2012 Presidential Campaign Analysis

The form in which political parties campaign has changed over time. And, there are many explanations historians provide describing the evolution of campaigns over time. In the present days, there is no doubt social media such as Facebook and Twitter has changed the game; these tools allow presidential nominees to reach far more people than ever before. It also allows the candidate to talk to people without filtration. In the last decade, the goal of the campaign focuses more on demoralizing the contestants than addressing real issues.

Over the years Campaigning in the U.S. has changed drastically because of technological advances, the internet, social media, and the real-time information sharing across the globe. One study suggest that over the years, examining 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, political advertising has become more negative. The Wesleyan Media Project’s charts states and 2004 election 45 percent of the ads were negative, where in 2012 about 65 percent of the ads were negative.1 There are many speculations on why these negative ads are increasing with every election, but one fact is that campaigns can use negativity to bring attention to a certain topic and sometimes benefit from the free media coverage if the controversy is popular enough.

In the 2016 election cycle, over 1.4 billion dollars was given to presidential candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016a). This is more than any other presidential election cycle in history (Price 2016). Another billion dollars was given to U.S. House of Representatives candidates, and about 600 million dollars was given to U.S. Senate candidates (Federal Election Commission 2016b). The majority of this money went to funding the candidates’ campaigns. This money controlled whose ads voter’s saw on television and which candidates were able to afford to travel the country campaigning for votes. In many cases, the candidate with the most money available won their election. Most campaigns are financed in large part by a small number

Candidates campaign to gain voters on their side by using the internet, TV, radio and they also post signs to persuade the public to their side.

That being said, however, I also think an equal (perhaps greater) problem is the role the media plays in any election. Journalists have human biases and often times they allow them to show by promoting those candidates with whom they agree philosophically or, even worse, providing more coverage for those they know will produce higher ratings.

The media runs rampant, promoting both true and fraudulent information. Many Americans do not trust political advertising because it lies about personal backgrounds, exaggerates, and take things out of context to manipulate voters’ sentiments. (Gerdes, Louise) Each year, it seems like the candidates find new and clever ways to cast their opponents in negative lights. A more recent example of this was the 2014 North Carolina Senatorial race between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis. An abundance of bruising commercials aired on the radio and television all around the state, bashing each candidate’s views, from taxation to abortions to women and gay rights. However, despite all this negative campaigning, the American public has learned to decipher between true and false. Mudslinging is not a new occurrence. With a long history dating back to the near founding of the country, negative campaigning had plagued nearly every political candidate in America. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams criticized each other mercilessly during the 1800 election, from foreign and domestic policies to their own person behavior (Gerdes, Louise). Alexander Hamilton, under his pseudonym “Phocion,” accused Thomas Jefferson of having an affair with on of his slaves (Editorial Accuses Jefferson). Jefferson was also accused of being an atheist, causing many older women to bury Bibles in their backyards in case he got elected. During the 1828 campaign, Andrew Jackson himself was accused of murdering Indians. His wife was charged with adultery (Kennedy, David M.). After many decades, Americans have learned to decrypt the negative campaign advertising and find the facts. The people are neither obligated to believe everything they listen to, nor are they required to gather their information from just one source. Newspapers, Internet articles, political speeches, and radio and televised news broadcasts, such as 60 Minutes and Face the

There has not been a critical election in recent years because mass media has created a less passionate partisan atmosphere. Candidate-centered politics allows candidates to reach out directly to voters through televised campaign ads and relay their opinions on public issues. Thus, a candidate’s message may reach a broader audience, including those of the opposite party, because anyone could see a campaign ad on a television, as opposed to going to a political rally of solely Republicans or Democrats. These candidates do not require as much help from their party’s members to recruit voters with political rallies or door-to-door recruitment; however, political rallies and door-to-door recruitment have a natural tendency to excite and unite parties more than television campaign ads that voters watch from their living-room sofa. Candidate-centered

America’s history of Presidents has been a long and grand one. With many close races, campaigns have been a crucial part of gaining votes. However the campaigns today are completely different compared to those before those before the nineteenth century. The ideals behind each voter differed greatly and the way each party gathered votes may have been considered strange today. Compared to the days where direct appeals were looked down upon, the American society has adapted itself with the advancement media and technology has made such appeals a common thing. Political parties have had to adapt to these

The 1992 and 2012 U.S. Presidential Elections were two of the most famously negative campaigns in history and share multiple similarities despite being separated by twenty years. In 1992, incumbent President George H.W. Bush was seeking reelection against Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, while the 2012 general election saw incumbent President Barack Obama seeking reelection against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. The campaigns of both incumbent presidents incorporated heavy use of television attack advertisements in the attempt to improve their political image, discredit their opponent, and win reelection.

In the Presidential race of 2008, it is estimated that the combined spending of outside groups, political parties, and candidates totaled to over five billion dollars (Beneson and Tarr 2012). American politics has created a culture of “political elites” that requires every candidate to raise millions of dollars. Although organizations like the FEC tracks these large sums of money, the amount of money a person must spend publicizing and promoting themselves has become uncontrollable. Jeb Bush’s Super PAC has already raised over 103 million dollars and filmed countless hours of interviews of the Candidate, skirting regulations within McCain-Feingold that prevent outside sources from directly creating scripts and advertisements with the Bush campaign (Miller and Elliot 2015). Although Bush and his supporters may have the constitutional right to raise millions of dollars, and publish deceptive advertisements, their actions still promote a sentiment of power that should not be allotted to one person. Regardless of the strides that have been made to reduce corruption within campaign finance reform, and support citizen’s most basic freedoms to support whichever candidate they wish, the entire campaign process has become too politically elite. The necessity for million dollar campaigns and extensive financial backing prevents

In a court case in 2010, Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the ability to spend virtually limitless money on an election was given under first amendment protection. With this ruling, Political Action Committees, or super PACs, have become tremendously influential when it comes to elections. Unlike regular PACs, these super PACs cannot directly donate any raised money directly to this political candidate. While these parties can not directly donate this raised money, and must be independent of the candidate they support or oppose, there is a huge debate of the unclear line involved with who can be a part of these super PACs. For example, Obama had his Republican challenger and former aides of his office supporting his super PAC.

“Twenty-first-century election campaigns are structure to garner the most favorable media exposure reaching the largest number of prospective supporters, with the greatest degree of candidate control over the message”. (Dunaway & Graber 2009. Pg. 315) Media in regards to political advertising is much more narrower. Some candidates are primarily interested in voters who preference the outcome of the race instead of the process of the election. A great example is President Obama in 2008, had little interest in any media markets in California because he expected to win by a comfortable

In campaigning, media coverage plays a large role for candidates. They use the media to make their name heard and image seen. “Nearly everything a candidate does is geared toward the media, especially television” (Stuckey, 1999, p. 99) Candidates make appearances on talk shows,

In sharp contrast to past elections when candidates campaigned in-person, the 2016 election has been significantly mediated through mass media. With such a large influence on voters, the media not only determines which issues and events are salient in voters’ minds, but also how voters evaluate candidates. Moreover, media coverage, depending on its content, can influence whether voters think about candidates in terms of campaign issues or candidate attributes.

Political campaigns are very significant in American politics and elections. It is the period before the electorate makes political decisions in the form of elections. The attention of the citizens towards politics intensifies as the date of the elections draws near. The salience of voters improves as the election date draws near and could manifest in the form of increased media attention. Political discussions, campaign interest, strength of the intention to vote, and knowledge about the candidates are other manifestations of increased salience of voters. Another indication of improved intensity is the effort put by the candidates and their political parties in the campaigns. Parties increase their efforts in the