G M McMurtrey Team Campaign Book
Communication 352.01 - Fall 2009
G M Table of Contents
Section I: Overview Team Introduction…………………….………………………….3 Platform…......................................................................4 Campaign Strategy & Summary...……..……………………5 Target Audience.………………….……….………………………7 Campaign Slogans & Theme.…………….…………………..7 Section II: Campaign Management Candidate Appearances................................................8 Campaign Spending....…………………….……………………8 Media Interaction.………….……………….……………………8 Section III: Advertisement & Public Relations Advertisement Campaign............................................10 Advertisement Overviews……..………….…………………..10 Advertisement Schedule.………………….…………………..12 Advertisement Target Audience..……….………………….15 Section IV: Debate Furthering Campaign Strategy.....................................16 Rules of the Game.…….….….…..……………………………..16 Debate Coach Log………..….…………………………………..18 Candidate Analysis…………………..…………………………..19 Team McMurtrey
Section V: Speeches Speech Content…………….……..…………………………….21 Speech Overview…...……………………………………………23 Section VI: The Candidate’s Perspective Candidate‘s Recap…..…...……………………………………..25
G M Team Introduction
Candidate: Garrison McMurtrey ‗11
Campaign Manager: Rusty Schultz ‗11 Advertisement Specialist: JJ Rank ‗11 Debate Specialist: Lori Schroeder ‗13
Speech Specialist: Ashley Kaminski ‗10
G M From the Office of the Campaign Manager By: Rusty Schultz
Platform, platform, platform. Interesting to say the least, the initial unveiling of the McMurtrey team‘s ―platform‖ raised a few eyebrows in the class as I laid out the three-pronged plan. Defined as a, ―declaration of aims and principles of a political party,‖ a platform typical to a political run is centered generally on a few key issues of importance. The candidates can then tote these issues around as their future plans for progress or change. Far more intangible than most platforms and certainly much less so than our opponents, the McMurtrey camp put forth what soon became known as the, ―trifecta.‖
Experience, Well-Connected, and Dedication. These were the principles upon which the team aimed to project its message to the students of Ripon College. Proposing no sweeping changes to college policy or lofty goal of removing service providers from campus, I explained that rather than outlining specific changes that our campaign believed in, if one were to subscribe to the three aforementioned principles outlined in the trifecta, thorough, well-constructed decision in regards to any matter would be made. Representing these principles in his everyday life, our campaign could think of no better way to show voters how if elected, Garrison would perform.
That all being said, I have to set the record straight about our decision to set forth such a seemingly ambiguous platform. Know that the decision did not come lightly, nor was it made haphazardly. Instead it was a strategic decision by the team to withhold any proposals until a later date.
Campaign Strategy & Summary The decision to introduce the trifecta platform was our camp‘s first strategic move. This conclusion was reached for two reasons: 1.) we didn‘t know Erin at all and had absolutely no idea what issues her campaign was going to introduce in their platform; and 2.) we knew that resources and topics of prospective change were in limited supply on campus and did not want to out all of our big plans early on. In an effort to layaway some of our biggun proposals for future use, we unveiled the three-pronged plan as a way to conserve our plans and buy time.
What we quickly experienced was that people simply weren‘t getting the trifecta. Not understanding the plan may be easy enough to explain, however our classmates and especially the media were tearing it apart. While admittedly we had anticipated some resistance to our vague plan, we never expected the severity of its ramifications.
It became quite clear that our campaign was a sinking ship and that it would take much more force than initially offered by our staff to save it. In a complete reversal of our plan to withhold, we quickly began outlining our plans for the future of Ripon.
A new bookstore system, modified campus parking plans and even improved Velorution support-programs were all among the topic that were released by the McMurtrey team. All strong, well-constructed and quite feasible
policies, the introduction of these programs quickly helped our camp fill the void of issues being discussed and moved the media‘s attention away from our trifecta.
As speeches proceeded and debates drew near, the McMurtrey camp could help but notice the many gaping holes in our opponent‘s plans. With these faults left largely untouched by the media outlets, our campaign shifted its strategy to expose the many issues through our advertisements. Focusing on the poor researching efforts and lack of factual evidence utilized by our opponents, the McMurtrey team took an offensive approach and entered into our ―fact-check week.‖ Using creative advertisements and witty flyers, our campaign called into question the opponent‘s credibility and plans of action. Despite the intended humor and sarcastic stings that our posters presented, the media and our opponent proved to have thinner-skin than we had thought as they cried foul.
With terms like, ―dirty politics,‖ ―mudslinging,‖ and ―negative advertisements,‖ being uttered on a regular basis, again the campaign found itself digging out of a hole.
With only a few short weeks remaining until election day, the team‘s strategy again made a drastic swing. Retreating from many of the comments and accusations made in the prior ad campaign, we began a campaign with a toned-down message. This plan of retreat with our advertisements seemed to pay off and along with the help of an interview on Hawk Talk Radio, team McMurtrey quickly experienced a rebound.
With the good graces of the media again jumping towards our campaign, we realized that while we had again pulled ahead in the race, this time we couldn‘t afford to lose our lead again. Vowing to rock the boat no more, the final weeks of our campaign strategy rested heavily on our ability to present our plans with detailed steps and comprehensive research.
Saving a majority of our campaign funds until the very end of the season, our team hosted a series of larger, expensive events in a last minute push. Realizing that the effectiveness of posters are quite limited on a college campus, we had planned to host these events, including parties with cookies and pizza, because we knew that they would be very effect and draw a large number of students. As students reach the end of the semester, we realized that free food would become ever more attractive. Holding these events the day prior and the day of the election, we felt these events helped to complete our strategic last minute push.
Throughout the campaign, our team was very much at ease in identifying target audiences. Looking at the bigger picture and realizing that the overall, the broad interests of Ripon College students don‘t typically vary in an extreme manner, our team dismissed the concept of selecting target audiences with only 1,000 student on our campus.
Campaign Slogans & Theme
As the campaigning process began, the team had the daunting task of assembling a few short words, a tagline of sorts, to sum up our candidates goals, behaviors and abilities. The time the McMurtrey team devoted to this brainstorming process was literally hours as dozens of possibilities were tossed around. In the end it was decided that the phrase, ―A Commitment to Excellence,‖ best represented the McMurtrey team‘s image and campaign.
We made efforts to not only apply the newly coined slogan to our advertisements, but rather everything we did as a campaign. All of our campaign documents, news releases, presentations and advertisements were meticulously constructed to ensure professionalism and class. We also made conscious efforts to brand our candidate with our Team McMurtrey
bumper sticker image/logo, placing our GM watermark on all official campaign documents and formatting all of our works similarly. It was our belief from the beginning that in doing all of this, not only would it make what our campaign presented legitimate, it also made our group seem quite professional.
A chart is available in Appendix A listing all of our candidate‘s appearances throughout the campaign.
A chart is available in Appendix B listing all of our candidate‘s appearances throughout the campaign.
As with any campaign process, a candidate and their team are going to have an easier time spreading their message and receiving favorable coverage if they keep the media in their good graces. The McMurtrey camp for the duration of the campaign experienced both shortages and surges of support from our media. Realizing that the media holds a lot of power in influencing voters, our team constantly strived to improve upon our relationship with the campaign‘s three media outlets.
Besides submitting advertisements to their paper for print, the campaign team‘s interactions with the Red Hawk Courier were very limited. While we did maintain a healthy, working relationship with the editor and staff writer, we felt that the paper was unwilling to fully pick up our message in their works. We did continue to advertise within the paper, realizing the high circulation rate that the Courier has on campus.
Our odd-ball media outlet, the Pink Chicken, again like the Courier did not engage fully with our team‘s campaign or ideas. As a team however, we spent little time preparing to deal with interactions between ourselves and the chicken. With the introduction of the paper‘s third-party candidate, we felt ourselves distanced even further with the editor.
Finally, our campaign invested much of our efforts into the WRRH, Hawk Talk Radio program. Having to vocal, student announcers, it quickly became apparent that Hawk Talk would become the mainstream and likely most influential media source in the campaign. Throwing shots at our campaign early on, misquoting content from a post-speech interview and quite vocally poking fun at our campaign‘s platform, it became high priority for our team to win back the support of the radio program. In an effort to do this, we scheduled an on-air interview with our candidate in hopes that at least for that week‘s program, the jabs would stop flying and we would get some favorable coverage. It worked. In the weeks following, while the claws did again come out at times, the radio staff stayed pretty upbeat and in favor of our candidate‘s efforts.
From the Office of the Advertisement Specialist By: JJ Rank
Throughout the Political Communication course it became apparent to the Garrison McMurtrey campaign that advertising is a crucial factor in the campaign process. The weekly advertisement presentations were statements that demonstrated which direction the campaign would be heading. Based on these advertisements, the media, the opposing campaign, and the hypothetical campus society would react accordingly. As advertisements are so impactful, they can greatly improve or detract from the candidate‘s campaign. To ensure that advertisements do not harm the campaign, a great amount of strategy is involved with placement of ads, targeting audiences, and actual development of ads.
Advertisements are the embodiment of the campaign strategy. Overall, the primary focus of the Garrison McMurtrey campaign was the aptly named ―trifecta.‖ This is composed of three main foci that formed the strategical base of the McMurtrey campaign. These focuses are experience, dedication, and well-connectedness. While utilizing the trifecta the primary means of advertising were via flyers, newspaper articles, and less
conventional ads. Some ads were positive but a large number of ads were meant to point out flaws in the opposition‘s campaign. This was a risky move on the part of the McMurtrey campaign as it could‘ve backfired. Luckily, the advertisements had the most desirable effect and benefited the campaign to an extent.
Another overarching strategy of the McMurtrey campaign was that a focus on the entire student body instead of specific groups would be beneficial. Also, the McMurtrey campaign stressed consistency in all facets of the campaign. As an outsider, a consistent approach to issues, advertisements, slogans, and the trifecta itself were extremely evident. With this in mind, it was the purposeful strategy of the McMurtrey campaign to budget campaign funds efficiently to save for a final push that would overwhelm the opposition. These strategies were the basis of the McMurtrey campaign and according to the media (who recently cast their votes for the next student body president) these strategies were extremely effective as Garrison McMurtrey won the election.
The media played an enormous role for both campaigns. The media consisted of classmates who composed the Red Hawk Courier, the Pink Chicken, and the Hawk Talk Radio Show. The Red Hawk Courier was the main media outlet that the McMurtrey campaign chose to utilize. Two quarter page ads were placed in this paper. The first was released in issue 4 on November 10th, 2009. The second was placed in issue 5 on November 24th, 2009. The first ad in the paper was the official campaign logo, and the second was the much talked about ―I can, and I will‖ advertisement. At a price of thirty dollars per ad, it would not put a large dent in the campaign‘s budget which was a contributing factor as to why the McMurtrey campaign chose the Red Hawk Courier as its primary outlet. The other reason why the Courier was heavily favored in comparison to other media outlets was because of its accessibility. Hypothetically speaking, more students on campus will read the college newspaper than they will an underground paper or listen to a radio show. As a primary strategy of the McMurtrey campaign was to target all members of the student body, this was the most effective media outlet and targeted a greater audience.
The Pink Chicken on the other hand, while respected by the McMurtrey campaign, was not utilized at all. This is because the Pink Chicken was read only by a small number of ―underground‖ students. This of course does not comply with the McMurtrey campaign strategy to focus on the whole student body. Also, the Pink Chicken was Team McMurtrey
often controversial and radical. These are two adjectives that no campaign team wants attributed to them, and thus the McMurtrey campaign team did not want to harm its credibility by placing ads in such a paper.
The Hawk Talk Radio Show is the final media outlet to discuss. As a campaign team, we decided that it was not necessary to develop radio ads. They are costly and did not reach as large of an audience as the Courier. However, Garrison McMurtrey did participate in a live interview with the talk show hosts. We recognize that radio ads may have been beneficial to the campaign, but the team wanted to conserve as much of the budget as possible for the aforementioned final push. With this said it is important to note the significance of the radio show in the campaign. The Hawk Talk Radio Show was very critical and the McMurtrey campaign team based advertisements and adjustments to campaign strategy on this show. I feel that I speak for all members of the Garrison McMurtrey campaign team when I say that the radio show was the media outlet that focused on issues and offered the greatest replication of campus wide views.
Once again ads are a crucial factor in campaigning. The Garrison McMurtrey campaign team produced ads that can be broken into three groups or phases. In the beginning of the campaign the team focused on Garrison himself and portraying his unique qualities that make him the best presidential candidate. After encountering platform issues with the media and the opposition, the McMurtrey campaign team felt as if they were no longer the frontrunners. This is when the team switched its advertisement focus to negative ads that expose the extensive flaws in the oppositionâ€˜s platform/campaign. Once the McMurtrey campaign reclaimed frontrunner status it was the consensus that it was no longer necessary for negative ads to be produced and may in fact hinder the
campaign. Throughout these three phases the campaign team focused primarily on the use of flyers that are Team McMurtrey
dispersed evenly throughout the campus. These flyers were to be placed in all facilities, living areas, and
administration buildings on campus. The McMurtrey campaign shied away from advertising to specific groups and wanted to focus on all students as the entire student body is effected by on-campus issues. As a campaign team, we recognized that Greek life is a majority representation of Ripon College students but did not feel it was necessary to tailor ads to these groups. The fact that Garrison McMurtrey is a member of Greek life functioned as an enthymeme.
When looking deeper into the first phase of advertising in the campaign, the focus was on Garrison‘s extensive and exceptional qualities. These ads focused primarily on the trifecta and utilized the prestige of Ripon College. The campaign team focused greatly on the third aspect of the trifecta which is well-connectedness in this phase. This ties directly into Ripon College as Garrison knows who to talk to and how to get things done due to his numerous connections on campus. This was an aspect of the McMurtrey campaign that greatly differed from the opposition. This was somewhat of a dual function as it displayed Garrison‘s connections and exposed it as a weakness in Erin Schaick‘s campaign. The advertisements in this stage used a distinct watermark of Ripon College‘s logo which contributed to the assimilation that Garrison McMurtrey is Ripon College and is its best candidate. Also, these were the first ads that displayed our consistent and strong slogan, ―A Commitment to Excellence.‖ It was this slogan that would be used throughout the remainder of the campaign. .
After encountering platform issues that were greatly exposed by the media, there was a great shift in campaign strategy. This shift made advertisements negative in an attempt to gain lost ground. The ads in this phase were very aggressive and very negative. The advertisements in this phase ordered the opposing campaign to check their facts, question who Erin Schaick was, attack their slogan, and tore apart their plans to better Sodexo and parking
issues. These types of ads benefited the campaign until it was deemed necessary to bring the focus back onto the McMurtrey campaign.
When these ads brought the focus back onto Garrison it started the third phase of advertising in which the McMurtrey campaign team halted all negative ads. These ads introduced a new slogan to go along with the first which was ―I can, and I will.‖ The team also focused once again on the trifecta. At this point in time the media had poked fun at this trifecta but the McMurtrey campaign felt that this may in fact be beneficial to the campaign and utilized the term. A large part of this phase‘s advertising included non-conventional and creative methods of advertisement. It was at this time that funds conserved in the budget would be utilized and in a big way.
The McMurtrey campaign developed bumper stickers, stickers, and a very large banner as forms of advertisement. The banner which was 3‘x5‘ was hung on the side of the library facing the commons and displayed the primary logo of the McMurtrey campaign. Unlike other forms of advertising there was a heightened probability that all students on-campus would see such a large sign at some point. The stickers were passed out during a meet and greet in the Commons and displayed the ―I can, and I will‖ advertisement. Bumper stickers were also developed that displayed the primary logo and weren‘t necessarily meant for use on vehicles, but may have been used on doors, bicycles, or windows.
These forms of advertisement as well as election eve/election day parties contributed to the McMurtrey campaigns final push in the weeks and days before the election. At these parties, funds were used to order customized M&M‘s, cookies, pizza, and soda. The purpose of this was to leave a fresh and lasting impression on the student body leading into the election.
Advertisement Target Audience As stated previously, there was a consistent target audience throughout the course of the campaign. These audiences were not specific groups; instead the audience was the entire student body. Flyers were dispersed evenly throughout campus and other forms of advertisement were meant to reach the greater audience. Although this was the primary strategy concerning audiences, the speeches applied to specific groups. The first speech focused on first year students, and the second focused on leaders of on-campus organizations. It was through other forms of advertisement that the McMurtrey campaign would attempt to influence the entirety of Ripon College.
Throughout this campaign the importance of advertising was evident. Each ad demonstrated the current campaign strategy, shifts in campaign strategy, and weaknesses in the oppositionâ€˜s campaign. A campaign team can set themselves apart with excellent advertisement strategies. The Garrison McMurtrey campaign was a fun and adventurous learning experience. This campaign team focused on the entire student body and brought Garrisonâ€˜s excellent presidential qualities to light while diminishing the oppositions. Although this campaign may not have been one-hundred percent effective it was successful in the long run.
From the Office of the Debate Specialist By: Lori Schroeder
Furthering Campaign Strategy
A debate helps campaigns separate themselves from the competition and project an image to specific audiences. Since Garrison is better known around campus than Erin, we didn‘t feel the need to target any specific group in our debates. The first year students had already been addressed in prior speeches, and they would be one of Garrison‘s weaker groups. Our debates were meant to appeal to every student on campus. Debates also increase audiences, although in a simulation where the voter turnout is preset, this point had little effect. Debates also help to get knowledge to the voter and can change or solidify a person‘s image. Garrison included as many details as possible in his answers to not only inform the voter but also solidify his image as someone in the know.
Rules of the Game
The first debate was ―Oregon‖ style with initial questions prompted by a moderator. The second was a more formal, traditional debate setting. We wanted to have one confrontational style debate because Garrison was more aggressive than Erin, so he could ask the tough questions, while Erin, we felt, would do a worse job coming up with responsive questions on the fly. Garrison appeared more comfortable in front of a crowd. He‘s gregarious and can fill time, so we wanted to have as long as time segments as the other team allowed. This way, when Garrison filled the time and Erin didn‘t, Garrison talked for the majority of the debate, and Erin seemed short-
winded. While this worked phenomenally in the second debate, the lack of knowledge about the questions before the first debate made the time limits too long even for Garrison.
We also wanted to have everything possible (paper, pencil, water, etc.) with the candidates in hope of Erin developing a nervous tick. While Erin didnâ€˜t develop a tick, the presence of these items did not hinder Garrisonâ€˜s performance. He even utilized the paper effectively in the first debate to remember questions he wanted to ask Erin. We had wanted limited, if any, preparation for the questions. Based on the question and answer sessions after the speeches, Garrison could field random questions better than Erin, so we wanted to include that advantage as much as possible. In the second debate, however, we had to compromise and allow notes. This worked slightly in our favor because Erin heavily relied her note card during the debate while Garrison only glanced at it a couple of times during the opening and closing.
We wanted to have both candidates standing because Garrison is taller than Erin. We settled for one standing and one sitting. However, Garrison is still taller than Erin when sitting, so it worked out fine. The standing debate worked even better than expected because Erin was almost swallowed up by the podium.
For location, we wanted a large room because Garrison has a louder voice than Erin. He could fill such a room, and she ran the risk of falling flat. We also wanted to avoid a small room because Garrisonâ€˜s voice might seem too loud for the small room. The conference room was smaller than preferred, but it seemed larger than it was with the lighting, so Garrison filled it nicely. The Great Hall was our ideal location; however, with the date of the second debate changed, the student senate chambers worked well for us as well. It allowed Garrison to highlight his knowledge of the Senate in addition to being filling the larger room as a speaker.
As far as moderators go, we would have loved to have Chris Schaffer moderate as the current president, but we didnâ€˜t think it likely to have him pass. We didnâ€˜t want Steve Martin because we felt it added a too much to his plate, and we wanted someone who could focus almost purely on the debate itself. We also felt that Luke was a dangerous choice for moderate because as the underground newspaper, he would be unpredictable. Paul Williams was a name brought up right before class commenced, and we decided that running with the media would be both appropriate and safe.
In hindsight, we should have had the purely media questions debate be the first, so the media could set a larger tone in the campaign. If we had the candidates and moderator debate second, we could have driven home our points better in the final stretch.
Debate Coach Log
See Appendix C for coaching notes for each debate in back of chapter
Wednesday, November 18th, ninety minutes Opening and closing statements Overall message of debate and general tips for the debate as a whole Discussing what to bring out and what to try to play down on our platform Solidified responses for our two questions for the debate Brainstormed possible questions and discussed how to answer them Wednesday, December 2nd, fifteen minutes Changes from first debate New themes and general tips for the change in debate style Discussing questions received and the specific answers Opening and closing statements
G M Candidate Analysis
Garrison did a good job at both debates. His answers to questions where spot on in both debates in accordance to where the campaign wanted to go. Unfortunately, he did say a couple of lines that were taken out of context and used against the campaign, such as his remarks about Josh DeWar. These remarks, however, were necessary to defend Garrison‘s position. He used up much more of the time allowed than Erin did. In the first debate, he used less because the answers could not be prepared before. He talked to the twenty second sign once which is more than Erin did. In the second debate, Garrison was frequently talking up to and through the thirty second warning.
In the first debate, Garrison did a good job of being the friendly opposition by greeting and welcoming Erin while still maintain that he was a step above. We wanted Garrison to be less attacking in this debate because o f the series of ads we released the week before in which we were accused of mudslinging. Despite the fact that the media called the debate a ―love fest‖ in which both candidates simply agreed with each other, Garrison agreed with Erin far less than she agreed with him. When Garrison agreed with Erin, the questions were not platform related. Both candidates agreed that free speech on campus was good and that the senior class had the right to determine what their gift would be. Taking the opposite stance on either of these issues would have been against the ideals of Ripon College. In this debate, Garrison threw almost as many questions at Erin as he did to the media in the second one about the failures in her plan. Erin evaded or ignored most of these questions which the media chose not to comment on.
In the second debate, Garrison addressed his questions to the media and reinforced their importance with the election date. Being more formal, Garrison addressed Erin less than in the ―Oregon‖ style. The second debate we Team McMurtrey
wanted to set ourselves apart and show why. Pointing out the evasive nature of the Schaick campaign while highlighting the strengths of our own was how we chose to highlight this. Despite the fact the media said that Garrison came out shooting at this debate, almost all of his remarks on the Schaick campaign had been said in the previous debate in less attacking tones.
Of the two candidates, Garrison looked more at ease especially in the first debate where the sitting down, close quarters made it a more personal setting. Garrison pulled off the relaxed tone better than Erin. He looked comfortable and charismatic. Wearing suits definitely worked for Garrison, and it matched the approached the Schaick campaign. As far as delivery goes, Garrison was stronger for the second debate as expected because the questions were released ahead of time. The only time in either debate where Garrison did poorly in delivery would have been the second debate when asked what the McMurtrey campaign would do differently. The question caught the team off guard, but we were able to use the spin time afterwards to expand on his answer.
Overall, Garrison represented himself and the campaign positively in both the debate and the spin sessions afterwards. The debate helped our campaign forward our messages and reveal Garrison to be the candidate with the answers to the tough questions.
From the Office of the Speech Specialist By: Ashley Kaminski
Our campaign team based everything off of what came to be known as the â€•trifectaâ€–. This includes dedication, experience, and well-connectedness. In our initial presentation of the platforms, we presented this. We were trying to establish Garrison with the trifecta as well as explain how we plan to tackle the issues on campus and the main attributes Garrison brings to the table.
Speech one started of with more of a welcoming statement. Garrison spoke to first year students, so we wanted to make sure Garrison was not intimidating and that he could relate to them. He started of relating the fact he is from the south and far away from home so he knows what is like to have to adjust. Garrison put himself out there right away as a friend and mentor not just a student that is super involved and running for president of the student body.
The conclusion of speech one was about Garrison re-welcoming them and stating that he is always available if they need him. He tried a lot of ice-breakers to get a relaxed environment and just make it friendlier. We used the trifecta in this speech to explain who Garrison is and how he operates. We wanted to relieve all intimidation factors and to make sure that the first years understood Garrison is the best candidate, because of the trifecta, but
he is still a welcoming and go to kind of guy. Garrisonâ€˜s ultimate goal of this speech was to make himself known, available, and just put himself out there to make the first-years comfortable with him.
The introduction to speech two is as follows: Welcome. I would like to thank you all for coming, as Presidents of organizations, I know you are all very busy and your time is valuable. When elected for Student Body President, I will address three major issues on campus. We used a shorter and less personable introduction because the organization presidents understand how the college campus works; also we know how busy they must be. After the short introduction we decided to get right into the issues and make sure we covered everything we wanted. The first issue we presented that we would take on was high book costs. Garrison is currently working on a plan to implement a new book charge option and we thought it was perfect to tackle because most classes use books and students have a problem with the high costs. We took a look at food as well, but we wanted a different approach. It was perfect we were speaking to organization leaders because we asked them to help out and assure students were able to get the food they wanted. We did not want to completely blame Sodexho because they do have god options; it was a matter of choosing the options on the right days and coordinating the food properly. The last issue we discussed in speech two was parking. Students always want a new parking plan, and since fees are going up, so are the issues associated with parking. This is another good reason we were speaking to organization leaders because they are most likely upper-classmen and have been around to see parking change, and become more of a problem. We understand the college has fees, so we tried to implement a plan that is a win-win deal. It was our focus not to bash the college, but rather take a look at how we can work with the college.
Speech two concluded with Garrison explaining how he is not afraid to be friends with organizations. We chose to state that based off of Erinâ€˜s slogan of being friends with people and not organizations and also because Garrison is known to be a part of organizations and exploring his options, and we wanted to assure that it is true, Team McMurtrey
he loves being involved. Our next statement of the conclusion included that we are ready to implement our plans and tackle the issues, with us there is no maybes or what ifs, we know what we are doing and we are ready to move forward. The last statement of the conclusion asked that everyone joins Garrison in taking a step in the right direction to bigger and better things; and join Garrison in his commitment to excellence.
In both of these speeches we applied the trifecta by having Garrison clearly state where to go to when needing an issue addressed, which applies his well-connectedness. Garrison applied dedication by stating in the speeches how he is already working on the plan and not waiting until he is elected, and how he does not just sit around. He stated and performed to his experience by explaining what organizations and plans he has worked toward already and how he will use his experience to continue to help the college move forward with innovation.
In the question and answer portion we went ouver with Garrison the good and the bad that is most likely to come up. Garrison was very well-prepared for al angles, especially the angles that were going to â€•bashâ€– him for being a residential assistant, and also for how much he is involved in. We knew from the get-go that Garrison was going to get a lot of wrath for being a residential assistant, so we had plans for that and made sure he knew how he would handle that. We found a lot of flaws in Erinâ€˜s campaign and realized we had a lot of differences from the beginning, so we talked about how we would take on those differences. Garrison was coached on hw to respond when asked a question about how he felt Erin and him matched up and in regards to what he thought of their campaign. We knew we had to know all the aspects and kinks of the plans and ideas we had in regards to the campus issues, so we determined al the flaws that may come up and how we would deal with them. For instance, this is why we made our parking plan a two year trial rather than just saying it will work and we will implement it. Team McMurtrey
Garrison was coached on being a little more subtle in order to not completely flaunt his experience and the titles he already has made for himself. We knew that if we were arrogant or came across that Garrison was better than Erin, and then our campaign would have a lot to work through and overcome. We wanted to apply the trifecta to everything, but we also wanted to show that it is just the facts, it is who Garrison is, and we are not being arrogant. Also, our campaign tried to just be about the facts, therefore, in Garrisonâ€˜s responses to things that is what we wanted, him to stick to the facts and not to the what-ifs or maybes.
G M From the Office of the Candidate By: Garrison McMurtrey
This was a campaign that strived to commit to excellence from day one. Once we figured out our roles on the team, everyone immediately wanted to run a campaign that would win. As the candidate, I knew that I would not play the role the way I heard previous candidates did. My role would not just be to give speeches and participate in the debate. Therefore, I explained to my team, from day one, that I would be playing a role in every aspect of the campaign.
Speech writing was the first section to realize that my promise would become reality. Originally, I had Ashley send me a write-up of what kind of speech she saw me giving to the first year students. Once I read it, I realized that we should talk in person and then she would understand how I operate as a public speaker. I explained that I didnâ€˜t want to read solely from the manuscript, and that having bullet points would help. I also informed her that I would sometimes go off of script and add anecdotes where I saw they were needed. These were all suggestions that she agreed to and understood that in order for me to feel comfortable with giving the speech; I had to incorporate some of my public speaking methods.
Next was the work I did with Lori, prior to the debates. Before I was chosen as the candidate for the group, I let everyone know that I had previous debate experience. Although I knew a lot about debate techniques, it was very helpful having Lori in that role. Since, I was debating a female; it was nice to have the perspective of a female on Team McMurtrey
how to be forceful while not coming off as a bully. At each of our debate meetings, Lori mapped out specific issues, such as Residence Life and food services, to differentiate myself from Erin. I really applied her suggestions in the second debate, when I became more forceful. She explained that since it was the final debate that my goal should have been to acknowledge that Erin had no real plans and lay out my specific plans.
I believe that my performance as a candidate was fairly good. As a major voice in all decisions being made, I felt comfortable with every situation I was put into. The first speech was a great example of how I applied many of the characteristics my team thought I would bring as a candidate, to the speech. I wanted to be specific with the platform after the media‘s backlash towards my original platform. In addition, I wanted the speech to the first years to focus around issues that would affect them, while being encouraging and motivating, all at once. I felt that I accomplished a personable, yet forceful appeal in both speeches. Our team wanted to portray me as a true leader on this campus who could get things done.
This could also be said about the debate. I applied all of my past debate skills to the two debates. The first ―lovefest‖ debate benefited me as a candidate because I didn‘t come off as this overbearing bully that our team believed others expected. Therefore, once we saw the frustration from the media, we realized that I could be more forceful in the second debate. I also didn‘t rely heavily on notes in the debates, especially the second one. By not focusing on notes, it ensured that my image of being a knowledgeable leader on campus was being conveyed.
Advertising also was important to the campaign, and was another section that I frequently voiced my opinion on. Early on, I knew that I didn‘t want to have negative ads unless I was attacked first. Luckily, the opposite team made a statement to the press about me being ―ignorant‖, and we believed that was the first shot. Therefore, I viewed that our next ads should have focused around bringing the flaws in Erin‘s plan to the surface.
Overall, I believed that our strategy of centering the campaign on what the media deemed the â€•trifectaâ€– worked. It kept the campaignâ€˜s message consistent and established me as an assertive and determined leader. I believe what really worked for this campaign was that I was being myself throughout this campaign. My reputation on campus has been as this confident, well-spoken student, and I wanted to incorporate that into my candidacy. Every issue that we discussed and viewpoints that I conveyed throughout the campaign were the same that I maintain in real life. Ultimately, this made it easier for me to exude confidence in speeches and debates because I agreed with all the stances that I was taking. In the end, this campaign was very exciting and ended up being successful because of a campaign team who let me be myself as a candidate.
G M Appendix A â€“ Candidate Appearances
From the Office of the Campaign Manager By: Rusty Schultz
Fuente Ovejuna Mr. Ripon Man Pageant Take Over the Union Symphonic Wind Ensemble Comedian Bobby Miyamoto Theta Chi House Meeting Phi Kappa Pi House Meeting Phi Delta Theta House Meeting WRPN Brainbowl Contest Choral Union Meet & Greet with David Joyce GM Party in the Pub International Relations Club Meeting GM Election Day Party GM Election Eve Party
11/5/2009 11/12/2009 11/13/2009 11/20/2009 11/20/2009 11/29/2009 12/2/2009 12/5/2009 12/5/2009 12/6/2009 12/8/2009 12/9/2009 12/10/2009 12/10/2009 12/10/2009
Appendix B â€“ Campaign Spending From the Office of the Campaign Manager By: Rusty Schultz
Red Hawk Courier Bumper Stickers Total Flyer Printing 3' x 5' FedEX Kinko's Banner Promo Stickers Pub Party - Cookies & Drinks Elction Day Pub Party - Pizza & Soda Election Eve Party- Personalized M&M's
Total Campaign Spending:
2 1/4 ads 50 240 1 240 # # #
$60.00 $75.00 $4.80 $135.99 $21.50 $150.00 $150.00 $130.00
Appendix C – Coaching Notes From the Office of the Debate Specialist By: Lori Schroeder
DEBATE ONE STRATEGY AND NOTES
1. Look at her 2. Candidate Schaick 3. Lower voice
Over-arching theme: I can, I will (Stay Positive) 1. 2. 3. 4.
Her plans are not feasible She doesn‘t know how to implement You are capable Throw in any of the trifecta as appropriate
When Paul asks to Us (2 min): 1. 2. 3. 4.
Answer How it is different How does it solve Attacks / Questions
Rebuttal (1 ½ min):
1. Address attacks 2. Attack back 3. Why ours is better
When Paul asks to them (2 min): 1. 2. 3. 4.
Attack their plan Discuss our plan (switch with above if better) Knock down any defenses ahead of time Explain why ours is better
Stuff to bring up when questioning Erin (general):
Policy!!! How would she enact, who would she talk to, what would be the cost, where would this take place, etc. How does she explain the ―sliding‖ her campaign had out of the gate? ―That‘s your opinion‖ Vicky Weber (quote from spin session) ―Yep‖ Erin Schaick (quote from question and answer session after speech two)
Platform Topics: Parking Plan
Extra work for RA: no, one phone call Less work for Plant, no patrolling No rise in costs 20% have to pay more (1 in 5, over 80 students (because they said there are >400 spaces)) Why haven‘t you changed your parking plan due to the attacks made by the media?
You have all the info you need Erin has yet to talk about this issue herself (Vicky has).
Explain better Difficulties with multiple bikes Not given to Class of 2011 because money ($50,000) is from gifts (―from friends of the College, Trustees and alumni‖) http://www.ripon.edu/velorution/partners.html (Partners who help with funding) Last year, there were 20 extra bikes, lottery to upperclassmen who gets them (must sign the pledge also) Where would this extra money for the ‘11 bikes come from?
Currently semester switches are easy Adult students, find their own switchers instead of waiting for one to be found (Senior Apartments should be academics first) Where exactly should these mid-semester switches go? (What‘s the issue with no same-sex roommates?)
Encourage groups Let students talk to committee about hours She‘s all for letting the voice of the students be heard, why is she stepping between their voice and the organization that will listen? Media says issue is dead ―Campus Thoughts‖ pf the Red Hawk Courier. Volume 1, Issue 3 (10/29) Where exactly are these calorie counts supposed to be?
Not ignorant The process for becoming an RA The additional tasks RA‘s have to deal with (puke, roommate trouble, etc.) The decrease in notices There is no issue with you as an RA What‘s her plan?
The ―negative‖ turn in campaign
This campaign is about facts We never attacked Erin Plan has some faults Implications of plans not thought through I have been personally attacked (College Democrats), my platform hasn‘t
You had this pretty well covered in our meeting Talk about how it makes you connected, etc.
DEBATE TWO STRATEGY AND NOTES Tips:
1. It‘s the more formal debate, set that tone and make her follow 2. ―Candidate Schaick‖ say ―Shake‖ unless she corrects you. She hasn‘t corrected the media. 3. Use the whole time. Do not stop talking unless you have used up all the time. I don‘t know if Mike is going to raise a hand like Tyler did because it‘s not in the rules, but talk until you‘re stopped. If she talks the same amount as before and we fill the space, we‘ll dominate the debate.
Over-arching theme: We are different. We are better. We have actual plans. 1. 2. 3. 4.
She doesn‘t have plans, she has problems and ideas. You have plans, implementations, etc. We‘re going to hit harder, not be negative per se, but ask some tough questions Also, point out everything they have done that might be construed as negative. If we‘re getting grief for it, they might as well too.
When we get question (3 min): 1. 2. 3. 4.
Answer Tie into platform some how How different Attacks
When they get question (3 min): 1. 2. 3. 4.
Defend Attacks To question To platform they brought up, or own issue Attack back
Stuff to bring up when questioning Erin (general):
Policy!!! How would she enact, who would she talk to, what would be the cost, where would this take place, etc. How does she explain the ―sliding‖ her campaign had out of the gate? Schaick = Puppet of her campaign, does she have any ideas of her own for if she ―wins‖ ―I think we were talking about.‖ Does she not know? (Apathy issue, quote from radio show)
We’ll look into it, do research. The election just over a week away, I think the time for ―researching‖ platforms is over. Erin‘s campaign is floundering, sending mixed messages, members contradicting into each other. (We‘ll probably save this for spin)
All question scripts/ideas are adaptable as you wish. Since you had these questions longer, I‘m sure you have some better ideas, but on all of them, if we get the question first don‘t ease off the soft attacks that she can easily counter and hit the harder ones. I have a couple I‘m not sure how we want to approach as a campaign: Luke‘s minority rights one and the RA question. 1. What do you feel is your opponent's greatest strength? How do you compare to that?
Erin is playing the role of the ―outsider‖ in this race, and I think that it helps her some. There are students frustrated with the administration at this college that could be drawn to her. However, her campaign has implied overtimes that I‘m the opposite of her—I‘m too involved to act for the students. But that‘s what I‘ve been doing for the past three years. I‘ve been giving my constituents a voice. I‘m not a puppet of the administration, and she casts that faulty shadow. I think the students of Ripon College are smart enough to see that smoke screen and want to deal with the issues. That is what I am bringing in this campaign. Pick your favorite plan. 2. What do you think is the most important issue that students face on this campus that is not being covered in the race?
If you want, we can hit the apathy issue, but I would steer clear of both that and communication. If we want to please Luke, we can talk about minority representation. But, I wouldn‘t. I‘d go with meal exchange hours and how, even though they‘re a part of our campaign platform (it is right?), it was overshadowed by the opposing team‘s calorie county plan and scandal and ―research.‖ It hasn‘t gotten the coverage it deserves because the current plan puts stress on busy students. If we get this one after Erin, DISAGREE with what Erin says no matter what. 3. "When was the last time you failed and how did you handle that failure?"
This is all up to you. Whatever you think fits, but make it tie back into the platform‘s success somehow. 4. Why should minority and GLBT populations vote for a campaign that ignores their issues?
5. What would you do to reduce the amount of political conservatism on campus while retaining a commitment to free speech?
I don‘t believe (avoid believe, think words) there is too much political conservatism on campus. Their presence on campus is disproportionately more visible than other presences, and I think the best way narrow this gap some comes from increased action of the groups opposed to the platforms of the conservative groups. If they feel like their groups are not getting the recognition they want, then it is up to the groups to increase their visibility. All of the same resources are available to them as the more conservative presence on campus. The last thing we want to Team McMurtrey
do is restrict free speech on campus. That is a road that few ever want to go down, especially when the restrictions are not in the hands of the students. Tie to food plan? Encouraging groups to be more active? 6. It has been repeatedly stated throughout the campaign that there needs to be reform and consistency amongst the RAs. However, what do you plan to do when RAs start enforcing policies consistently and students retaliate or disapprove of the increased enforcement?
Erin has no plan. I heard that her team scrambled to put together vague idea of where they think is the problem, but not how they would fix it. Then again, Erin switched the focus of their plan when she was on the radio show, so I really don‘t know at all what she actually plans to do here. 7. Apathy was deemed to be a problem on campus. How do you plan to get students more involved on campus? How do you "fix" an individual's choice
I don‘t see it as a matter of ―fix‖ing. Obviously, the students at Ripon have the freedom to spend their time as they wish. I think what is needed is more involvement opportunities. Joining an organization for weekly meetings is a large commitment in our busy college lives. I think that students need to be kept informed of what‘s going on. (Did the open roll call voting pass in the senate, because that‘s where I‘m heading with this?) 8. What mistakes has your campaign made and how are you addressing those mistakes?
This was Paul William‘s other question; I doubt that Steve will still use it, but it never hurts to be prepared. Throw in these plans as often as possible when it ties into questions: Details count [The same platform notes and question responses as Debate One were in original notes but have been cut here to save paper.] Issues to hit if possible:
Sr. Gift money is senior gift money… it‘s their choice and it is not the president‘s job to order people around on campus. I‘m not that guy. I don‘t want to be that guy. The role of the president is to listen and develop plans to help better campus. Taking away the right of seniors to pick their own gifts doesn‘t fit under that role.
Key card access to all doors: Price of a keycard machine is a grand plus per door. A tree costs under one hundred dollars. Ripon grads have success in the world putting their degrees to good use, but senior year, few are willing to fundraise the tens of thousands it would take to place key card scanners on all dorm doors.
I think the media is overreacting. We didn‘t attack Erin personally; we merely highlighted a couple facets of her campaign. Erin herself even said that she didn‘t think the ads were in anyway bad. I think it‘s time Erin truly answers some questions for herself. ―I think‖ ―I guess‖