<p><em>Aim</em>: Over the years, marketing has become a more and more important tool in politics in general. In order to campaign successfully – and become the President-elect - in the U.S. Presidential Election, marketing is indispensable. This lead to enormous amounts of money spent on marketing. The aim of this research is to contribute to existing knowledge in the field of political marketing through the analysis of how marketing is done throughout a political campaign. The 2008 U.S. Presidential Primary Elections, together with a few key candidates have served as the empirical example of this investigation. Four research questions have been asked; what marketing strategies are of decisive outcome in the primary season of the 2008 political campaigning, how is political marketing differentiated depending on the candidate and the demographics of the voter, and finally where does the money come from to fund this gigantic political industry.</p><p><em>Method</em>: The exploratory method and case study as well as the qualitative research method have been used in this work. Internet has been an important tool in the search for, and collection of data. Sources used have been scientific articles, other relevant literature, home pages, online newspapers, TV, etc. The questions have been researched in detail and several main conclusions have been drawn from a marketing perspective. Correlations with theory have also been made.</p><p><em>Result & Conclusion</em>: In the primary season, the product the candidates have been selling is <em>change</em>. The Obama campaign successfully coined and later implemented this product into a grassroots movement that involved bottom-up branding of the candidate. This large base allowed for a different marketing strategy that implemented earlier and better organization in the caucus voting primary states resulting in an untouchable lead for the Obama campaign. The successful utilization of the Internet and social networking sites such as Facebook and YouTube led to enormous support, not least among the important group of young (first time) voters. It also served as the main base for funding throughout both the primary and the presidential season, effectively outspending the Clinton, and later, the McCain campaigns. This study has shown that there are differences in marketing when it comes to different presidential candidates even within the same party. Marketing activities and efforts also look different for different marketing groups.</p><p><em>Suggestions for future research</em>: This study was limited to the primary season; it would have been interesting to include the whole U.S. Presidential campaigning process from start to finish. In future research projects, it would also be interesting to see comparisons between political marketing in the U.S. and political marketing elsewhere, in Europe for example.</p><p><em>Contribution of the thesis</em>: This study contributes to increased knowledge when it comes to understanding the role of social media, grassroots movement, and bottom-up branding as a political marketing strategy. It also contributes to increased knowledge about political marketing in general. Furthermore, it shows the importance of marketing - and money - in American politics. Political parties as well as individual candidates may also find the results of this research useful for future campaigning.</p>

Aim: Over the years, marketing has become a more and more important tool in politics in general. In order to campaign successfully – and become the President-elect - in the U.S. Presidential Election, marketing is indispensable. This lead to enormous amounts of money spent on marketing. The aim of this research is to contribute to existing knowledge in the field of political marketing through the analysis of how marketing is done throughout a political campaign. The 2008 U.S. Presidential Primary Elections, together with a few key candidates have served as the empirical example of this investigation. Four research questions have been asked; what marketing strategies are of decisive outcome in the primary season of the 2008 political campaigning, how is political marketing differentiated depending on the candidate and the demographics of the voter, and finally where does the money come from to fund this gigantic political industry. Method: The exploratory method and case study as well as the qualitative research method have been used in this work. Internet has been an important tool in the search for, and collection of data. Sources used have been scientific articles, other relevant literature, home pages, online newspapers, TV, etc. The questions have been researched in detail and several main conclusions have been drawn from a marketing perspective. Correlations with theory have also been made. Result &amp; Conclusion: In the primary season, the product the candidates have been selling is change. The Obama campaign successfully coined and later implemented this product into a grassroots movement that involved bottom-up branding of the candidate. This large base allowed for a different marketing strategy that implemented earlier and better organization in the caucus voting primary states resulting in an untouchable lead for the Obama campaign. The successful utilization of the Internet and social networking sites such as Facebook and YouTube led to enormous support, not least among the important group of young (first time) voters. It also served as the main base for funding throughout both the primary and the presidential season, effectively outspending the Clinton, and later, the McCain campaigns. This study has shown that there are differences in marketing when it comes to different presidential candidates even within the same party. Marketing activities and efforts also look different for different marketing groups. Suggestions for future research: This study was limited to the primary season; it would have been interesting to include the whole U.S. Presidential campaigning process from start to finish. In future research projects, it would also be interesting to see comparisons between political marketing in the U.S. and political marketing elsewhere, in Europe for example. Contribution of the thesis: This study contributes to increased knowledge when it comes to understanding the role of social media, grassroots movement, and bottom-up branding as a political marketing strategy. It also contributes to increased knowledge about political marketing in general. Furthermore, it shows the importance of marketing - and money - in American politics. Political parties as well as individual candidates may also find the results of this research useful for future campaigning.

The aim of my thesis is to analyze the process of the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and identify the factors that had the biggest influence on the election results. The paper is divided into three chapters. The first chapter describes the rules for electing the U.S. president, the second chapter focuses on issues and the third on other factors that decided the election. My thesis is thus a study of how the U.S. president was elected in 2008 and of the issues currently most discussed in the American society.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the presence of first- and second-level agenda setting as well as issue ownership in the 2020 Democratic primary debates and whether there is a relationship between using strategies based on these theories and qualifying for future debates. The study seeks to answer three research questions: What is the relationship, if any, between a candidate whose statements focused primarily on the three issues considered most important by the public according to opinion polls and whether this candidate qualified for future debates? How did candidates use frames to redraw the attention of issues? What is the relationship, if any, between the extent to which a candidate’s statements discussed performance issues more than Republican-owned or Democratic-owned issues and whether this candidate qualified for future debates? The study draws mainly on the first and second level of the agenda setting theory, as well as the theory of issue ownership, and analyzes what issues candidates focus on, what attributes of these issues they emphasize, and whether they discuss performance issues like the economy or foreign policy more than issues owned by either the Republican or the Democratic Party. Through a quantitative content analysis of four candidates’ (Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, &amp; Andrew Yang) statements from three of the eleven primary debates held in the 2020 primary process, the study found no direct relationship between focusing on the public’s three most important issues and qualifying for future debates. Similarly, no such relationship was found between emphasizing certain attributes and qualifying for future debates, although the results suggest that candidates may have benefited from avoiding framing issues economically, which concurs with previous findings (Boydstun, Glazier, &amp; Pietryka, 2013a; Boydstun, Glazier, &amp; Phillips, 2013) and supports Vavreck’s (2009) theory that insurgent candidates should not emphasize the economy. Findings also demonstrated the contrasting ways three of the candidates framed the same issues, where Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar tended to emphasize economic frames when discussing Medicare while Bernie Sanders emphasized effectiveness. Lastly, the findings support previous research on issue ownership since findings showed that most candidates discussed Democratic-owned issues more than other issues, while the eventual presidential nominee, Joe Biden, overall discussed performance issues more than issues owned by either party. This suggests that focusing on such issues may be beneficial for challenging candidates during an election cycle where the sitting president has been criticized for not being able to handle the job. Thus, no direct relationship could be found in the case of RQ1 or RQ2 but discussing performance issues the most overall may have benefited one candidate, suggesting there is a relationship in the case of RQ3. / Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka förekomsten av första och andra nivån av dagordningsteorin samt av issue ownership i Demokraternas primärdebatter 2020 och huruvida det finns någon relation mellan att använda strategier baserade på dessa teorier och att kvalificera sig för framtida debatter. Studien undersöker tre frågeställningar: Vad är relationen, om någon, mellan en kandidat vars uttalanden under debatterna fokuserade främst på de tre frågor som väljarna ansåg var viktigast enligt opinionsundersökningar och huruvida denna kandidat kvalificerade sig för framtida debatter? Hur använde kandidaterna ”frames” för att kontrollera diskussionen kring frågor? Vad är relationen, om någon, mellan den utsträckning en kandidats uttalanden under debatterna diskuterade så kallade ”performance issues” mer än frågor ägda av det republikanska eller demokratiska partiet och huruvida denna kandidat kvalificerade sig för framtida debatter? Studien bygger huvudsakligen på den första och andra nivån av dagordningsteorin, liksom teorin om issue ownership, och analyserar vilka frågor kandidaterna fokuserar på, vilka attribut de betonar när de talar om dessa frågor och om de diskuterar performance issues såsom ekonomi eller utrikespolitik mer än frågor som ägs av antingen republikanska eller demokratiska partiet. Genom en kvantitativ innehållsanalys av fyra kandidaters (Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar och Andrew Yang) uttalanden från tre av de elva primärdebatterna som hölls under primärprocessen 2020 fann studien ingen direkt relation mellan att fokusera på de tre frågor som väljarna ansåg var viktigast och att kvalificera sig för framtida debatter. Det hittades inte heller någon sådan relation mellan att betona vissa attribut och att kvalificera sig för framtida debatter, även om resultaten tyder på att kandidater kan ha haft nytta av att undvika att betona ekonomiska attribut, vilket överensstämmer med tidigare resultat (Boydstun, Glazier, &amp; Pietryka, 2013a; Boydstun, Glazier, &amp; Phillips, 2013) och stöttar Vavrecks (2009) teori att så kallade ”insurgent candidates” drar nytta av att inte diskutera ekonomin mer än nödvändigt. Resultaten visade också hur olika kandidaternas inramning av en specifik fråga var, då Joe Biden och Amy Klobuchar hade en tendens att betona ekonomiska attribut när de talade om frågor gällande Medicare medan Bernie Sanders fokuserade mer på effektivitetsattribut.  Slutligen stöder studien tidigare forskning om issue ownership då resultaten visade på att de flesta kandidater diskuterade frågor ägda av det demokratiska partiet mer än andra frågor, medan den kandidat som slutligen skulle få det demokratiska partiets presidentsnominering, Joe Biden, totalt sett diskuterade performance issues mer än frågor ägda av något av partierna. Detta tyder på att ett fokus på sådana frågor kan vara till nytta för att utmanande kandidater under en valcykel där den sittande presidenten har kritiserats för sin hantering av arbetet. Således kunde ingen direkt relation hittas när det gällde RQ1 eller RQ2, men resultaten tyder på att en kandidat kan ha gynnats av att diskutera performance issues mest över lag, vilket i sig tyder på att det finns en relation gällnade RQ3.