Campaign ads, bumper stickers, text messages, t-shirts , posters and pictures. Which, if any, of these propaganda techniques truly affect the outcome of a presidential election? With this coming Tuesday being election day for positions like homecoming queen and Colonel Reb on the Ole Miss campus, I’ve begun to wonder what exactly matters in a campaign. For the past hour I’ve been going door-to-door with a candidate for Colonel Reb, putting posters of the candidate on random doors throughout the freshman dorms. Are those posters really going to make a difference come Tuesday? And even if a poster convinces a person to favor that candidate, the poster can’t talk—it can’t convince that onlooker to make their way to the polls and actually vote.

Of course, the election of Colonel Reb and Miss Ole Miss are not at all as close in importance to the Presidential Election, however, some aspects of campaigning are common throughout. With millions and millions of dollars being spent by each presidential candidate on campaigning, I wonder which campaign tricks are worthwhile and which are not. I read an article about a month ago that explained that both McCain and Obama were fighting for Angelina Jolie’s endorsement. Would Angelina fans really race to the polls just because their favorite actress was photographed wearing an Obama or McCain t-shirt? Like the poster for the candidate for Colonel Reb, the picture of Angelina can’t speak to the voter, urging them to actually cast their vote.

Campaigning, I feel, should focus more on the candidates actual views—getting their platforms and opinions out to the general public, not just their name or their picture.