OCT 15 How does a politician write off 47 per cent of his electorate by portraying them as having a victim mentality and still gain support? Mitt Romney has managed to close the gap between him and Barack Obama by simply admitting to it and moving on to other issues as fast as he could.

The underlying assumption being that his campaign plank of lowering taxes would have no appeal to those not paying any taxes at all and therefore are not likely to vote for him, so why bother talking to them at all?

Closer home, as elections draw ever nearer, politicians seem to be playing from the same songbook, making a couple of astonishing statements and then simply moving on.

After hounding Suaram for receiving foreign funding, the prime minister simply stated that he was not obligated to disclose the source of approximately RM40 million donated to Sabah Umno in cash across national borders.

Equally hypocritical was his assertion after years of George Soros bashing by his coalition for the billionaire financiers dealings with the opposition that he indeed had also met Soros, but only to fulfil a request for such a meeting by Soros himself.

For a man who constantly carps about cronyism, the opposition leader taking favours of rides in personal jets from friends for free when as economic adviser to Selangor he is in a position to reciprocate such favours is not exactly kosher either. He did not disclose the source of this favour to the opposition either. As far as the opposition is concerned, the issue is over and we all need to move on.

How can politicians who demonstrate such blatant hypocrisy get away with it? Why do they believe that transparency in such matters is of no consequence? Is it because like Romney they believe they only need to talk to their base and ignore the rest?

The answer may lie in their beliefs about how electoral politics plays out in the minds of the people. American politics has shown the way by demonstrating that elections can be won largely through the clever use of media over any number of well-meaning policies.

Recognising that sometimes the medium is the message, political parties emphasise media that is more in synch with their overall philosophy. In terms of media strategy, generally speaking, the Democrats in America rely on a grassroots campaign more than the big-budget mass media approach of the Republicans. In Malaysia that is mirrored by the ceramah circuit-dominated campaign of Pakatan Rakyat to the MSM-dominated campaign of Barisan Nasional.

The basic strategy is to use media to solidify the base of their own supporters first, try and win over the fence sitters by staking claims to issues of importance to them second, and immediately before the elections to go out on an all-out offensive on the other side without really responding to any counter-attacks. At the end its about slinging as much mud as possible on the other side and hoping some sticks.

Originally posted here:
Messaging and electoral success