In interviews on TV shows,
In papers, or in someone’s blog
The campaigns fight like no one knows,
To claim the title “underdog”.
One candidate’s the president
And one a multi-millionaire;
Some sympathy’d be heaven-sent
And underdogs make people care
Let’s make a play for sympathy
And keep the expectations low
We’re not expecting much—you see,
We’re underdogs in this year’s show
“The other side” both sides proclaim
“Is clearly in the privileged seat”
It’s almost like it’s all a game—
The only rule is, don’t get beat.
Your tactic’s weak; the best you’ve got’s
A line of bullshit claims to flog
These stupid claims, and low cheap shots
Dilute the name of “Underdog”.
This race is interesting, in that it pits a multi-millionaire underdog against an underdog incumbent president. I don’t think there was a candidate this cycle that did not try on the mantle of “underdog”. From the first link, at the NY Times:
When Mr. Romney says he’s an underdog, that’s not humility: that’s branding. Last year, a team of scholars that included Harvard’s Neeru Paharia and Anat Keinan published a study called “The Underdog Effect: The Marketing of Disadvantage and Determination through Brand Biography.” They defined “underdog brand biography” as “an emerging trend in branding in which firms author a historical account of their humble origins, lack of resources, and determined struggle against the odds.” Their research, they say, demonstrates that telling a story about yourself in which you are an underdog builds brand loyalty, especially in cultures where “underdog narratives are part of the national identity.” Pretending to be an underdog is good business.
That’s right, the multi-millionaire is making a play for your pity.
And yeah, in its own way… that’s pretty pitiful.