art by Billy Stapleton

This year’s voting season has been the most dramatic one since Gore and Bush battled for the White House in Florida, and we haven't even gotten to the conventions yet. Ever since Sen. Barack Obama clinched the nomination, the pundits are all offering up their two cents as to what happen to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign. How could a virtually unknown candidate knock out a political power player who seemed to be the inevitable nominee? While this question will be debated for years, it really comes down to one thing, emotional voting.

In reality, Clinton and Obama had very few differences on the issues and unless a voter watches MSNBC and CNN simultaneously all day, they most likely based their decision on likability, identification or popularity. After Clinton cried in New Hampshire, her pole numbers went up, especially with women who felt they could relate to the pressure she was enduring and turned out in droves to make sure she won the state’s primary. After the Reverend Wright controversy, Obama’s numbers went down, but they went up after he put on his flag pin. What most affected the outcome were the ads each candidate ran during the primaries. Clinton ads were policy driven and didn’t give voters much of her personality or her vision. The now infamous 3AM phone ad focused on her foreign policy experience while attempting to show Obama’s lack of.

Rather than lashing back, Obama’s ad was reminiscent of Robert Kennedy in 1968; a young and hip candidate with his hands outstretched to supporters. Hope and change were what Obama ran on and people responded to this message much more than the issues.

According to a recent report on CNN, even though we don’t realize it, we most often vote with our gut. Dr. Drew Western, a psychologist at Emory University and the author of “The Political Brain”, conducted a study with voters where he showed them two campaign ads; one from Clinton and one from Obama. The Clinton ad was policy driven whereas the Obama ad was personal. Voters, overwhelming, were more affected by the Obama ad even though there was virtually no mention of the issues. The reason for this, according to Western, is we have a little almond-shaped nugget in our brain called the amygdala, and when it’s aroused, reason takes a back seat.

Playing upon voter’s emotions is nothing new and campaign mangers and political strategists know how to push our buttons. As far back as the race between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater in 1964, the affect of negative campaigning has had an immense impinge on the outcome. Johnson attacked Goldwater as a right-wing legislator who was out to abolish the social welfare programs that had been in place since the 1930s and a candidate who might take the country into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. Johnson won the contest by a landslide; 44 of 50 states put the former Vice President back in the White House thanks in large part to the famous "Daisy" campaign ad:

Then Vice President George Bush also used an emotional negative campaign ads to help him to 426 - 111 electoral vote victory over Michael Dukakis. Here is the famous "Wille Horton" ad:

In reality, campaigning is all about marketing and advertising. Politicians are sold to the country like Pepsi and we can’t get enough. Maybe it’s time we started educating ourselves about the candidates rather then voting for the one we are most likely to have a beer with. Here are links to the website of Barack Obama, John McCain, Bob Barr and Ralph Nader, read about their policies and make your vote an educated vote.

Barack Obama

John McCain

Bob Barr

Ralph Nader