Did Eliakim The Cause Of The Coattail Effect?

Celebrity politician thrive because a certain aspect of their character or style are highlighted and framed by the media in a way that is enticing and alluring to the

To use a recent example, Donald Trump gained loads of support by proclaiming he was not the “typical politician.” He constantly reminded the people that he was raised in America and a “man of the people.” He also repeated his famous slogan of

Having certain well-known organizations will increase the likelihood of becoming president. An example of this was the 1984 election between Republican candidate Ronald Reagan and Democrat Walter Mondale. Buttons were created by minorities and certain organizations stating things such as, “Asian Americans for Mondale”.(Document A)The method of endorsements would cost $300,000 and will give voters an idea of your beliefs. Coat-tailing and attacking the other candidate are usually the counterproductive method of endorsements. During the year of 1992, Bill Clinton created an advertisement where statements such as, “Bush increased the tax rate by 56 percent...” were said. (Document

How presidential candidates present themselves in the media can be proven to impact election results dramatically. Political figure using social media did not start to become more common until after the 2008 election because Twitter and Facebook were just recently created, but by looking at data from the past two elections it shows that the news presidential candidates put on their social media can correlate with how people will decide to vote. After researching what topics political candidates post and how they present themselves in the media with election results it can be established that a candidate’s presence in social media can have an impact on how people might vote in an election. “By 2008 candidate websites were standard and campaigns

It is important that a candidate becomes well known in the area they are hoping to represent and to this end they will often undertake a great deal of publicity work, such as leafleting houses, displaying posters, and canvassing door-to-door for votes. Publicity costs money and so the more wealthy parties will have an advantage. In addition, during a general election you will often see party political broadcasts for the main parties outlining their policies. This is because they can afford publicity campaigns that include film-making.

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.

All of these positions influence the people to consider the presidential minor parties, thus having an impact on the presidential elections. When a party wins a local office as a minor party, the name of whatever the minor party is spreads around all the way around the United States. Not only does winning a local office help the victor, but it also helps the member of the same party who runs for President.

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

Candidates for the House of Representatives, both incumbents and challengers, work hard to raise public awareness of their intentions of running for Congress. Trying to inform voters of themselves is important for candidates to potentially increase their opportunity of election. However, incumbent candidates may differ from challengers based on the level of knowledge voters have on each. Such as, if voters are capable of recalling the name of the House candidate, whether it be the incumbent or the challenger, can demonstrate the voter’s knowledge. Furthermore, voter’s capability to recall a name may be affected by how much they care about who wins the election for the House from their congressional district.

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

Candidates such as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are surrounded by money. This will allow for easy unlimited funding from the citizens who agree with their views and will benefit from them winning. Presidents would obviously reward these organizations once elected in one way or another. This will allow wealthy individuals to make a much more significant impact on elections. While old PACs had a cap on how much could be donated by individuals, while prohibiting organizations and companies from donating, these new “isolates” super PACs can receive unlimited donations. A major company may decide to spend a few million dollars to support a specific candidate if it could return profit on the investment from taxation policies the winning candidate puts in place. This puts a large importance on money in the election, and less on debates and views. This is shown in the current election, with two of the candidates being some of the biggest financial influencers in the United States. Donald Trump is one of the faces of the business world and has huge influences in the business world. Hillary Clinton was a former first lady and has many large backings. This election has two of the biggest iconic faces in this country, most likely due to this new

Campaign spending and its correlation between the outcomes of winning the vote of the public versus losing votes to a challenger in an election. In a comparison of voters, are individuals more likely to vote for a candidate that spends an exuberant amount of money campaigning versus the candidate who frugally spends on a campaign? The importance of studying the phenomenon of campaign spending, more versus less, looks into proving whether what is spent conclusively influences the voter more than what is being stated during the candidate's campaign. Billboards, radio and tv ads, literature, do all these things make a difference, more so than a town hall meeting? Does more money equate to more fame, which in turn brings the voters to the polls to vote for that candidate?

In the United States, there are little limitations on how much candidates can spend on their campaigning. Making it easy for people such as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the recent 2016 election to pull ahead by publicizing themselves. Less wealthy candidates like George Pataki and Rick Perry are at a disadvantage going into the election, not only is it unfair but unjust. These candidates do not get to put themselves out to the public without spending a fortune leading to them not winning the election. As of the most recent presidential election, candidates would spend millions to put their name on television or billboards. If there were a limit on candidates

The growing connection between politics and Hollywood has happened for a number of reasons, in a somewhat cyclical fashion. Politicians need Hollywood stars to support their campaigns because celebrities are useful in fundraising attempts and recognition. They have the advantages of fame, wealth, and can easily command press attention. In return, celebrities endorse candidates whose policies are beneficial to their industry. For example, while Clinton was in office he argued for “industry self-regulation and a television rating system, as opposed to formal government regulation” (Ormand and West 38). For this and other reasons, Hollywood stars donated large sums of money to Democratic candidates in return. In 2000, Hollywood contributed $20 million to Democrats as opposed to the $13 million that was contributed to the less Hollywood-friendly Republican party (Ormand and West 40).

In this hypothesis, the logic presented is that, the more a politician can spend on his campaign, the more his name and ideas will get out to the public; therefore the greater his chance of being elected. The independent variable is the amount a politician spends on his campaign which affects the dependent variable, the greater the chance he has of being elected. When a politician’s name is presented often through means of television ads or signs, the more likely his constituents are to remember his name come Election Day. This increases his chance being elected over an opponent who is unknown