We all saw, and laughed at, Richard Nixon try and fail to visit all 50 states to campaign for his presidency during the 1960 Presidential Election. This "50-State Campaign" was clearly not his best idea, so what should he have done instead?
First off, like we talked about it class, a good relationship with the press is extremely important for winning over some voters. If all the news about you is how great you are and how charismatic and charming, watchers who may not even know your political ideas may be more inclined to like you. As much as we wish it wasn't so, our opinions rely intensely on the media and the things they say.
Second, get some sleep, put on a bit of makeup for the TV, and stop hitting your goddang knee. Once again, as much as we wish it wasn't this way, appearances make a HUGE difference. Take Kennedy for example. He was as cool as a cucumber and everyone loved him. His charisma and charm got him all the way to the white house. Maybe he wasn't necessarily as qualified or as politically ideal for the position as Nixon was. But in the end, which would you rather have representing our country?
Third, pick a side. Don't just pick a side, though, pick it hard. Studies have shown that recently, our political parties have gotten extremely polarized. This means that if someone wants to become president, they are going to have some pretty extreme ideas in either the liberal or conservative direction. This means that those moderate candidates will probably get overlooked and pushed aside by those more extreme voters.
So, if you ever find yourself running for President, take my tips into consideration.
Sources:
https://www.pewresearch.org/topics/political-polarization/
The Race For the White House documentary
Mr. Stewart
Very Interesting Article. While I agree with the fact that a presidential candidate should eventually pick a side if they want to win, it was for the exact opposite reason that Donald Trump won. He was seen as an outsider, even among the republican party, which garnered a lot of support for him. While eventually he had to choose being a republican because of tradition, it was the fact that he was a severe outsider which made him win.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of your ideas here. The one that I question though is a good relationship with the media. Sure, nowadays it is hard to go through a campaign without a scandal, but I think that this only goes to show that you don't necessarily need to have a good relationship with the media. Take President Trump for example, his relationship with a lot of the media is infamous and it's hard to count how many articles have been written against him, but despite that, a lot of voters will still stand in with him. Therefore, I think that the relationship between the people and the candidate will trump the relationship with the media.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting blog post. I like how you explain what Nixon should have done instead in his campaign and while all of these would have made a huge impact in the results of the election they are all very small and easily fixable. Something as small as putting on makeup during the debate instead of the weird shaving butter he used would have made him so much more appealing to the American voters. Every decision a candidate makes can have a huge impact on the election and by just appearing sickly and sweaty it cost him the election.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting take on campaigning! This is very interesting, showing how appearances and polarization do take a bigger part in campaigns than we thought. One question though. How would the implementation of social media have affected Nixon's campaign? Would he have taken the 50 state approach when he could have reached everyone electronically? So overall, how does social media affect the campaign process and what can we do to factor that into a good campaign?
ReplyDelete