Is Perception Everything In Electioneering?

Great Debates
1

The delegates from today’s primaries/caucuses haven’t been totalled yet, and the mathematics still say no way in pledged delegates can Clinton take the nomination. But it’s obvious that this is a big win overall for Clinton in terms of how it will be perceived and played. She can blow right past the fact that until a few weeks ago she’d been expected to take Texas as well as Ohio by double digits and claim that the momentum has shifted to her and that she’s the clear choice for the nomination.

One may well disagree with her analysis; one may point out that Obama’s lead in pledged delegates is insurmountable; but the narrative of this race has shifted dramatically, and the media/talking heads/blogs will by and large hew to the new story line of the scrappy never-say-die comeback kid. Perception will become the new reality, however tenuous its basis in the facts, and will shape the thoughts and actions of voters and superdelegates.

So: Is that all there is? Is that all there is, in the end, to the life, lingering illness, or death of a campaign? Does narrative always trump substance? Are we truly a soundbite culture?

2

[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
So: Is that all there is? Is that all there is, in the end, to the life, lingering illness, or death of a campaign? Does narrative always trump substance? Are we truly a soundbite culture?
[/QUOTE]

Um, yes. Perception is everything when you’re dealing with the masses.

If the population believes crime is rampant, (due to whatever cause; say, media overexposure,) woe betide the mayor who tries to get reelected by saying “um, guys, crime is actually down.” No one is swayed by the facts. (Almost no one.) Emotion is everything.

It’s more important to society that justice APPEARS to be done than that it actually IS done. If justice is done, but the people aren’t convinced of it, they’re likely to riot. If it looks like justice is done, everything runs smoother, (even if the wrong guy is in jail.)

There is some actual incentive for the criminal justice system to say, “convict somebody for this, anybody.” But most jurisdictions realize that the easiest way for them to **appear ** to be administering justice is to actually be **trying ** to.

That changes when politics gets involved. For instance, an investigation clears a police officer of any wrong-doing; the public doesn’t buy it and riots; how quickly do you think the mayor and DA will be pressured, (or pressuring others,) to convict him of something, anything? (that’s the best example that came to mind quickly, and I realize some people might take issue with the example, since “the unspecified cop was obviously guilty of the unspecified charge, and his buddies always cover it up.” But, that’s sort of the thing I was talking about anyway.)

3

Well sure. But it is often not obvious exactly what people perceive to be true. HRC can position herself as the comeback kid and the fishwraps can do the same, but if people don’t actually believe it after a few days, what is it really worth?

4

[QUOTE=Maeglin]
HRC can position herself as the comeback kid and the fishwraps can do the same, but if people don’t actually believe it after a few days, what is it really worth?
[/QUOTE]

Quite a bit, I would expect, if her position becomes established as the new! improved! story arc of the campaign and media coverage is realigned to fit within that arc. You and I and the rest of the Dope may pay attention to the nitty-gritty of this election cycle, but a considerable chunk of the electorate will merely skim the shiny surface presented by the media.

Look at how Muskie’s campaign was forever altered by the narrative that sprang from the perceptions trumpeted by the media of his emotional “outburst” against the Union Leader.

5

[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
Quite a bit, I would expect, if her position becomes established as the new! improved! story arc of the campaign and media coverage is realigned to fit within that arc. You and I and the rest of the Dope may pay attention to the nitty-gritty of this election cycle, but a considerable chunk of the electorate will merely skim the shiny surface presented by the media.

Look at how Muskie’s campaign was forever altered by the narrative that sprang from the perceptions trumpeted by the media of his emotional “outburst” against the Union Leader.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t put the cart before the horse here. If people don’t believe the story, then it won’t sell. There is a constant dynamic feedback between what the media feeds us and what the public is willing to eat. If we are tired of lasagna three days in a row, the menu will change. This doesn’t really have anything to do with us Elite Folks getting into the details of the campaign, it has to do with the gut reactions of everyone that drive their media consumption decisions.

The Muskie reference is kind of interesting. Before his “moment”, he was already losing and embattled. He was heavily favored, yet somehow McGovern gave him a serious run for his money in Iowa and New Hampshire. Tasting blood in the water, the media predictably abandoned him. The same course of events was relived by Howard Dean: heavily favored candidate gets spanked early on and immediately abandoned by the media, which dramatizes a trivial incident as a vehicle to switch sides.

The media has been blowing back and forth between Obama and Hillary because the winds are still shifting. No one’s arc has authoritatively “taken”.

6

Quite right to point all that out, Maeglin. I did say “if her position becomes established as the new! improved! story arc” and so the question right now is, whose version of the narrative will both the media and the audience find most… Hum. What’s the best adjective here? Relevant? Believable? Sellable? Exciting? Logical? More interesting than American Idol?

No doubt different terms would apply to different portions of those for whom the story matters enough to pay attention.

7

[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
and so the question right now is, whose version of the narrative will both the media and the audience find most… Hum. What’s the best adjective here? Relevant? Believable? Sellable? Exciting? Logical? More interesting than American Idol?
[/QUOTE]

Considering that it is still an indecisive slugfest, Obama supporters will believe their version and Hillary supporters will believe their own. A story will stick when one candidate really begins to lose or when the media senses that the wind is actually changing. For now, it looks like there is a sucker out there for both versions of the story.