Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Why Mitt lost?

                               Political Marketing
1.      In political marketing, two factors matter the most in an elections.
a)    Management.
b)   Strategy.
2.      Throughout his campaign, MittRomney (MR) managed his election particularly well. It was comparable to that of Barack Obama(BO), but he failed in his strategic planning. In organising election, MR did even better, in the light of being out of power.  Jim Messina campaign manager for BO acknowledged this from his twitter account just after the result. He congratulated campaign manager Matt Rhoades and team Romney for a campaign hard fought.Naturally, the sittingpresident has grip over resources. Thus, he is having upperedge over all   other candidates. To run for an election, candidates need money to accomplish its processes,practices and procedures smoothly.
3.      There are two vital parts of Election management, mainly
i)             Fund raising and
ii)            Electioneering/campaigning
4.      The rich and corporate supported in bulk to MR. Romney campaign’s fundraising was handled by a pair of limited-liability corporations, SJZ and Victory Group, both controlled by finance chairman Spencer J. Zwick. The campaign paid the companies more than $22 million over the course of the race; the person familiar with campaign operations said the money included “compensation to over 60 finance consultants.” On fund collection front, MR was comfortable, There was no single news during the election that money dearth was hampering his election.The US just spent $7 billion in the latest election cycle, up from $5 billion in 2008, equally divided between the presidential and Congressional elections. Romney got corporate billions, Obama raised just asmuch through small contributions.
5.      A dictionary defines electioneering as political campaigning and trying to persuade people to vote for you. Corporate favoured Romney. So many wealthy donors swarmed to Romney’s pre-election party in Boston in private jets that they caused an aerial traffic jam! They contributed to organizations called super-PACs.The biggest super-PAC, controlled by Republican Karl Rove, spent $450 million on harnessing the best brains in advertising and marketing to attack Obama with TV ads. So, in campaign management process, he hired the best brains for electioneering. That’s why; there was no news on any lapses of election related management. He did if not better than not less also than BO’ electioneering.
6.      Election strategy and its planning accordingly is backbone of dicey election games.
The result of 2008 looks simple like any earlier, but it was NOT. The impression that mis-governance of Bush and dreamy proposition of change of Obama elected him in 2008 is false. Here, politicians and political parties were required to read between the lines. The Democrat read but the Republican failed to read it and get it. As a result, they lost 2012 because of their strategic failure being not able to get it.In reality, 2008 election was a turning point in American history; this is not because a white was not chosen. There is still a wrong impression in masses on this count. 2008 result was an invisible symbol of social and economic change. As visionary democrats in general and BO in particular have sensed it while republicans not. Visible issues in 2008 were bad governance of Bush and dreamy agenda of BO. While invisible issue was social and economic changes.
7.      America’s market oriented economy has increased the inequality in the society. This inequality is driving this change. Therefore, USA is changing socially and economically. This change got a more fertile ground in 2008 to derive required inputs to grow and sustain.
8.      Nobel Laureate Joseph Stglitz has written a book “The Price of Inequality”.This Columbia University Professor argues that economic inequality leads to instability. He argues that an equal society is more efficient and productive and how does inequality destroy productivity and create instability. Inequality is bad for economy, democracy and society. Much of the inequality in the US arises out of rent-seeking -monopoly, exploitive practices by banks and corporate exploitation of public resources. Economic inequality created Occupy Wall Street Movement (OWS). OWS aims to fight back against the richest 1% of people that are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.
9.      Demographic and voter landscapes changed over the years. White voters are shrinking. Migrated setter’s voters are growing. Increasing economic inequality enhances social inequality based on ethnicity and races. The combined effect of these two has made the impact intense. These inequalities enhance insecure and unsafe feelings. It develops missions to fight it back to finish by tooth and nail. As a result, settlers are uniting on different forums like OWS to decrease inequalities and uncomfortable feelings. Any party ignoring these feeling and sentiments of public will meet an accident. And this is what happened with Mitt.
10.  Obama got it as visionary in his result of 2008. Hence he crafted his line of action accordingly during his presidency. He planned and practiced to care for these feelings and sentiments of his voters. And result is in his favour in spite of all big odds from all corners. Credit goes his election management and strategy.On strategy part, Obama was better than Mitt. His well calculated and strategized move brought him flying colors  For this, he avoided photography secession and dinning in White house with rich. He broke this tradition of White house.  He showed the door to lobbyist and this system. Tacitly, he promoted OWS movement by endorsing this. These presidential acts annoyed rich. But it was a part of his strategy.
11.  He proved to his voters that fattening social and economic inequality is very much in his agenda. And he is trying his best to do away with it. Finally, he succeeded in getting their Votes and Notes ($ counterpart in India).
12.  Strategically, to win, there are three demarcated areas where a candidate or party can play.
a)    Accomplishments by the candidates or his party.
b)   Digging out faults of challenger.
c)    Bright plans and policies propositions to make voters dreaming?
13.  Mitt can’t play in first field of accomplishment. He was in opposition. His party republican didn't have any such acts which could be sold as political product. Albeit, annoying acts of Bush are still is active memory of public. Hence, there was no scope for MR to play in this field.
14.  During elections, blame game is another popular field. BO tried and kept himself blameless. Public, after getting convinced about misdeeds of Bush, voted him in 2008. He tried his best to tell demanding voters that he is trying his best to fulfill the dream, he promised. But the rotten conditions, he inherited from Bush needs more time to cure. In his efforts, he took help of modern tools, technology, and marketing to keep the masses well informed about the on-going actions and activities in his first tenure. MR focused in blame game areas to discredit BO. But, he failed to prove any blame on him. Voters are convinced that all pains are created by Bush with which they are suffering from. They are convinced BO tried to reduce it. Thus, MR failed to arouse any negative feelings against him.
15.  In Third debate, MR couldn't prove himself better than BO. He congratulated him on Osama killing issue. He couldn't give any better proposal of policy to bring the country from present mess. This was the field where, he could have done better than BO. In this area MR has scope to overpower BO, but he wasted energy is blame game field and was at fiasco.
16.  Mitt lost because of poor strategic planning and lack of vision. But his fundraising and electioneering was comparable to Barack. The visible issue of ailing economy, high employment etc. were not vote catchers in 2012. Invisible issue of social and economic inequality fetched votes to BO which never figured in whole election process. But BO sensed it 2008 and started working just after taking over as president. This foresighted strategy gave him four more years.

Heera Lal
(Views are personal based on different sources)