Did ‘ The Good One’ lose?
IT couldn’t get any weirder. You could say it is the strangest of situations any incumbent politician could ever be in. It was as if he weren’t an incumbent.
In March of this year, less than two months before the elections, and, you could say, too late to do anything about it, Senator Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito was looking at his slide in the surveys, and hoping against hope:
“Sana yung Universal Health Care, maalala nila. Yung Department of Housing, sana maalala nila. Sana maalala na lang nila ang mga performance ( I wish they would remember Universal
Health Care and the Department of Housing. I wish they only would remember our performance).” - will not
tomer — the voter — remember.
JV Ejercito knew what he was up against. “Kahit konsehal or board member or kagawad, kapag dalawang members ng pamilya na sabay tumakbo, hindi ginagawa, kasi maghahati talaga, may nalilito ( Even for councilor or board member or village councilor, two family members running for public of
would be divided. This creates confusion).”
The advantage of the incumbent was lost: his half brother, a former senator, and more known, was running.
JV Ejercito was at 15th to 18th place in the surveys. He was static in the polls and in the eyes of the public. Simply stated, JV
person who would have had no problem retaining his seat in the Senate. He is that same person who won. What changed was the
powerful names running (Bato dela Rosa, Bong Go, and Imee
names were back Jinggoy Estrada).
Survey companies look for awareness and conversion: the number of people who know of a candidate, and the number who will vote for him. Between awareness and conversion is endearment. It is what makes a product become a brand. We needed to make people fall in love with the candidate.
( Lito Lapid,
Big lesson in political perception management
We wait for that glorious day in the history of this country when the people will vote with their heads. When issues will prevail over popularity, the principle rather than the person, his platform of government rather than
on one.
Well, that’s bunk.
Even well-developed countries display widespread rationalization of choice of candidate. “Voters form candidate preferences and thereafter change related political attitudes and beliefs so they become more consistent with their candidate choice,” wrote Jon A. Krosnick, Professor of Communication, Political Science, and Psychology, Stanford University.
It’s really nothing new or bizarre. We do this frequently. We fall in love with a sports car, and then rationalize the purchase by citing performance and safety.
Rationalizing Obama
When Roman Catholics were asked why they were voting for Barack Obama, the answer was “there are bigger issues.” Their stands, normally unyielding, on gay and abortion issues became casualties of rationalization. They fell in love with the man and rationalized their love for him.
We needed an aberrant story to shape the image of JV, to make people fall in love with him.
If an idea doesn’t scare you, it will be like a ship in the night, unseen, unnoticed, wending its way, making hardly a ripple. An idea that doesn’t scare will win everybody in the room, but it will be ineffectual, at the cash register or at the polls.
What is JV’s story?
We all know and recognize, and can name, the bad people in politics. It is stereotypical and global:
as crocodiles. It’s clipart.
Our campaign for JV Ejercito was blatantly aberrant. It laid claim to a story of performance and behavior, but juxtaposed it against the stereotype. We wanted to say ‘walang bahid, masipag, maraming nagawa (no scrupples, industrious, accomplished a lot)” — but succinctly.
We had the gall to say sing it:
“Sa pagpili ng senador, kailangan maging mapanuri. JV Ejercito… Doon ako sa mabait, Doon ako sa magaling, JV Ejercito… JV good, JV good. JV is the good one.”
(‘ In choosing a senator, we should be observant. JV Ejercito….I will side with the good. I will side with the one who has it, and