If you run for president someday, always be careful of the things that appear behind you. Is this a photo of Hillary and her running mate, or is that Bill standing behind her? No, that's just the mascot of the school in St. Clairsville, Ohio where she was speaking.
Is "Baby Got Back" the most covered song of the past two decades? Check out all the versions, from Gilbert and Sullivan to folkie. The original video is the last in the list below. (And no, that isn't really Kidz Bop rapping--it's a parody.
I am a conservative Democrat who occasionally agrees with the Republicans (primarily on economic issues), but the GOP has two nasty habits that will always and forever keep me voting Democratic. Both of these tendencies can be seen in this ad from a GOP-associated organization, Defense of Democracies.
Gripe Number One is that Republicans lie. They think they are lying for good reason and that that end justifies the means, but in my book that doesn't excuse lying. You know what I'm talking about--Saddam has WMDs, we don't torture, Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda, I can't recall why we disbanded the Iraqi army, the office of the Vice President is not within the Executive branch, etc.
Gripe Number Two is the constant use of fear to sway American voters: Immigrants are stealing your jobs and raising crime, terrorists hate us for our freedoms, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons tomorrow, taking steps to combat global warming will endanger our economy, the Democrats will take away Social Security, the Democrat's health program will mean you'll die waiting for medical attention, etc.
And here is an advertisement that manages to exploit both of my gripes in just 30 short seconds. As reported on FactCheck.org, most of this ad is simply false. The House didn't refuse to vote; in fact, it passed its own version of the legislation months ago and the bill is now in conference to resolve the differences with the Senate version, which is the normal legislative process. Worse, the implication that our intelligence gathering has been compromised is incorrect--most of the security bill remains in affect, and under existing laws the government can still get an immediate and speedy court order to eavesdrop on a person it suspects of being involved with terrorist activities.
But my favorite lie is that this YouTube video declares Defense of Democracies, the group that is running this ad, as a "non-partisan, non-profit" organization. The group is, in fact, closely associated with the GOP. The board of directors contains three people: Former Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes, famous neo-conservative Jeane Kirkpatrick (who remains on the board despite her death two years ago), and former GOP vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp.
Here is the ad that the GOP hopes will hoodwink and scare Americans:
I've been involved with the Internet for well over a decade, and one of my pet peeves right from the start has been how some people seem unable to understand that the Internet is a brand new medium with brand new rules. It's not "like" something else and really cannot be understood only by comparing it to other media. It's not "like" newspapers, or classifieds, or magazines, or TV, or libraries, or phones, or malls, or the town square... the Internet is all of these things and it's own thing.
NBC learned this the hard way. Seeing an online hit in Quarterlife, the network was eager to offer the show in prime time. The thinking had to have gone like this: Big hit on Internet = built-in buzz and audience = ratings bonanza.
The show premiered on NBC Tuesday night and didn't merely perform poorly. It bombed. Quarterlife was responsible for the network's worst time-period performance in at least 17 years. It was so bad that they may never run another episode, which is quite an embarrassment considering how much heat was being generated by the network's PR machine.
Why did an online hit turn into a broadcast dud? (And is anyone else hearing echoes of "Snakes on a Plane" here?)
The most obvious answer is that the Internet is a place for niche audiences while TV requires mass audiences. A term that is often used to describe Internet content and strategy is "the long tail," which means boutique products and content can profitably find niche audiences online. But if the Internet has a long tail, then TV has a corpulent body--it requires the biggest, thickest content possible to hit the broadest possible audience.
Here's an example of the long tail at work: One of the hottest online videos of the past year is the Jimmy Kimmel/Sarah Silverman/Matt Damon video. It's become a true Internet phenomenon. On YouTube, the video has been viewed 5.7 million times, which is considered quite impressive by Internet standards.
But by TV standards that is just 5.7 million times--and that audience was acquired over the course of an entire month, to boot. On the same night Quarterlife was embarrassing itself on NBC, American Idol was drawing 29 million viewers in a 90-minute period.
While it seems painfully apparent to those of us who know and live on the Internet, this revelation was apparently new to the suits at NBC: An online "hit" only needs to be a hit among a niche audience, while network television hits must cross demographics to a much, much greater extent. In the case of Quarterlife, the niche audience to whom it was laser targeted had already seen it, and the show held absolutely no interest to others.
Of course, there are other big differences between the Internet and TV that help explain why Quarterlife worked in one place and not another.
For example, there's the format--Quarterlife was shorter and quicker to digest online than in its televised version. To people who live at Internet speed, the original format was accessible and digestible, so TV's longer running time and greater commercial interruptions never stood a chance. (Perhaps network TV should experiment with 15-minute shows to see if they will draw younger people back to TV?) (Or maybe the gray heads at the networks may want to take note of the success of Robot Chicken, with its 12-minutes-or-less running time.)
There's also the fact that young people--Quarterlife's target audience--can be more easily found online than on TV these days. And that TV requires planning (to sit in front of the flat panel at a certain time or to program a DVR) while Internet video is always on. And that younger people raised on the free range content available online don't expect TV--with it's FCC fines and mother-loving (a term which CBS is inserting in place of a less appropriate term as it broadcasts cable's Dexter on broadcast TV) censorship--to be as edgy, funny, or pertinent.
I understand why TV execs hope the Internet might provide a treasure trove of content considering the shrinking audiences for network TV, but they're just going to have to find a better way to stay relevant than cribbing from a different media. TV execs are much better off porting their hit shows online than they are trying to do the reverse.
Thanks to Thom for sharing this. A week ago I shared the hilarious Sarah Silverman/Matt Damon video that seemed to end the infamous "feud" between Jimmy Kimmel and Matt.
But, Jimmy found a way to top Sarah's video. I am sure I missed some of the stars that appear, but in addition to the hilarious cameos with Brad Pitt and Harrison Ford, I found the following in the "We are the world"-type choir: Don Cheadle, Rebecca Romjin, Cameron Diaz, Macy Gray, Christina Applegate, Joan Jett, Josh Groban, Dominic Monaghan, Robin Williams, Huey Lewis, and more.
Just got back from five days in Los Angeles.
Things I liked in L.A.:
The Mac vs. PC ads are often copied and mocked, but this version gets it right...
Thanks to Micah for sharing it.
I'm going to be out of pocket for several days, so my blog will go untouched until late next week. I'm heading to L.A., a land so magical it inspires much great music (and some so-so songs, as well.)
Have a great week. See you next week. And enjoy this Los Angeles music mix:
SeeqPod - Playable Search
My state's primary is tomorrow, and up until today I was completely stoked about voting. But tonight my phone won't stop ringing and it's getting annoying. There are entire customer service buildings in Bangalore, India that don't get as many calls as I've received today.
Nineteen messages were left on my phone during the work hours, and (obviously) those are only the callers that left a message. Who knows how many other calls were received? And since getting home an hour ago, we've received four more calls.
I can't bring myself to answer them, in part because it's do damn annoying and in part because I'm afraid if a call was from Obama supporters, I'd be so pissed off I wouldn't cast my vote as planned.
I know getting out the vote is vital, but have the people who run campaigns considered the negative backlash against the constant barrage of calls? Maybe others welcome this sort of intrusion (or at least put up with it), but I think it's a pain in the ass.
How nice is Barack Obama? Just check out http://barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com to find out all the nice things he's already doing to improve your life. He must be a very busy guy to fit all that in plus campaigning!
I've posted some gripes about bad customer service on this blog, so it only seem appropriate to give praise when it's due. And, since we all like to complain about Microsoft, the fact I got great service from them is perhaps worthy of notice.
I do some advertising on their PPC (pay per click) program, and I was having trouble trying to get an expired campaign restarted. While I'm about to compliment their responsiveness, it is worthy of note that if they didn't bury the campaign start and end dates under an obtuse "Advanced Options" link, I wouldn't have needed service in the first place. (The best customer service is good site usability!)
Unable to figure out how to relaunch my campaign, I sent a service email on Sunday at noon. Two hours later they called me. The call took less than two-and-a-half minutes to solve the problem.
Getting that kind of responsiveness--on a Sunday, no less--is deserving of some praise, don't you think?
Is this Hillary Clinton's campaign's response to the Will.I.Am video for "Yes We Can"? It would appear Hillary's campaign staff hasn't listened to a new CD since, well, CDs were invented. It's back to the future with Hillary...
Parents may as well get in line at the local Toys "r" Us today, because the new Elmo Live doll will hit shelves before the holidays. The technology is pretty incredible--Elmo dances, tells jokes, and moves just like on Sesame Street. But for a red furry creature of indeterminate species, he sure dances like a white guy.
This brief video shows a balloon artist twisting balloons into hats and other shapes for senior citizens at a retirement home. Mock it all you want for being sappy, but when is the last time you made a bunch of deserving strangers this happy? [Via BoingBoing]
Very funny ad. I can't tell you what it's for, since that would ruin the suspense. (I wonder if this has run anywhere yet.) [Via OtherCrap]
I love the show Mythbusters, but this time I think they were just going through the motions for the sake of showing off a cool experiment. The "myth" in question is simply too easy to figure out without all the theatrics.
The myth they set out to investigate sounds intriguing on the surface: If you set a plane on a giant conveyor belt and move the belt backwards as the plane accelerates, can it take off? So, to test the theory they get a 2000-foot-long tarp, attach it to a pickup, and pull the tarp backwards as an ultralight plane atop the tarp tries to take off in the opposite direction. Since the plane requires a takeoff speed of 25 MPH, they pull the tarp backwards at 25 MPH to see what happens.
Here's why the whole test was stupid to begin with: If planes accelerated because the wheels powered the vehicle forward and caused the plane to reach air speed, then pulling the tarp backwards would cause the plane to sit still and thus remain grounded. Only, that isn't how planes take off; instead, the propeller pulls the plane through the air, accelerating it to take-off speed. Since the tarp/conveyor belt doesn't pull the air backwards, the plane is still going to accelerate as normal.
With the tarp moving backwards at 25 MPH and the propeller pulling the plane forward at 25 MPH, the only thing different about the test takeoff compared to a normal one is that the plane's wheels are turning at 50 MPH rather than 25 MPH.
The video is worth watching for the sheer audacity of the testing methodology, but it strikes me as unnecessary, especially because they were concerned the tarp might rip and snag the plane. Why risk lives to test something you can explain simply in a couple of sentences?
This spectacular clip is from the DVD Amelia, directed and choreographed by Edouard Lock and performed by the acclaimed dance company La La La Human Steps. I found it a fascinating fusion of music, cinematography, choreography, dance, and lighting.
As expected, Barack tonight made it eight straight primary victories with commanding defeats of rival Hillary Clinton in Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia. Although few of the ballots have been counted in Maryland as I type this, exit polls show it will go the way of Virginia and DC, with Obama defeating his opponent by an almost two-to-one-margin.
What was not expected was the way Obama won. Hillary to date has been winning with the Latinos, women, seniors, and the less educated. But tonight, according to the DrudgeReport, Barack won:
A week ago I posted an inspiring and artful piece of propoganda called "Yes We Can," which turned a speech by Barack Obama into an uplifting music video. Here is MoveOn.org's funny take on the McCain version. (Never too early to start slinging mud for the general election, I guess.)
The Iowa 80 is the world's largest truck stop. I stumbled upon a link on Attuworld to the Web site for the Iowa 80, and it brought back memories of one moment in time when the Iowa 80 seemed like nirvana to me. If you think I'm joking, I'm not--the place nearly brought tears of joy to my eyes.
To understand why I found a 200-acre truck stop--complete with trucking hall of fame and Truckomat Truck wash--such a heavenly spot, it might help to know the date I visited the Iowa 80: September 14, 2001.
On September 11, I awoke in San Francisco, 2200 miles from home. After spending most of a dazed day in front of the TV, I realized I had no way home. So, on September 12 I climbed aboard a Greyhound bus for a 54-hour trip back to Milwaukee.
Cut off from news (in those pre-wireless-web days) and thrown together with strangers, the trip was a surreal and grinding experience. Stuck in a cramped bus seat for over two days, the thought of so much sadness in New York and Washington, DC didn't stop me from feeling a bit sorry for myself, severed from family and friends during a period the rest of the country was comforting itself and coming to grips with the tragedy. (I created a trip diary that I may share on this blog some day.)
I have many strange (and even wonderful) memories about that unpleasant cross-country journey, but none may be stronger than of the Iowa 80. For hundreds of miles, we had made brief stops at nothing but overtaxed bus stations. The depots, which weren't luxurious to begin with, were buckling under the strain of a flood of amateur bus riders desperate to get home. Bathrooms were filthy, toilets clogged, paper products were dwindling, food was in scarce supply, and what food that was available strained the definition of the word.
As we neared the Iowa/Illinois border, I'd already spent two nights on the bus (only one of them sleeping), was wearing the same clothes in which I'd left California two days earlier, and hadn't eaten a bite of food that wasn't prepackaged or served from a vending machine since Wyoming.
And there, like a golden city rising from the clouds, was the Iowa 80. It was clean, had beautiful bathrooms, and offered a selection of fresh food (or as close to fresh as I'd seen) from Dairy Queen, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and Wendy's. I was so happy to have a decent bathroom and be able to sit and eat a hot meal that I almost missed the bus as it left for Chicago.
The Iowa 80 was the most welcoming stop in my travel home. The truck stop taught me to be more appreciative of the things I take for granted and demonstrated how little one needs to do to offer comfort to another human being in times of anxiety and loneliness.
Yes, all that from a truck stop. 
Stewie bets Brian he can pose as a student and become the coolest kid in high school within a week. He snows the kids with lines such as, "I wear long-sleeved shirts under short-sleeved shirts under long-sleeved shirts," and "I took a bunch of pictures; you can see them on my MySpace page along with my favorite songs and movies and things that other people have created but that I use to express my individualism." And, as always, Family Guy takes it to unexpected, uncomfortable, and hilarious places.
Yes, we all claim to hate the "packaging" of presidential candidates as though they're products on the shelf a giant electorate grocery store. We all think we evaluate our preferred candidates based on a thorough consideration of their platforms, and even the hint that a candidate is being groomed or redirected to appeal to consumers--I mean voters--sends Americans howling. We expect our candidates to represent us, but heaven forbid they convene a focus group to see what is on our minds!
But here's the fact of the matter--we elect presidents with no more care and concern than we select toothpaste or peanuts. I'll bet the average American will spend more time watching the Super Bowl, shopping for their next automobile, or seeing movies in 2008 than they will examining the candidates' platforms.
Pollsters know that we vote for candidates we find likable and trustworthy, but it doesn't really take a research specialist to see this. Last election, we reelected a president who had gotten us into a war over unjust causes and erroneous intelligence because we didn't want the smart, dedicated, stiff guy. Bush was the guy many of us wanted to sit down and have a beer with, and no one wanted to listen to Kerry speak for more than 10 minutes out of fear they'd be put to sleep. That isn't much of a way to select the leader of the strongest nation on earth, is it?
So, if for a moment we can set aside our knee-jerk tendency to claim that candidates shouldn't be "branded" and that Americans base their voting decisions on policy and not brand attributes, I'd like to explore Brand Obama and Brand Clinton.
Brand Obama is a singular brand, while Brand Clinton is a brand family. Brand Obama is just Barack, but one cannot evaluate Hillary's brand without considering the positive and negative associations transferred from Bill.
The Clinton Brand family is a complex brand. Bill was leader during a time of positive economic growth, and he had charismatic appeal that worked for the left and middle (but drove the right crazy). He embarrassed himself at the end of his presidency with a sex scandal, but earned new trust by being a respectable elder statesman after departing office. Interestingly, he was elected despite being considered a little untrustworthy--you'll recall his nickname was "Slick Willy"--but Brand Bill was able to overcome the negative associations because voters found him so likable and genuine.
Chances are, the Junior Senator from New York would probably not be a front-runner for the office of President were it not for her last name. Brand Clinton carried her to victory when she ran for Senate in New York--a state in which she had never previously lived--and it gave her the boost she needed to be considered a serious candidate for the White House.
But while one cannot ignore Brand Clinton's impact on Hillary, she will win or lose the election as her own brand. And this is where Brand Hillary has some problems. There are doubts as to her trustworthiness; in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, just 34% gave Hillary good scores for being "honest and straightforward" while 39% rated her poorly.
This is a HUGE problem for her and the Democratic party. Lacking Bill's "man of the people" appeal, his easy charm, and his folksiness, Hillary is going to struggle to overcome the trust issue. And like any brand, she cannot get out of it by offering more product features; in other words, having better policy or being smarter simply isn't enough to overcome trust and likability issues. (If it were, we'd be voting to re-elect President Kerry this year.)
Brand Obama, on the other hand, looks pretty good. He's likable and trustworthy. The same poll that knocked Hillary on the trust issue showed Barack's decided advantage: 51% said Obama's "honest and straightforward," 17% did not.
Obama's got a strong brand, and Hillary is going to find it damn tough to overcome his momentum. You can complain all you want about the way I'm reducing the candidates to fluff over substance, but unless Hillary can find ways to convince voters she's not just smart and capable but also likable and trustworthy, it's all over.
Of course, Brand Clinton should never be ruled out. Party loyalists (a/k/a Superdelegates) continue to lean toward her (or, more accurately, to the Clinton brand), so she may yet capture the nomination. But versus McCain, the likely Republican candidate, she's going to lose out on those same important brand attributes of likability and trust.
I have no idea how, but Hillary's got to get likable and/or trustworthy fast, or she'll need to step aside for a stronger Democratic brand... er, I mean candidate.
Is this the worst email marketing subject line ever? ProFlowers sent me a message with the header: "Um... hello? Only a few days to send for Valentine's! Save 27%".
What's with the "Um... hello?" I'm trying to think of an appropriate time when one would use those words, but every purpose I can think of involves one person being annoyed at the stupidity of another. As in, "Um.. hello? Are you paying attention to the conversation" or "Um... Hello. Why are you telling us this? Everyone already knows Dane Cook movies suck."
So what did I do to annoy ProFlowers? Are they upset I haven't made a Valentine's Day purchase yet? Did ProFlowers think it had the kind of relationship with me that would permit the company to nag and insult me for having the audacity to do my holiday shopping elsewhere?
Well, I'm not sure what kind of relationship ProFlowers thought it had with me before sending that email message, but they know exacly what our relationship is now. I unsubscribed. (I'm not sure I've ever unsubscribed just because of a subject line.)
I wasn't sure if I found this beautiful or creepy. Prada unveiled 'Trembled Blossoms', a fashion film, at their SoHo Epicenter store in New York. The short movie is a CGI journey as a character morphs "from a Lalique-like blossom, through a pastel coloured meadow and into a splendid, seductive glade, where she meets Pan," according to ShowStudio.
My problem is with the continued infatuation with youth and emaciation by the fashion industry. The character in question has the appearance of an undernourished 12-year-old girl, naked until she is clothed in magical garments. (Of course, Prada couldn't permit the naked character to trudge around in bare feet, so she is supplied with high-heel shoes to give her the appropriate model carriage.)
How many 12-year-olds buy Prada? Why not feature a more womanly character? Does anyone at Prada eat? Is Prada afraid of breasts and curves? What do you think?
You can view a larger version of the animated short at Prada.com.
I love optical illusions. There's something about being forced to recognize that you don't know what you think you know--something you believe to be unassailable fact--that I find fascinating and infuriating.
Take the optical illusion at the top of the image below. I was told that squares "A" and "B " were the same color. I stared at it for minutes and thought, "They're crazy. Those squares are different."
So I downloaded the image, isolated the squares, and compared them. And of course, they're right--those squares are identical in color.
You have better eyes (or greater power to overcome subjective perception) than I do if you can see the same color in those two squares in the image at the top without resorting to my cheats below. [Via Boing Boing]
Progress tramples older technologies. Usually this passes unnoticed, but sometimes we get the opportunity to pause at the grave.
Polaroid had already halted the production of instant cameras, but this week it announced it was closing the last of the manufacturing plants that make instant film.
Why wait for instant film to develop when you can see your shots instantly on a digital camera? Still, I'll miss shaking those instant prints to hurry their development (an action which apparently accomplished nothing but everyone still did.) Just think, Outkast's song "Hey Ya!" is just four years old and already it's as old and musty as "Surrey with the Fringe on Top."
I think Polaroid's and Kodak's fates are a great lesson for every big business: Don't lose sight of the business you're in!
I remember branding guru Al Reis once saying something along the lines of that Kodak's brand was about memories while Fuji was just about film. He was right, but Kodak forgot about it themselves. At some point they thought they were in the film business and not the memory business, so they missed what might've been a huge advantage in the infant digital photography market. They're still trying to catch up.
It's an important lesson: Companies can easily forget that their success and failure rests not on their ability to make or distribute physical things but instead on providing a solution, furnishing genuine experiences, and/or creating a meaningful and emotional connection in their customers.
Shake that thought around a while and see what develops.
Yesterday, I posted how the biggest concern that many voters have about Barack Obama is that he's all inspiration and persuasion with little substance to his platform. For Hillary's part, the biggest knock against her is that she is an opportunist who won't let anything stand in her way to victory. Her actions and statements with respect to the Michigan and Florida delegates are bound to reinforce the stereotype that Hillary is a little untrustworthy.
I recently posted some rather mundane details about caucuses and primaries, but there is one very interesting issue about the Democratic primaries this year. Florida and Michigan opted to move their primaries forward, but the Democratic National Committee (DNC) opposed these changes and has refused to seat delegates from those states at the national convention. In other words, the voters voted in the Michigan and Florida primaries for no reason.
That would seem to be the end of the story. Or is it? Not if Hillary has her say.
Michigan
Michigan Democrats moved their primary date to January 15 in an effort to increase the state's influence in the presidential candidate nominating process. The DNC has rules that prohibit any state except for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina from holding its primary before February 5, so they decided to strip Michigan of all of its delegates to the national convention.
As a result of the DNC decision, Barack, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and John Edwards withdrew from the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot. Only Hillary and Christopher Dodd decided to remain on the ballot, although Hillary agreed not to campaign in the state. At the time, she drew criticism from the other candidates for not playing by DNC rules and withdrawing her name as did most of her competitors.
Not surprisingly, after her opponents followed the rules, thus allowing Hillary to win the primary virtually uncontested, she's decided that Michigan's votes should count. Hillary is now actively campaigning to have the Michigan delegates seated at the convention--a contention she didn't make until her crushing South Carolina primary defeat. Rolling Stone perhaps weighed in best about this, noting, "the Clinton campaign acts as though they’re entitled to re-write the ground rules of the campaign, ex-post-facto, to their advantage."
Florida
As in Michigan, the Florida legislature voted to move their primary forward. Because the January 29th date violated the DNC rule, the DNC announced it would not seat delegates from Florida. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards, three of the four remaining Democratic candidates at the time, pledged not to campaign in the state, although their names remained on the ballot.
Even though Hillary agreed to these rules, her campaign has tried to smear Obama for wanting to following those same rules. Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications chief, mischaracterized Obama's desire to follow the DNC rules as a "campaign to ignore Floridians." This statement, made in advance of the Florida primary, was a blatantly incorrect and sleazy contention designed to sway voters in Florida.
Hillary's actions following the meaningless Florida primary further reinforce a perception she's willing to play both sides to suit her own goals: She flew to Florida following the primary to hold a victory rally in a state she had agreed would not count. Said CNN senior political analyst Bill Bennett: "This was an ambush in Florida! This was not a competition. This was not supposed to be a competition… There’s no field and no competition and no teams. And she’s crying victory."
Outcome
The outcome of all this controversy has been that Hillary is losing support among the party faithful. Outside the Beltway has a great review of left-wing blog posts about the Michigan/Florida debacle, including comments such as :
Are you confused about how caucuses and primaries work? So was I, so here, thanks to MSNBC and Wikipedia, is some information on the differences between caucuses, open primaries, and closed primaries.
Both caucuses and primaries result in people voting for their preferred candidates, and that vote determines how delegates are assigned to each candidate for the nominating convention. While delegates are assigned to a candidate, superdelegates are not. (If you want to learn about the difference between delegates and superdelegates, check out our blog post from last week.) It's interesting to note how important the 796 Democratic superdelegates--who are not assigned to a candidate and can vote as they wish at the convention--are becoming in a tight race. Apparently, the superdelegates are being inundated with requests from friends and strangers alike, and the candidates themselves are setting aside time to harass--I mean persuade--these folks.
A primary is much like a general election; voters simply cast their ballot and then go on with the rest of their day. Some primaries are "open," meaning everyone can vote how they wish, and others are "closed," meaning only registered party members can vote for the candidates from that party. Some states have some unusual rules modifying the open/closed question; in New Hampshire, for example, independent voters can go the polling pace on primary day, ask for the ballot of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, cast their ballot, and then fill out a form to switch back to being independent.
There is an interesting debate as to whether a closed or open primary is better. An Open Primary seems more inclusive, since independent voters can participate, but in fact history shows that voter participation is higher when primaries are closed. Also, parties worry that open primaries can be subject to manipulation from the other party; for example, if Democrats believe a Republican candidate will be tougher to defeat in the general election, they may cast open primary votes for another Republican candidate, simply to try to effect (for the benefit of the Democratic party) the outcome of the Republican party's nomination process. There also is some debate as to whether either open or closed primaries are constitutional.
A caucus is more participative, with supporters showing up in person at designated sites throughout the state. There’s debate and jockeying among those who show up, as supporters of one candidate try to woo the undecided caucus participants. It all ends with a counting of the caucus participants, but unlike in primaries where delegates are assigned directly based on the votes, caucuses differ in how delegates are assigned. In the Iowa caucus, for example, caucus-goers elect delegates to county conventions, who in turn elect delegates to district and state conventions where Iowa's national convention delegates are selected.
Because caucuses are more participative than primaries, those who attend often do more than just cast a vote for a candidate. In Iowa, caucus-goers begin the process of writing their parties’ platforms by introducing and debating resolutions. Iowans caucus every two years and not just very four, which permits regular folk to (theoretically) have a voice in setting national policy.
Since caucuses require a greater time commitment than do primaries, fewer people determine the outcome. In Iowa, which has a population of just under 3 million, only 227,000 Democratic caucus-goers determined the state's 2008 delegates. By comparison, New Hampshire has less than half as many people, but more voters participated in their 2008 Democratic Primary. New Hampshire, with a population of 1.2 million, saw 286,000 people cast votes in the Democratic primary.
The decision on whether a state runs a primary or a caucus is up to the state parties and state legislatures. The decision about when a primary or caucus is held is also up to the parties and the legislatures, although when there's disagreement, the party wins. For more on this, check our next blog post on Michigan, Florida, and whether Hillary Clinton is trying to cheat.
One thing I hear a lot from people who are still on the fence this presidential election is that they don't know where Obama stands on the issues. They know he's inspirational, optimistic, and inclusive, but there's this nagging doubt in the minds of some that there's little beneath Obama's confident and persuasive exterior. To those people I say: It's 2008--use the Internet as the powerful tool it is and not just to update your Facebook site.
First of all, I think the reason many don't know more about Obama's platform is that the media doesn't specialize in in-depth coverage--they go for sound bites. And which sort of sound bite do you think they're going to choose?
That is why the real choice in this campaign is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white. It is about the past versus the future. (from his "The Past Versus the Future" speech in Denver)Or do you think news will instead share the following:
Fewer than half the states screen all infants for the American College of Medical Genetics’ full recommended panel of 29 disorders. Many of these conditions, if caught early, can be treated before they result in permanent impairments or even death. And parents are often unaware that the tests are available. Barack Obama believes that we should ensure that all states have comprehensive newborn screening programs. (From his 19-page fact sheet in Disabilities.)So, please stop blaming Obama for being a great speaker capable of sharing great sound bites that the news wants to carry.
Thanks to Mike, who suggested an "Obamater" for my blog. (He also suggested the blog's name and URL.)
So, our new Obameter feature will help us track Barack's progress toward winning Democratic delegates in his race for the presidential nomination. Thanks to MSNBC, we can track this live via this handy-dandy widget.
As of today, MSNBC gives Obama an 861 to 855 lead in delegates with 2,025 needed to win. Since neither candidate seems likely to get the necessary majority prior to the conventio
