Response To Charge of A "Bitter" Pennsylvania

^{Click Image For Larger View}

Although this research is presented as credentialed, I'd take it with a grain of salt. Participants do not represent the general public because they've volunteered on a website (ie, very technically savvy) to be a survey participant (with compensation). In addition, the researchers say nothing about the statistical validity of any of their data or provide information about respondent geographic location. (pdf)

Those caveats aside, what I found intriguing was the audience response to the rhetoric.

When Obama claims (paraphrasing) that "they don't vote on economic issues ... they vote vote on issues like guns and the Second Amendment..." ... all segments take a dive south. This means the viewers disagreed with him. (Not good for Obama.) Audience response goes up a bit on the "gay marriage" phrase. That uptick makes me sad (viewers agree that voters find gay marriage an issue to vote on).

When Obama takes a stab at Sen. Clinton, the segments dive south. As they do in the final "bitter claim" ("people are fed up - they're angry and frustrated and they're bitter"). However, the final "ready for change" rhetoric results in an uptick.

More evidence -- in my opinion -- of selling candidates like soap. (Or tweaking the end of a movie). In other words, if you don't believe that the candidates (all of them) are conducting their own research similar to this -- to see what phrases to use to get x-emotional response from the audience -- I've got a bridge for sale.

^{* FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt -- the mainstay of American marketing and advertising.}

Check out the 1976 movie, Network, with Peter Finch and Faye Dunaway. See reality TV as envisioned 30 years ago! While you're at it, check out the 1972 motive, The Candidate with Robert Redford and Peter Boyle (who played in both movies). From Amazon:

Also, see Learned in Pennsylvania: Core Truths about Obama and Clinton and Deconstructing A Political Poll.