Super Tuesday is the day that 24 states hold primary elections to determine which candidate their delegates will back at the national convention (which is where the parties officially nominate a presidential candidate from among the field of contenders).

It’s a tight race between Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney.

However, on the eve of elections in these pivotal states, a new controversy is emerging around the candidates—or at least emanating from their stereos.

Rocker John Mellencamp has issued a statement to John McCain asking that he stop using his music in connection with his presidential bid.

Mellencamp rose to fame in the ‘80s thanks to his rootsy brand of rock music, and songs such as “Pink Houses,” “Small Town” and “Our Country.”

This isn’t the first time a Republican candidate has butted heads with a rock star.

In 1984, Ronald Reagan used Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.” in connection with his campaign, and Springsteen forced him to stop.

In 2000, Tom Petty asked George W. Bush to stop using his song, “I Won’t Back Down.”

But, with all of the uproar surrounding the candidates’ musical choices, you can’t help wondering if it really matters.

Does the fact that Republicans Reagan and George H.W. Bush used Lee Greenwood “God Bless the USA,” while a Democrat Bill Clinton favored Fleetwood Mac “Don’t Stop” really have any impact on the actions of voters?
Did John Edwards choice of using U2 “Pride (In the Name of Love)” cost him valuable votes in the primary and cause him to drop out of the race?

Probably not. So why does the campaign music matter so much?

Quite simply, the music is just one more chance for the candidates to try to separate themselves from one another and attempt to strike a chord, so to speak, with potential voters by stirring their emotions and subtly reinforcing their political messages through music.

The songs may not be strictly political in their lyrics, but candidates like Obama certainly realize the emotions being roused with the “freedom” lyrical refrain of Aretha Franklin’s not-at-all political song, “Think.”

Its role may seem subtle, but the decision of what music to play at a campaign rally is no doubt scrutinized by campaign managers every bit as thoroughly as every other aspect of the candidate’s message and appearance.

Therefore, it’s no surprise that the musicians responsible for these songs feel as though they should have some say in regard to which party is allowed to use their music to sell their message.

However, this control over the music becomes a tricky task.

Does a musician really have a say over who can use his or her music? If a candidate plays by the rules and pays the proper royalties and fees, aren’t they entitled to use whatever music they choose? Will artists start pulling their music from radio stations if they don’t like the commercials the station plays for a particular sponsor or product?

It’s an interesting question that will likely continue to develop over time, particularly as the landscape of the music industry continues to evolve and reinvent itself at such a rapid rate.

In the meantime, the only thing that seems certain is that Super Tuesday results will show the Republican candidates lost the rock star vote.

Now, if a candidate could figure out how to win over the parents of Hannah Montana fans, they’d win by a landslide.

Does music have an impact on voters?
Leave a comment and tell us what you think!