Santorum was the only Republican candidate with a net
favorable rating — the former Pennsylvania senator’s reward for the ideological
consistency that his party’s conservative wing demanded. (Santorum dropped
out of the race on April 10.) Two-thirds of GOP primary voters had selected
someone other than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the de facto
incumbent by virtue of his nonstop campaign since 2008.

“Romney is still running away from his record as governor of Massachusetts
while seeking a consistent campaign message that resonates with the GOP
electorate who have yet to embrace the man who can’t seem to embrace
himself,” said Bill Dalbec, a senior vice president with APCO Worldwide and a
veteran of two presidential campaigns and more than 100 lower-office races.
“Voters look to support candidates with whom they can empathize, and a
candidate cannot connect on that level if he is not comfortable in his own skin.”

Consistent performance makes brands and reputations. Unfortunately for
Romney, the most consistent attribute of his campaign has been his inability to
connect on a personal level with voters. The fact that reporters view him as
inaccessible doesn’t help people’s perceptions of him.

Although Romney’s showing in the Super Tuesday primaries reinforced the
mathematical likelihood that he would become the GOP’s eventual nominee, it
failed to erase deep-seated doubts about his ideological clarity and political
consistency.

Twitter is the new Deep Throat
This election is the first in which more Americans are gathering campaign news
from the Internet than from newspapers, according to Pew Research
Center polling. And online sources now rank second behind cable news. For
campaign reporters, Twitter has become an indispensible ear to the ground.

“Social media, in particular, has influenced how reporters cover campaigns, how
campaigns get around the media filter, and how they must respond to it,”

said Glen Johnson, the politics editor at Boston.com, now covering the fifth
presidential race of his 25-year career. “Many reporters learn of their rivals’ work
through Twitter, for example. Scoops can be broken or amplified with something
as simple as a tweet. Stories can be discovered by random follows on Twitter.”

While Twitter is an intelligence-gathering tool for reporters trying to cover a
primary race that once featured eight candidates, the fire-hose nature of the
nonstop stream overwhelms readers.

Since the 2008 presidential election, the number of Facebook users has grown
eightfold, and the number of Twitter users has multiplied by 30. Just as wired
consumers added a new dimension to retail public relations and marketing, tech-
savvy voters, donors and volunteers have forced campaigns to adopt strategies
for integration and segmentations.

“In 2008, social media was an auxiliary component of the campaign,” Zac
Moffatt, digital director of the Mitt Romney campaign, told the San Jose Mercury
News on Feb. 26. “Now it’s integrated into the core concept of how the
campaign will reach people. We have moved away from the mind-set that the
website is the primary place where people will interact with the campaign.”

Visibility is not always a positive
After the Feb. 23 Republican debate in Arizona, a USA Today/Gallup poll reported
that more Americans had a favorable opinion of President Obama than any of
the four remaining Republican contenders. In fact, only Obama and Santorum
had positive favorable/unfavorable ratios.

The President — whom Americans once widely perceived as incredibly vulnerable
— continues to hold a solid lead over any challenger.

“None of the four Republicans vying for the GOP presidential nomination have
strongly favorable images among the American public, and none have favorable
images as positive as those of the three previous nonincumbent Republican
nominees at the same point in their campaigns,” said Gallup analyst Frank
Newport.

Despite seven high-profile debates in January — and 25 total by early March,
Romney, Texas Congressman Ron Paul and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
still carried the same net unfavorable ratings they had in a mid-December Gallup
survey.

“Having numerous debates — most of them created to promote networks and
their on-air talent — has prevented the campaigns from controlling their
messages as in the past,” Johnson said. “Moderators, candidates and crowds are
feeding off each other. For a projected front-runner like Mitt Romney, his
message control has been challenged by the requirement to respond to other
candidates or the moderator’s questions.”

Money is a game-changer
A communications phenomenon that not everyone hopes to see in the next
presidential cycle is the super PAC, the ultimate political action committee that
the 2012 candidates have treated like a mistress — disavowed publicly but
always waiting in the wings. Super PACs are unique to the current race, thanks
to a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that lifted a federal ban on independent
spending by corporations and other organizations in elections.

So all bets are off when 23 millionaire mega-donors are willing to bankroll $54
million worth of negative advertising in key Republican primary states.

“The super PAC has redefined the 2012 race and is playing a major role in the
GOP nomination race,” Dalbec said. “A super PAC has kept Newt Gingrich afloat,
while one supporting Mitt Romney is doing most of his dirty work. President
Obama and the Democrats are raising record amounts of money. With no
opposition for the nomination, they will have all of their cash to unleash on the
GOP nominee.”

Polls confirm that the more voters know about super PACs, the more they dislike
their negative influence. But in a cluttered communications environment, it’s not
easy for the average voter to readily identify the source of campaign information.

Candidates maintain superficial “plausible deniability” on super PAC activities, but
Johnson noted that they are “risking a situation where the campaigns have to
apologize for mistakes not of their making.”

The campaign is unpredictable
Dalbec expects that campaign financing will re-emerge as the sole focus during
the election’s homestretch, which will commence with the Republican National
Convention on Aug. 27-30 and the Democratic National Convention on Sept. 3-6.

“The Republicans will be in Tampa, [Fla.], with a perfect opportunity to appeal to
[their] core Southern vote, Hispanic Americans [and] seniors — and win back
that important state,” Dalbec said. “The Democrats will be in Charlotte — the
first time a convention has been held in North Carolina, in the heart of NASCAR
territory — attempting to compete in the South and keep this once reliably GOP
state in the Democrats’ fold.

“The President has the benefit of going second,” Dalbec continued. “Will he and
the Democrats stick to their own script or be forced to respond to the
Republicans?”

Given the unpredictable nature of the campaign to date, it’s probably best to
leave that as a rhetorical question.