When I was in Iran, I never attended football stadiums. Their function at best could be entertaining the mob and letting them vent off their stress by shouting at the top of their lung. To let off my stress, I prefer exercising myself instead of cheering others doing it.
I avoided election campaign rallies for the same reason. Such rallies are places for empty big words with emotional people cheering or jeering (depending on where they stand politically). I'm not a politically active person, but when I choose to vote, I'd rather vote with my brain instead of my emotions.
So, I saw it unlikely to attend any rallies in the US either. Here, rallies are more of entertainment and you hear even more empty words with ecstatic fans making all sorts of noise in support (or opposition). To understand how things are going in an election, one has better analyze solid data and tangible facts instead of relying on the perceived support (or lack of it) in a rally by way of measuring the noise one hears or worse, getting an impression of how packed the venue looks.
And having studied how American politics works, I really don't believe that primaries and their results determine who will get the nomination in a party. Specifically, I find it ridiculous when I read or hear so-called analyses going into details of how and why the primary results of a certain state have historically determined the national election outcome. But that's another story.
And overburdened as I am this semester with my coursework, I couldn't care less about the candidates visiting Toledo. When McCain came here, I was mostly concerned about a mid-term exam on Thursday and the presentation that I had right after the exam. But when I passed the two hurdles, the sociologist inside me began prodding. Being at such events is an opportunity to observe people. And more than observing what goes on at the event, I was keen to see what happens on the side of it. To me, this was an alternative way of entertainment, sociological style.
And when I found that Hillary was going to have a rally this Friday night, I thought again about my reluctance. Having read a book on behind the scene preparations for Hillary's events, I was somehow familiar with her and how things go on her events. The book is written by a person who has dedicatedly served as one of Hillary's chief advance staff for a long time. So, you can soundly assume that the information you get from this book is free from the prevalent Hillary-phobia.
I learned a couple of interesting things from this book. First, the location chosen by the staff indicates the level of support they anticipate in that city. Campaign events are more than anything, a show of support and the visual impact matters a lot. When choosing a place, apart from political affiliations, advance people are concerned about whether they can pack the venue. If the place (regardless of its size) doesn't look crowded with people, the event would be a failure no matter how loud the noise.
Toledo is a (more or less) liberal Midwest city of 300,000+ mostly comprised of blue-collar people, over 25,000 college students and a 24% black population ratio (high above national and state average). Traditionally, these demographic groups are strong support bases for Democratic Party candidates.
So, when Bill Clinton visited Toledo last week and they chose a high-school for one of the most popular presidents of the US, I could realize how hopeless those Hillary advance guys might have felt (the turnout appeared to be about 1600). And I saw it unlikely for them to organize Hillary's rally at a much bigger place. And it turned out that I was not wrong; another high school for the former First Lady (that's while Obama is going to have his rally at the University of Toledo Savage Hall).
Another thing that I learned from the book was how advance staff do their best to provide the best quality so that people who attend the event leave it with a very good feeling and memory. That should help a lot at the Election Day.
I already knew that Hillary's campaign was badly troubled and being at a backward place like Toledo, I didn't expect a quality event at a high-school. And just making a comparison between the TV ads for Hillary and Obama, I could get an impression about the campaign quality for Hillary. But what I observed here was dismal.
People had to wait in a below freezing cold for at least 2 hours to get in and when the gym was filled with enough people, the rest had to settle for the auxiliary gym (or leave, as I did). And the organizers had not even thought of (or spared money for) closed circuit TV. And we're living in the age of online broadcasting.
So basically, people in the auxiliary gym had to idle their time away for another 3 hours looking at each other and the bare walls waiting for Hillary to come and greet them after she was done at the main gym (she arrived at 11 pm instead of 9 pm). Ardent fans may be (or maybe not?) willing to endure even worse than this. But such a poor organizing would hardly win the hearts of people who are going to make their mind based on what they feel at the event.
And now for the fun stuff; i.e. observations and sidenotes. As people had wrapped themselves against the windchill, I could not get a good estimate of the demographics of the people standing in line. But still, there were interesting things to observe.
There were all sorts of Hillary memorabilia out there for sale. This is America. Look for any opportunity to make money. There were wise retailers who anticipated that people would have to wait in the cold for hours. So, there were Hillary hats for $15. And there were all sorts of lapel pins and buttons for $5 (what you normally buy for $1). And it was not just the classic Hillary buttons.
As a non-American citizen, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. But I wonder what kind of campaign is it. To give a few examples of Democratic buttons, "There's a village in Texas that's missing its idiot" or "Democrats are sexy ... Who has ever heard of a good piece of elephant?" or "Bush reminds every woman of her first husband". You can find more buttons like this here and here. However, anti-Hillary stuff don't seem to be any better. Have a look here, here, here and here. Abhorrible negative campaigning on both sides.
In my country and in my culture, if candidates campaign like this, they'll surely lose their bid and the candidate who has been the target of this kind of mudslinging will win people's heart. Actually, that's what happened in 1997 election. Political opponents of Khatami went too far in their sinister smear campaign and it backlashed. He won the election with such a big margin that was surprising even to him and his campaign.
The last button I saw while I was standing in line was the most interesting to me: "Bring Sox Clinton back to the White House". In case you wonder who is "Sox Clinton", it was the First Cat (and it was Socks not Sox). Anyway, even if American voters (whose major problems must probably be poor healthcare, a declining economy and a failed War of Terror) do the right thing and vote to bring Socks back to the White House, their dream won't come true. Socks lost the favor of the First Couple even before they left the White House. In 1997, they adopted a dog and eventually gave Socks away to Bill Clinton's secretary in 2001.
And to make people feel they're doing something big for their city while standing in the long line, there was a guy collecting signatures for a petition to build casinos in Toledo. And the motive? Preventing local money going out of state (there are lots of casinos in Michigan). Would it help local economy? Maybe, maybe not.
When people are financially troubled (and hence depressed), they are more likely to resort to unproductive ways to vent off their stress. Building casinos in Toledo would probably prevent some people from going all the way to Michigan to waste their time and money. But when casinos become available locally, even more people would be encouraged to drain their money this way. So, in the long run who would benefit? The economy? Or the gambling industry?
I avoided election campaign rallies for the same reason. Such rallies are places for empty big words with emotional people cheering or jeering (depending on where they stand politically). I'm not a politically active person, but when I choose to vote, I'd rather vote with my brain instead of my emotions.
So, I saw it unlikely to attend any rallies in the US either. Here, rallies are more of entertainment and you hear even more empty words with ecstatic fans making all sorts of noise in support (or opposition). To understand how things are going in an election, one has better analyze solid data and tangible facts instead of relying on the perceived support (or lack of it) in a rally by way of measuring the noise one hears or worse, getting an impression of how packed the venue looks.
And having studied how American politics works, I really don't believe that primaries and their results determine who will get the nomination in a party. Specifically, I find it ridiculous when I read or hear so-called analyses going into details of how and why the primary results of a certain state have historically determined the national election outcome. But that's another story.
And overburdened as I am this semester with my coursework, I couldn't care less about the candidates visiting Toledo. When McCain came here, I was mostly concerned about a mid-term exam on Thursday and the presentation that I had right after the exam. But when I passed the two hurdles, the sociologist inside me began prodding. Being at such events is an opportunity to observe people. And more than observing what goes on at the event, I was keen to see what happens on the side of it. To me, this was an alternative way of entertainment, sociological style.
And when I found that Hillary was going to have a rally this Friday night, I thought again about my reluctance. Having read a book on behind the scene preparations for Hillary's events, I was somehow familiar with her and how things go on her events. The book is written by a person who has dedicatedly served as one of Hillary's chief advance staff for a long time. So, you can soundly assume that the information you get from this book is free from the prevalent Hillary-phobia.
I learned a couple of interesting things from this book. First, the location chosen by the staff indicates the level of support they anticipate in that city. Campaign events are more than anything, a show of support and the visual impact matters a lot. When choosing a place, apart from political affiliations, advance people are concerned about whether they can pack the venue. If the place (regardless of its size) doesn't look crowded with people, the event would be a failure no matter how loud the noise.
Toledo is a (more or less) liberal Midwest city of 300,000+ mostly comprised of blue-collar people, over 25,000 college students and a 24% black population ratio (high above national and state average). Traditionally, these demographic groups are strong support bases for Democratic Party candidates.
So, when Bill Clinton visited Toledo last week and they chose a high-school for one of the most popular presidents of the US, I could realize how hopeless those Hillary advance guys might have felt (the turnout appeared to be about 1600). And I saw it unlikely for them to organize Hillary's rally at a much bigger place. And it turned out that I was not wrong; another high school for the former First Lady (that's while Obama is going to have his rally at the University of Toledo Savage Hall).
Another thing that I learned from the book was how advance staff do their best to provide the best quality so that people who attend the event leave it with a very good feeling and memory. That should help a lot at the Election Day.
I already knew that Hillary's campaign was badly troubled and being at a backward place like Toledo, I didn't expect a quality event at a high-school. And just making a comparison between the TV ads for Hillary and Obama, I could get an impression about the campaign quality for Hillary. But what I observed here was dismal.
People had to wait in a below freezing cold for at least 2 hours to get in and when the gym was filled with enough people, the rest had to settle for the auxiliary gym (or leave, as I did). And the organizers had not even thought of (or spared money for) closed circuit TV. And we're living in the age of online broadcasting.
So basically, people in the auxiliary gym had to idle their time away for another 3 hours looking at each other and the bare walls waiting for Hillary to come and greet them after she was done at the main gym (she arrived at 11 pm instead of 9 pm). Ardent fans may be (or maybe not?) willing to endure even worse than this. But such a poor organizing would hardly win the hearts of people who are going to make their mind based on what they feel at the event.
And now for the fun stuff; i.e. observations and sidenotes. As people had wrapped themselves against the windchill, I could not get a good estimate of the demographics of the people standing in line. But still, there were interesting things to observe.
There were all sorts of Hillary memorabilia out there for sale. This is America. Look for any opportunity to make money. There were wise retailers who anticipated that people would have to wait in the cold for hours. So, there were Hillary hats for $15. And there were all sorts of lapel pins and buttons for $5 (what you normally buy for $1). And it was not just the classic Hillary buttons.
As a non-American citizen, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. But I wonder what kind of campaign is it. To give a few examples of Democratic buttons, "There's a village in Texas that's missing its idiot" or "Democrats are sexy ... Who has ever heard of a good piece of elephant?" or "Bush reminds every woman of her first husband". You can find more buttons like this here and here. However, anti-Hillary stuff don't seem to be any better. Have a look here, here, here and here. Abhorrible negative campaigning on both sides.
In my country and in my culture, if candidates campaign like this, they'll surely lose their bid and the candidate who has been the target of this kind of mudslinging will win people's heart. Actually, that's what happened in 1997 election. Political opponents of Khatami went too far in their sinister smear campaign and it backlashed. He won the election with such a big margin that was surprising even to him and his campaign.
The last button I saw while I was standing in line was the most interesting to me: "Bring Sox Clinton back to the White House". In case you wonder who is "Sox Clinton", it was the First Cat (and it was Socks not Sox). Anyway, even if American voters (whose major problems must probably be poor healthcare, a declining economy and a failed War of Terror) do the right thing and vote to bring Socks back to the White House, their dream won't come true. Socks lost the favor of the First Couple even before they left the White House. In 1997, they adopted a dog and eventually gave Socks away to Bill Clinton's secretary in 2001.
And to make people feel they're doing something big for their city while standing in the long line, there was a guy collecting signatures for a petition to build casinos in Toledo. And the motive? Preventing local money going out of state (there are lots of casinos in Michigan). Would it help local economy? Maybe, maybe not.
When people are financially troubled (and hence depressed), they are more likely to resort to unproductive ways to vent off their stress. Building casinos in Toledo would probably prevent some people from going all the way to Michigan to waste their time and money. But when casinos become available locally, even more people would be encouraged to drain their money this way. So, in the long run who would benefit? The economy? Or the gambling industry?
No comments:
Post a Comment