The Changing Face Of Political Campaigns

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.

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

The media has always played an important role in the President’s relationship with the public, but just what kind of affect does it really have on the executive office? The first televised presidential debate in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon marked the beginning of a new era – the inaugural shift of the media’s role in politics. Since that time, the media has continued to transform the way the president is perceived by the public through print, broadcast, and more recently, social media. All of said outlets have played vital roles in not only a president’s campaign, but also in their presidency and likability throughout their time in office. While the White House is still the source of most presidential news, the media are the shapers of the story and can frame it pretty much any way they want. There used to be limits on certain issues or realms of the presidency that were to remain untouched, however, first amendment freedoms take precedence over almost any restriction the government could try to place on the media. The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between the media and the president throughout recent years, looking briefly into the past to establish the scale of the dramatic change, and to study their reciprocal connection of how each utilizes the other.

In the most recent presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, many new election tactics were presented – especially the use of social media, reality entertainment personalities and trying to gain millennial support by relating to them in various ways. As the use of this new tactic went up, the extremities in other aspects of the campaign only increased as well. There became an almost lack of seriousness and rise in hate and bullying, especially in advertising pro their campaign and against their candidates.

This quote reminds me of the patronage system, where jobs and promotions are awarded for political reasons rather than for merit or competence. In this system, working in a congressional campaign, making large donations, and having the right connections helped citizens secure jobs with the government. Members of large corporations and wealthy donors donate thousands of dollars to be granted some fancy title on the ALEC hierarchy. By using their high socioeconomic status, these workers of major and wealthy corporations are attempting to exert their influence on the processes ALEC takes part in. These corporate members and wealthy sponsors are literally buying their influence. And for what? A title? I am unsure as to what these “chairman level” sponsors even contribute to ALEC’s legislative process. Do these corporate representatives buy these titles to have an influence, or just to say that their corporation is involved in ALEC and stands firmly on the economic principles ALEC represents?

"You don 't get the chance to make America great by getting rid of everything that made America great,” Stated by Hillary Clinton during her campaign rally in St. Louis, Missouri to attack candidate Donald Trump from his previous diverse rhetoric. Political Rhetoric has been very popular in today’s society. Politics use this as a platform to criticize other candidates about important points that are essential to the United States and its citizens. Not only does others believe that political rhetoric is out of control but it is a negative form of art. During election time, the media and the internet are critical for candidates because it gives them easy access to the younger audience. Although social media is enormous in today’s society, this is the best way for young voters to make their voices heard. Scott Keeter a research analyst and exit poll analyst for NBS News stated that “Young voters have given the Democratic Party a majority of their votes, and for all three cycles they have been the party’s most supportive age group” (Keeter, 1). According to U.S. Census Bureau over the course of time the rate of younger voters “Dropped from 50.9% percent in 1964 to 38.0 percent in 2012” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2).However, the media continue to evolve with modern society. I believe that rhetoric such as visual political rhetoric helps the youth to get more involved with the political arguments while being educated and entertained at the same time.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the factors of a campaign, and how campaigns are utilized by candidates and political parties to inform the American voter. The main question of this paper is, are campaigns necessary if citizens cast their votes based on factors that aren’t even under the control of the candidate?

While other forms of media have gained more influence in recent years, television continues to be a key source of political information for the American public. According to a 2008 Pew Research survey, about 72 percent of Americans claim television as their "primary source for news about political campaigns" (Polsby 79). In response to this large pool of potential voters, prominent campaigns like those of presidential candidates often use television as their main vehicle for publicizing their political views and shaping their political image. As a result, generally, presidential candidates with more television exposure tend to be elected more often.

Presidential campaign ads is a neccesity in american politics today. Going back to 1960 when President Kennedy's campaign ad was released, it was his unique character  and musical insertion to the advertisment that led his campaign to such success. The Kennedy campaign advertisement emphasized on the repitition of the name "Kennedy". Understandably, the name Kennedy hit the spotlight and the voters could only recognize one name. Although the 1960 advertisment brought success to Kennedy, they are considered extensively dull relative to campaign advertisments nowadays. How did these campaign advertisments evolve by 2010?

The Media, The Campaign, and the Message article examines how the 1996 Presidential campaign manipulated certain messages to the voting public through news outlets. It was discovered that these media organizations are more receptive to airing campaign messages for candidates that are more ahead of the game. The conclusions were that the media has a preference for portraying the candidate that is favored by the public, rather than the receptive

Public opinion is recognized for its power, although it is ever changing, hard to measure, harder to predict, and nearly impossible to control (Newman & Davis, 2016). Public opinion is the aggregate of individual attitudes or beliefs about certain issues or individuals, and it is the foundation of any democracy. Today, surveys of public opinion, or polls, are the most reliable indicators of what the public is thinking.

Funding for political campaigns requires lots of contributions. A campaign can receive an unlimited amount of funding. The matter is from where do they receive this funding and how do they receive it. For example people can donate as much money as they please to different types of committees called super Pacs. A super Pac is a committee that is able to raise an unlimited amount of money via the way of ads or cash without the candidate’s direct involvement. These super PACs are legal through a loophole in some disclosure laws.

9). Public opinion is the overall attitude of citizens on a given issue or question. “Many democratic theorists subscribe to the view that not only should citizens form opinions, but the government has a responsibility to respond to those opinions” (Roth, 2004, p. 9). The government has the tendency to respond to these opinions, whether the response be in favor of the public opinion or not. The definition of this theory is, “The desires, wants, and thinking of the majority of the people – or collective opinion of the people in a society or state on an issue or problem” (Public Opinion, 2016, para.

Public opinion is combination of elite opinion, media opinion, and mass opinion. Elite opinion is the informed opinions of knowledgeable experts that may be presented in blogs, university studies, or academic think-tanks. Media opinion is often associated with public opinion; however, a large information gap is present as media opinion is often biased as it is funded by corporate sponsorship. This trend is common during elections, where corporately backed candidates are often portrayed favorably in debate or campaign analysis. The third aspect of public opinion is mass opinion. Mass opinion is generally measured by polls or consumer trend analysis to make educated assumptions about the opinions and preferences of the masses. Publications are quick to state that public opinion supports one side of a policy issue or a social topic. There are a number of complexities that arise when gauging public opinion. Can public opinion actually be effectively measured? Is public opinion constant? Does the public effectively understand the question at hand? These issues commonly arise when discussing what the public opinion actually is. The main difficulties of analyzing public opinion is that it is fairly elastic, often changing depending on reactions to current events, it is difficult to collect credible information to make effective assumptions, and the public is often not informed well enough or does not understand the true complexities of various policy issues. The