Adopt a Pet launched presidential-pooch-pardon.com aimed at convincing the Obamas to adopt a shelter dog for that puppy that will accompany them to the White House. Someone did a great job with all the campaign design parody: “pal around with terriers.” Priceless.
(Nod: Campbell Brown)
Designed by: Daniel Kleinman
Year: 2002
Marc Ambinder has an outstanding article on the secrets of Obama’s success. One such secret:
Scale / Force Of Numbers: No matter how you measure this election, the Obama campaign was able to do so much because it had so much. What ifs abound. What if they were limited to the federal match? What if they weren’t able to raise as much money? What if they didn’t spend more than $150 million on field? Can this possibly be replicated? Can the Democrats ever again have hundreds of paid staff in states like Ohio weeks before election day? Can they ever find two million active volunteers?
Going into the election last Tuesday, ProPublica, “an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest,” reported there were eleven Congressmen under investigation who were also seeking reelection. And how many of those eleven were reelected? Nine of them. Nine! Here’s the list:
ABC notes some of these lawmakers’ troubles.
What is amazing to me is that how ever much people complain about an unethical Congress or corrupt system, people are willing to reelect Congressmen with dubious ethical standards. Why? Because:
“I’ve got to believe that the reason why [they’re reelected] is that they’ve developed this network of support that’s based on bringing business opportunities and earmarks to the community,” said Craig Holman, a campaign finance lobbyist for the watchdog group Public Citizen. “The more they develop a network in their communities, the more likelihood they can survive a criminal investigation or indictment.”
Somehow, I feel it should be a red flag when your Congressman is found hiding $90,000 of cash in his freezer. Just saying.
(Nod: Ben Smith)
Designed by: Daniel Kleinman
Year: 1999
From the Fail Blog:
Designed by: Daniel Kleinman
Year: 1997
Gregg Merksamer at the New York Times reports President Obama will be riding in a new limousine, seen here unfinished and on a road test:
Speculating on some of the armament, Merksamer says:
[…] television clips showing George W. Bush entering and exiting the rear doors of his limos indicate that the windows are at least 5 inches thick, nearly twice the depth of what was used on presidential limousines in the 1980s and ’90s.
While I do not know what type of weapons such thick windows are designed to guard against, a half-inch of transparent armor is enough to stop a .44 Magnum round at point-blank range; at a thickness of 1.25 to 1.5 inches, the same material can withstand higher-velocity bullets fired from military assault rifles.
Were an attack to occur, the ballistic forces of bullets fired into the windows would be absorbed within a succession of glass and plastic layers, after which a flexible inner coating known as an antispall shield would keep glass from entering the passenger compartment.
The Times also has a gallery of past presidential rides. Interesting to see the progression from car to tank.
As always, the major networks tried to out-technology each other on election night on Tuesday. Some things worked, some didn’t, and some just didn’t need to happen.
CNN started the touchscreen bonanza with John King’s “Magic Wall,” a touchscreen developed by Perceptive Pixel. On MSNBC, Chuck Todd uses a Microsoft Surface touchscreen. One engineering difference between the two machines is that the Surface screen sits horizontally like a table and the Perceptive Pixel screen sits vertically like a big screen television. Prior to election night, Todd’s Surface was linked to a large monitor so we could see what he was doing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvpc30G3EtsBut on election night, he had a slightly more ambitious setup: a virtual set. Instead of the Surface linked to a large monitor to see the results of Todd’s interactions with the Surface, it was linked to a giant virtual graphic amidst giant virtual columns. There wasn’t actually anything behind Todd; this was a composite shot similar to a weather reporter standing in front of a green screen with a composited weather map and was MSNBC’s effort to out-perform the other networks:
The virtual set was an interesting idea, but there is, though, an inherent flaw with the Surface screen: we as viewers cannot see both the screen and the anchor at the same time. This is where MSNBC’s setup fails. With CNN’s screen, we see John King directly interacting with the screen and the results of the interactions; we can see things animate or change color when King touches them.
When King tells us to take a look at Chester county in Pennsylvania, we can see him touch the county, so we know which county it is and where it is on the map. When Todd does the same thing with Miami-Dade county in Florida, we can only see the results of the interactions. Todd highlights or points to a county on his screen, but when the camera is focused on the virtual screen, we can’t see what he’s pointing to and thus have a lack of correlation. Without seeing what the anchor is doing, we’re left with a fullscreen graphic, so why even have the anchor on the set with the screen and interactions we can’t see? Furthermore, in the first video, if we were to focus our attention on Todd, we would miss the results of his interactions on the large monitor. If we’re watching Todd while he is talking to us, we miss seeing Nevada and Florida changing colors on the large monitor. The director can try to compensate for this by giving us an overhead shot of Todd’s screen, but then we’re left with a pair of hands touching a screen instead of the whole anchor visibly and visually telling the story. Not seeing Todd point to where or what he is talking about is akin to a weather reporter showing us a weather map with fronts, storms, and temperatures but not being on screen to point out what he is talking about. Maybe not such a big deal if we didn’t see the weather reporter, but we’ve come to expect the visible instruction. The Surface setup fails to take this expectation into account. With CNN’s Perceptive Pixel screen, however, we can see the anchor’s direct interaction with the map making it superior to the Surface screen.
Like Chuck Todd, John King on CNN had some of his own virtual graphics. For an explanation on the balance of power in the Senate, King highlighted key Senate races with a virtual Senate-floor layout:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOymkvccsxYWhat made this graphic good was the format. The 3D virtual graphic on the looked great, and the tracking with the camera was well done. Even though John King wasn’t in the camera shot physically showing us what he was talking about (like Chuck Todd), he didn’t need to be. This particular graphic didn’t need the physical presence of the anchor to instruct viewers what he was talking about.
But not everything CNN did on election night was good. In what was the ultimate bid to out-perform the other networks, CNN turned two interviewees into “holograms”:
Of course, though, they weren’t actually holograms; they were a series of green-screened images composited to look like a hologram.
From a technology standpoint, CNN wins the battle with their seemingly constant drive to advance on-screen broadcast technologies. During the primaries, they were the first to unveil a highly interactive touchscreen that the other networks now try, unsuccessfully, to emulate. What will be interesting to see is how this technology is used again and how it advances. Like the virtual election maps, the “hologram” was a composite shot, so Wolf Blitzer couldn’t actually see Jessica Yellin. Perhaps the next step is actually creating a true Star-Wars-like hologram with on-set video projection so the interviewer can physically see the hologrammed interviewee on the set?
From an information-delivery standpoint, though, the “hologram” was ridiculously unnecessary, and the developers behind it seemed to concede the presentation is more important than the information being presented. What was the point of the “hologram”? What did it achieve that a standard two-panel video graphic or a cutaway would not? If she or will.i.am were amidst the excitement of crowds, why not show the excitement?
Whatever the rationale behind some of this technology, the technology is here to stay. And with the technology comes the wars between the networks to out-do each other. I hope, though, that we in the broadcast graphics field can learn from what each other do and serve the viewers better by realizing information is more important than the presentation of it. I fear, though, that we’ve permanently crossed the line, and it is more important to dazzle than it is to inform.
Designed by: Daniel Kleinman
Year: 1995
Fumin Yang, a good friend of mine from undergrad, recently started a blog. Originally a native of China, he had this to say on election day:
I personally don’t believe that the presidential election has the sole purpose of choosing an American President. The United States is such a prominent figure on the world stage, in which direction this country is heading to will have direct impact on rest of the globe. When the US economical engine is running at full speed, other countries benefit too. I’d like to see an electoral college map based on the entire global population, and then see what kind of result we’ll be getting. […]
Don’t think having a new guy in the oval office will fix everything. He can only do so much. To turn this country around is a responsibility of every American people. Hope doesn’t come from Barack Obama, hope comes from thousands and millions of Americans who are eager to see change and willing to work together and work hard to make the change happen.
Agreed. And the message of “yes we can” was the central tenet to Obama’s campaign. This election wasn’t about him; it was about the power and willingness of the people to effect change.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Fumin!
Please may we have debates that don’t devolve into recitations of talking points?
With all the talk about Joe Six-Pack, Joe the Plumber, and Joe the Vice-Presidential Candidate, how about this little piece of Joe trivia: Joe Biden marks the first time in American history that a Joe president or vice president will occupy the White House. Now that’s change I can believe in.
Although still unofficial, the Omaha World-Herald is calling the Nebraska second congressional district for Barack Obama:
Obama won 8,434 of 15,039 mail-in ballots counted Friday by Douglas County election officials. These early ballots arrived in the election commissioner’s office too late to be included in Tuesday’s election results.
The additional votes gave Obama a 1,260-vote lead over Republican John McCain in unofficial returns. McCain won the popular vote statewide and four electoral votes.
About 5,000 provisional ballots in Douglas County remain to be counted next week, but they are unlikely to change the 2nd District outcome. About half of such ballots typically are disqualified.
I’m very curious if this will have any influence on discussions about Electoral College reform (or if there will be any discussions at all). How exciting, though!
One reason why the Electoral College will never be abolished: small-population states would lose the enormously disproportionate influence they have and would fight to the death to protect it. The New York Times posted this map (larger image):
The NYT notes:
This map shows each state re-sized in proportion to the relative influence of the individual voters who live there. The numbers indicate the total delegates to the Electoral College from each state, and how many eligible voters a single delegate from each state represents.
A great set of photos from behind the scenes of the Obama campaign on election night.
(Nod: Political Wire)
Designed by: Kyle Cooper
Year: 1997
Awesome commercial for Hovis Bakery runs through a history of the UK in the 20th century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv4c4ER8PzoOne of the best stories I read from voting day was this one. I can’t quote it; you have to read the whole thing.
And this story falls into an interesting data point discussed by Nate Silver: Barack Obama outperformed John Kerry among parents.
Conversley [sic], there is a hidden source of strength in this table that hasn’t been talked much about before: Obama markedly overperformed Kerry among parents. In a sense, it was those people who have most reason to be concerned about the future who voted for Obama: people who are young themeslves, or people who have young children at home.
A presidential debate remix:
Nebraska, since 1992, uses a congressional district allocation method to allocate its electoral votes. Maine, since 1972, also uses this method. Nebraska has three congressional districts; add two electoral votes for the two U.S. Senators, and Nebraska has five electoral votes.
Here’s how the congressional district method works. Candidates receive one electoral vote for each congressional district won. The popular vote winner in the state gets the remaining two.
Never have either Nebraska or Maine actually split their electoral vote. This year, however, could be different in the Cornhusker State. The Nebraska Second Congressional District, as of this writing, is up for grabs. Omaha is in NE-2, and according to WOWT in Omaha:
Barack Obama trails John McCain by 569 votes in unofficial returns from the district.
Election officials estimate there are 9,000 uncounted provisional and absentee ballots in Douglas County alone. Sarpy County estimates there are 1,000 provisionals yet to be counted. Counties have seven days to verify and count the remaining ballots.
This, of course, is of particular interest to me after my thesis project on the Electoral College charted results of past presidential elections using the district allocation method.
Whether or not NE-2 goes for Obama, the possibility is exciting for political junkies like me.
(Side note: once all vote returns are processed in the several states, I will be updating my thesis to include 2008 election data!)
