Selective Mass Mobilization

Professor Claibourne’s look at target groups through material and symbolic interests suggested that mass mobilization/ “Get Out and Vote” campaigns are fairly inefficient at engaging groups from the view of the candidate. My question refers to mass mobilization campaigns across distinct sectors instead of selective mobilization. I spent a summer in the Hill and as a fun send-off I went to T.I.’s “Respect My Vote” campaign in DC. The campaign was independent of any party, deriving its name from the popular song, “Respect My Hustle”. Although there was a subtle penchant for Obama, the campaign was founded on principles of widespread political engagement among young voters. Without any research done on this movement, I would propose that either material or symbolic value placed on celebrity/pop culture resonated among young voters, especially young African American voters, and increased the voting percentage X% across this sector.

Given the current campaign finance laws governing elections, could it be advantageous for candidates to selectively mass mobilize?

Mendelberg’s work on the 1988 election studies consequences of racial priming among white voters on public opinion: resistance to government programs and attitudes, as well as keen awareness of racial conflict. A look at the variable coefficients in his experimental model would suggest that the 1988 was marked by racial priming that led to a dynamic shift in policy/public attitude. The last sentence of the piece reads “As long as racial appeals continues, electoral campaigns will be lost opportunities for bridging the nation’s racial chasm.” Does an appeal have to exhibit negative connotations or priming effects? Does the 2008 election 20 years later shed light?