Jumping Off The Bandwagon
Over at The Weekly Standard, Jay Cost has an intriguing column about recent discussions about how President Barack Obama was able to win in 2008. After going through the popular theories, he notes that not enough people discuss his effective use of the "bandwagon effect."
When your candidate lacks experience during a time of serious global and domestic problems, you have to cover the gap. That something was "the impression that there was a broad, mass movement behind Obama." Here's more:
To some extent there was, of course. The tens of thousands who filled Invesco Field to hear his nomination acceptance were not Hollywood extras who were paid to be there. However, the Obama bandwagon campaign ultimately masked a very significant feature of his 2008 candidacy: he was not the first choice of a majority of American voters. In fact, when you add up the unique Clinton primary and McCain general election voters, you come up with about 75 million people who, at one point or another, registered opposition to Obama in 2008. That is not meant to suggest for even a second that his victory lacked legitimacy – it is only to point out that the impression that there was a massive, popular groundswell for his candidacy was at least in part a carefully crafted illusion, built on a core of intense supporters.
This turned out to be a brilliant way to get elected. But what happens when you're elected on a bandwagon effect and you have to govern? Problems arise. The question, which Cost addresses, is what the Obama team will do for 2012. Hint: More bandwagon.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
My take on the bandwagon analogy.
In 2008, the bandwagon was empty of substance, except for a lot of ethereal "hope and change," baritone voice, and the novelty and symbolism of the first serious black candidate.
Now he's got a record: runaway spending and no serious plan to deal with it, foreign fecklessness (including animus to Israel), a lot of "I was against that before I was for it" (and vice versa), a condescending personality, an economy he can no longer blame on W, unemployment, Obamacare, and on and on.
Upending an incumbent won't be easy, but there are many, many lines of attack, and shame on the Republicans if they don't exploit them.
Oh, and it would be nice if the R's would nominate a credible candidate.
Edited on Apr 20, 2011 at 6:15amNov '10
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
I think there's far too much analysis on this subject. It's really simple. Obama got elected because he wasn't George Bush. I'm no strategist or political pollster, but I've talked to people about why they voted for Obama. It's amazing to me how many conservatives voted for Obama. They knew nothing of what little record he had. They knew only this:
Those are actual reasons why nominal conservatives told me they voted for Obama. The funny thing is, as you might expect, most of them have also said they were wrong.
Dec '10
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
tabula rasa: My take on the bandwagon analogy.
In 2008, the bandwagon was empty of substance, except for a lot of ethereal "hope and change," baritone voice, and the novelty and symbolism of the first serious black candidate.
Now he's got a record: runaway spending and no serious plan to deal with it, foreign fecklessness (including animus to Israel), a lot of "I was against that before I was for it" (and vice versa), a condescending personality, an economy he can no longer blame on W, unemployment, Obamacare, and on and on.
Upending an incumbent won't be easy, but there are many, many lines of attack, and shame on the Republicans if they don't exploit them.
Oh, and it would be nice if the R's would nominate a credible candidate. · Apr 20 at 6:13am
Edited on Apr 20 at 06:15 am
Amen! Time for the conservatives to get serious.
Additionally, 2012 will require winning over those independents who are disliked and disrespected on both sides of the aisle, but who are wooed and courted in every election.
May '10
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
A friend of mine insists that, "of course Obama will get reelected" because the economy must be in a rebound in 2012 (!) and the incumbent always has a huge advantage. What he overlooks is how odd the political landscape was in 2008. 2012 will be a completely different election--the kind of election that Obama has absolutely no experience with. (Not that he has experience in anything.)
Next time, Obama cannot count on the votes of so many independents, or the kind of nominal conservatives that Ken Owsley is describing.
I believe the best Obama can hope for is 50-50 election where he squeaks through. This will depend on unemployment falling a noticeable amount, and a lack of excitement for the GOP candidate. This is, of course, a very possible scenario. There are other scenarios, however, which are also possible wherein he loses. Keep Hope Alive, people!
Nov '10
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
The white voters who joined the bandwagon because they thought it was going to end racial politics for good found out that electing a Black president didn’t end racial politics and in fact made race bating worse. They may not be interested in climbing aboard another bandwagon to nowhere.
They may be thinking that if they can’t criticize Obama’s policies without being called racists even though they voted for him, then why do it again.
Jan '11
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
I think one could say it's like rooting for a sports team. Even if your team is doing terribly, you will still not scrape off your bumper sticker. It will take quite a bit for some people to finally abandon their support.
Jun '10
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
Bandwagons are hard to start if you come up against any opposition. Because they are the result of scattered barely controlled small movements if any vetting had been done by the MSM then this whole silly notion fails.
The MSM was on the bandwagon itself rather than analyzing or digging into his Manchurian past. The bandwagon analogy is simply a description of what happened rather than a strategy.
May '10
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
Given the sorry response from the high schools to book him as graduation speaker, I'm doubting their ability to muster a lot of "great big, huge Harrison balls" this go round. And given the Wisconsin bandwagon, even if they do manage it, the Silent Majority will just be annoyed enough to edge them out.
I will also say TRUMP. Jay Cost has mentioned this a week or so ago. Having a previously non-partisan figure go after Obama so aggressively on highly-rated teevee shows has given people pause. Worthless as a candidate, but useful in that sense.
Everyone be sure and tune in to the Facebook Townhall today at 4:30! My firm predicton: big flopperoo. The thrill is gone.
Dec '10
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
The Bandwagon is a social psychology phenomenon well-understood and exploited by marketers. "Fastest growing," "preferred choice of most consumers," "best-selling" are all pitches designed to impress the consumer that there's a bandwagon attracting all their friends and neighbors to jump aboard, and that the consumer doesn't want to get left behind.
Note that the Bandwagon pitch promotes popularity as an inherent buying feature. As Perez Hilton is famous only for being famous, so Obama became popular only for being popular -- his newfound followers were left to invent pseudo-logical reasons to justify their attraction to him, as people do to save themselves from the embarrassing revelation that they've bought into a pure myth.
By the way, the bandwagon effect is a form of social validation, in which seeing other people do something effectively gives permission to the individual to do the same thing. Your mother asked, "If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" Ironically, you just might. Last month, a teen thrillseeker jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge and survived. This month, another teen jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge -- and survived. Expect others to follow suit.
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
Jay Cost is one shrewd observer. I'd never thought of the Obama campaign in quite those terms, but Jay is certainly right. People supported Obama because they thought people supported Obama.
May the next Obama campaign suffer the fate of all bubbles.
Apr '11
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
I guess it was a bandwagon in the sense that any objective observer knew that the Democratic candidate had the clear advantage since the GOP was anathema to the American public. People like to put themselves behind a winner, and that's how most bandwagons form. It also didn't hurt that Obama was young and hip and black (i.e. novel), but I think this appealed more to the politically naive and the media than the average voter, who is always given less credit than they deserve.
May '10
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
Kennedy Smith:
I will also say TRUMP. Jay Cost has mentioned this a week or so ago. Having a previously non-partisan figure go after Obama so aggressively on highly-rated teevee shows has given people pause. Worthless as a candidate, but useful in that sense.
Hey, that's a really good point. Trump serves our purposes as a USA-loving attack dog whose opinions are respected by the masses (for some reason). His trumpeting the narrative of Obama being a "worse president than Carter" could give it legs in a way that Rush or Hannity can't.
Keep talking, Trump. Just don't run.
Jun '10
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.:
When your candidate lacks experience...
I find it disingenuous at best when people talk about experience in a job for which the only way to get experience is to do the job.
"Our candidate has experience and theirs doesn't" doesn't quite cut it because success at one thing does not guarantee success at something else. Experience in business a la Trump might help, but government is not a business, it's something else. Many successful presidents have not been businessmen but movie stars, proving perhaps the ability to act like a president is more important that trying to act like a president.
Oct '10
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
"However, the Obama bandwagon campaign ultimately masked a very significant feature of his 2008 candidacy: he was not the first choice of a majority of American voters. In fact, when you add up the unique Clinton primary and McCain general election voters, you come up with about 75 million people who, at one point or another, registered opposition to Obama in 2008."
This is good news for everybody's favorite second choice--Tim Pawlenty.
Jun '10
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
Ken Owsley:
That worked for me, then and now. Now the question is who will be the "He isn't Obama?"
Are we actually going to field a viable candidate? Is there no single Republican in the entire country the majority of us can get behind?
Oct '10
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
Scott Reusser
Kennedy Smith:
I will also say TRUMP. Jay Cost has mentioned this a week or so ago. Having a previously non-partisan figure go after Obama so aggressively on highly-rated teevee shows has given people pause. Worthless as a candidate, but useful in that sense.
Hey, that's a really good point. Trump serves our purposes as a USA-loving attack dog whose opinions are respected by the masses (for some reason). His trumpeting the narrative of Obama being a "worse president than Carter" could give it legs in a way that Rush or Hannity can't.
Keep talking, Trump. Just don't run. · Apr 20 at 5:52pm
He is going to run. That's the point. So he can participate in the birther debates with Palin and Bachmann (and the primaries to distort the results.)
Apr '11
Re: Jumping Off The Bandwagon
John Marzan
Scott Reusser
Kennedy Smith:
I will also say TRUMP. Jay Cost has mentioned this a week or so ago. Having a previously non-partisan figure go after Obama so aggressively on highly-rated teevee shows has given people pause. Worthless as a candidate, but useful in that sense.
Hey, that's a really good point. Trump serves our purposes as a USA-loving attack dog whose opinions are respected by the masses (for some reason). His trumpeting the narrative of Obama being a "worse president than Carter" could give it legs in a way that Rush or Hannity can't.
Keep talking, Trump. Just don't run. · Apr 20 at 5:52pm
He is going to run. That's the point. So he can participate in the birther debates with Palin and Bachmann (and the primaries to distort the results.) · Apr 20 at 8:50pm
Agreed. Trump will/needs to run. He can spout whatever he wants to as test cases for which issues have real traction. In some respect, I think he'll be a more effective version of Palin. A sideshow, yes, but one who's opinions are a little harder for the media to dismiss.