My assignment is to have someone on this website proofread this and tell me what to improve. Please help! :)
Candidates vs. Campaign Managers
Presidential elections are referred to as one candidate versus another but, in actuality, there is an innumerable amount of people behind the scenes working diligently to, hopefully, attain the position each candidate so desperately covets. The most powerful person behind the scenes, aside from, maybe, the candidate's spouse, is the campaign manager. The campaign manager's role is to help the candidate win. Campaign managers want to win just as wholeheartedly as candidates do; but who puts more work into the campaign for the Oval Office? Presidential candidates work alongside their campaign managers in order to run a successful campaign, in which the work is extremely different. Because of the differences in tasks and roles, the work is not divided evenly in presidential campaigns between candidates and managers.
Though they have the same goals, the presidential candidate and the campaign manager have very different tasks to accomplish throughout the campaign. The work done on a presidential campaign is not distributed evenly among the candidate and the manager. Presidential candidates are the symbol for their party platform during the campaign. For the duration of their campaign, the candidates not only represent their party, they also are the campaign. The things they say and do will affect the outcome of the campaign. Mitt Romney said that he wasn't the campaign in an interview with Scott Pelley of CBS. This sparked a controversial conversation: are candidates their campaigns? Yes, they are. The voting public won't vote for a candidate who they don't like and they definitely won't vote for someone they don't trust. Campaigns must be run in such a way that makes candidates seem trustworthy and competent for the position because, at the end of the day, they are the campaign. Because none of this affects the campaign managers, the candidates work harder on public perception of the campaign.
The candidates can't make mistakes publicly, but behind the scenes, the campaign managers are planning and strategizing the candidates' every move. Campaign managers become the head of the campaign, in reference to the staff and the finances, especially when the campaign begins to wind down and, transversely, the candidate is making more appearances. When campaigns are successful, campaign managers aren't recognized nearly as much as they are when a campaign is unsuccessful. They receive little to no recognition for success but take the majority of the blame for failure. This is an effect of not being in public eye as much as the candidate is. The candidate is the one who will take office so their party will rally behind them to support their win and congratulate them on their hard work. In the event of a loss, however, they will find anyone to give blame instead of the candidate they nominated. Campaign managers don't get publicly reprimanded for their actions in the event of a victory because their actions aren't publicized nearly as much as the actions of candidates.
Campaign managers might not be in the public eye but they play defining roles in campaigns. Campaign managers make decisions for, and with, the candidates behind the scenes and the candidate communicates those decisions to the public. When those decisions are popular among the voting public, the candidate, and, therefore, the campaign, become more favorable. The candidates are the ones who will be scrutinized publicly for their policies and strategies, even if they didn't introduce the policy or strategy to the campaign. This can come from differences in opinion, but can also stem from the presentation of the policy by the candidate. In this respect, the campaign managerial position would be best suited for someone who has good ideas but might not want to be publicly scrutinized for not being as effective in communicating them.
The 2012 presidential campaign beautifully illustrated the relationship between candidates and their campaign managers. The respective campaigns featured very different strategies but both utilized campaign managers who had prestigious, but very different, backgrounds as public figures. The Democratic Party spent $852.9 million on the 2012 election and the Republican Party spent $752.3 million, making it the most expensive presidential election in United States' history. (Willis, et al) Because they are mainly responsible for the finances of the campaign and the staff, the campaign managers had more people to manage and more money than ever before to manage throughout this election. Rhoades and Messina showed their superb leadership abilities in even being able to run a functioning campaign. The 2012 presidential election was, arguably, the most complex election to manage in the history of the United States.
The campaign managers called on their backgrounds to be able to effectively manage their respective campaigns. Jim Messina acted as President Obama's campaign manager and Mitt Romney had the help of Matthew Rhoades. Jim Messina had previously been the senate staffer. He worked on Obama's 2008 campaign and served briefly as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations during the President's first term. He is the "most powerful man in Washington that you've never heard of," according to Dan Pfeiffer, assistant to President Obama and the White House Communications Director. Matthew Rhoades has worked on Mitt Romney's campaign since 2008. His tactics have been questioned and he is under scrutiny for being involved in a controversial voting event in which Hispanic voters were told to go to the voting booths a day late in a reminder they received via email. He is known as an up-and-coming political consultant and will continue to be used by the Republican Party for campaigns. Based sole on their reputations as managers, Messina had a leg up on Rhoades because of his experience in running a successful campaigns but, because of his time investment, Rhoades probably strived for victory more profoundly.
People who don't have a background in politics can still become successful campaign managers. Having a background in finances has proven to be effective for campaign managers because of the large focus on managing the campaigns' financial situations.
Dan Kelly, a campaign manager for Dan Malloy's 2010 campaign for governor of Connecticut, said, "I think some of the best [campaign] managers are actually the ones who come up through the finance ranks." ("Campaigns & Elections") The position of campaign manager is meant for someone who can effectively handle money and a person with a background in finances supplies just that, making the learning curve nonexistent in respect to financial responsibility. People with backgrounds in finances make great campaign managers because of their ability to excel in the financial side of things, which, in turn, makes managing the staff easier because there is more time to focus on them.
The background someone brings to their managerial position will affect which strategy they utilize during the campaign. There are two types of campaign managers: weak and strong. Contrary to their connotation, they are both respected strategies. Weak campaign managers follow a plan set forth by a consultant to the campaign. They have less to think about because they aren't planning, they're just following through on someone else's plan. It can become complicated, though, to effectively implement a plan that was created by someone else. A strong campaign manager has a close relationship with, and the trust of, the candidate. This can help ease the mind of the candidate because they know how competent their campaign manager is. It can be hard, however, for the campaign manager to introduce plans, implement them, and manage the staff. Though both strategies have proven to be effective, the weak campaign manager is more ideal. They can have the deputy managers help them with interpreting the plan and a good leader will be able to delegate roles effectively. A strong campaign manager can get easily burnt out by the stress that is a presidential campaign. Effective campaign managers will utilize a combination of both strategies. As leaders, they should know when to lead and when to step back and let someone else take the reins.
The candidacy role is played by someone who wants to hold office. The managerial position is best filled by someone who has great ideas but might not be a good public speaker, presenter, or someone who lacks the desire to hold public office. The road to attaining the position of Commander in Chief of the United States is long and strenuous but, with the right campaign manager, and staff, the campaign will be successful. Though the roles are very different and the work isn't evenly distributed, the candidate and the campaign manager both put forth a tremendous amount of work for a campaign they both believe in.
Works Cited
D'Aprile, Shane. "The GOP's Resident Consultant." Campaigns & Elections (2010) 32. 307 (2011): 63 MasterFILE Premier. Web. 1 Dec 2012.
Nagourney, Adam, Jeff Zeleny, Ashley Parker, and Jim Rutenburg. "How a Race in the Balance Went to Obama." New York Times 07 Nov 2012, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec 2012.
"Shop Talk: Confessions of a Campaign Manager."Campaigns & Elections. 26 2011: n. page. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.
Tufekci, Zeynep. "Beware the Smart Campaign." New York Times 16 Nov 2012, n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.
Willis, Derek, Jeremy Ashkenas, Matthew Ericson, Matthew Ericson, Alicia Parlapiano, et al. "The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates." New York Times n.d., n. pag. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.
