Only Got 30 Seconds to Save A Life

Emotion, persuasion, truth, and style: the keys to a successful campaign ad. Media is saturated with news, opinions, and entertainment as it reaches everywhere, from our televisions, to our phones. TV commercials are the only thing remaining that gives a presidential candidate full control over his image. So what makes a persuasive, yet entertaining presidential campaign? My answer: one that helps citizens to understand what the potential president would actually do. Giving such information enhances presidential accountability.

What can a president do? Make his or her priorities clear. Will he or she promote alternative energy, tax cuts, etc?

Presidents pursue their campaign plan so the answer to this question really matters. Presidents work to follow through with their key plan because the issues that they emphasize most in their campaign appeals are the issues they emphasize most in their first year in office.

Because every four years we collectively forget what presidents do, most criticism of presidential candidates and campaigns by journalists and specialists misses the mark. We complain that presidential candidates and their campaigns spend too much time attacking one another or that they don’t disagree clearly enough. However, candidates can reveal their agenda priorities in vague or negative appeals, too. In addition, if negative campaigns keep people engaged and vague claims keep them optimistic, then citizens are more likely to hear the competing agendas.

Effective political ads use sounds and images to communicate information, advance an argument, and affect voters emotionally, all in a very short period of time—frequently just 30 seconds. Ad makers must therefore use all of the cinematic tools at their disposal (video, images, voiceovers, sound and visual effects, music, titles, and editing) to win voters’ hearts and minds.

It only takes 30 seconds.

Out with the Old, and In with the New

It’s 2012, and modern times are upon us.  I have had the privilege of taking Government during a year for the Presidential Elections.  Since its an election year, my class an I have gotten to take a look inside the election process, especially how candidates market themselves and attempt to sway voters.  In these modern times, candidate’s ways of campaigning to their voters have changed.  With the easy accessibility of the internet, candidates have turned to social media sites in order to reach their voters.  In our Campaign Commercials unit, we learned about some popular campaign commercials through the years such as Nixon’s “McGoverns Defense,” and Reagan’s “Prouder, Stronger, Better.”  After researching campaign commercials as well as creating Twitter accounts for government and being opened to Twitters political influence, I was inspired to further go into the modern form of campaigning.

I took to researching on my own and came upon a New York Times article that explains the instrumental role that technology plays in modern campaigning.  The article focuses on President Obama’s use of the internet in the 2008 and compares it John F. Kennedy’s use of television in his running for presidency.  Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post argues that,“Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not be president. Were it not for the Internet, Barack Obama would not have been the nominee.” One of the most popular social media sites utilized by candidates is Twitter.  Presidential candidates have taken to Twitter to campaign to the public through the convenience of the site and the ability to develop seemingly personal relationships with their constituents.  To add some factual evidence to the overwhelming introduction of technology to campaigning and the presidency; President Obama has 15,471,940 follower on Twitter!  That staggering number confirms that modern times are upon us and presidential campaigning has taken a turn down the road of technology.

 

 

Next, the article focuses on President Obama’s very effective use of YouTube.  President Obama was able to utilize YouTube as free advertising for his campaign.  Instead of paying for millions in commercial costs, he was able to show millions of people his message through YouTube.  President Obama’s most famous YouTube video has collected a little over 24 million views.  Not only is the way of campaigning changing, but it is affective.  Joe Trippi, who ran Howard Deans campaign in 2004 states, “The campaign’s official stuff they created for YouTube was watched for 14.5 million hours.”  He then confirmed that, “To buy 14.5 million hours on broadcast TV is $47 million.”  This is a perfect example of how campaigning has used modern technology as a beneficial way of communicating to the public.

 

It is obvious that campaigning has become modernized, and it can be seen happening today as campaigning continues for the 2012 election.  However, is it effective?  Does Mitt Romney’s Tweet or President Obama’s YouTube hit actually help the campaigning process?  In response to my study in government class as well as my further studies on the topic, personally I would say the change to modern campaigning is beneficial.  If such a powerful thing such as the internet is being un used, than why not utilize its potential?  Electing a new president is such an important decision and the power of the internet should be used for something so important.  By using technology, Presidential campaigning has become accessible to citizens.  Candidates are able to convey their messages and ideas to millions of followers within seconds which gives candidates the ability to organize their supporters.  Using the internet to campaign has given results and it is effective.  Millions of people follow on Twitter and watch YouTube videos and messages are being conveyed through these sites.  It is truly amazing the impact and the continuing change technology gives campaigning.  As campaigning for the 2012 election continues, I look forward to being able to view and benefit from the use modern campaigning.

The Interesting Use of Money of Campaigns

During our most recent Government lessons, I was most intrigued by the staggering amount of money spent in elections and campaigns. Michelle Bachman spent over 11 million dollars campaigning for a House seat, almost three times more than her opponent. She was re-elected, most likely because people electing knew much more about her than the other opponent. Many people have argued that money is corruptive and bad for elections while others say it is necessary. After I finished this assignment, I wanted to dig a little deeper into the power of money in elections and trying to follow the money trail.

http://media.avclub.com/images/products/productgroup/351/MoneyPolitics_closeup_400_jpg_400x400_upscale_q85.jpg

Elections, whether it’s for the House up to Presidential race, are fueled by money. According to Opensecrets.org, “In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.” That is an absolutely amazing statistic and it shows that the candidate with the most money will most likely be the victor.

In the 2008 election, John McCain received about 50% of his money from individuals, 25% from federal funding, which leaves 25% to the category “other.” Who knows who or what “other” means, but it seems a little sketchy.From federal funding alone, he earned about $84 million dollars (Source: opensecrets.org). To gain federal funding, McCain had to meet qualifications, including, “Spend public funds only for campaign-related expenses or, in the case of a party convention, for convention-related expenses;Limit spending to amounts specified by the campaign finance law; Keep records and, if requested, supply evidence of qualified expenses;” (Source opensecrets.org). During a great recession at this time, it bothers me that Presidential candidates can receive funding from the government if he cannot support his campaign properly. However, if the candidate does not break any of the rules above, he does not have to pay anything he received back.  Bringing it back to the election, Barack Obama nearly had three times the money received compared to John McCain, a large advantage in today’s media-filled elections. I’m not saying that Barack Obama won because he had more money to spend, but he did earn a significant, and maybe even unfair, advantage in the Presidential race. Not only did Obama win, but John McCain (kind of) wasted 84 million dollars in a lost campaign.

Another thing I want to learn about is the usage of money in elections. The total expenditures for the total 2012 Presidential elections is in the picture below: (you can click on it to zoom)

Administrative is the largest amount spent toward, which includes running a campaign, including staff salaries and benefits, travel expenses, office rent, utilities, equipment, etc. Basically, administrative expenses are what it takes to run the campaign. In fact, salaries and benefits for members of the administration pretty much equals the amount to create fundraising. Salaries and benefits get the most money out of anything else, which is pretty sketchy to me. Money in campaigns was always a mystery to me; I always thought pretty much all of it was for campaigning. However, it seems that about more than half of the money received goes towards personal expenses. Bringing back John McCain, if over half of the campaigning money was not even used for campaigning, this leads to over $45 million dollars spent for the personal luxuries of running for President: jet rides, fancy dinners, 5 star hotels, etc.. Money in campaigns is a very dangerous threat and must be documented well in order to stop any sneaky business.

Money in elections and campaigns is a tricky business. Money is necessary for informing the people about the candidates but too much money could result in a problem. In elections, money can cause underdogs and favorites in an instance. Michelle Bachman was known nation-wide compared to the almost anonymous opposing candidate. In campaigns, money is used for a variety of things, including the important like fundraising and the mysterious expenses, like the $10 million dollars spent this 2012 election for “miscellaneous administrative.” I do believe that money fuels elections, but the amount of money spent in campaigns might need to be toned down just a bit. The extra money in one candidate’s pockets could be the difference in a close elections.

The Political Process in an Age of Technology

Over the course of this last trimester in our government class, we’ve ventured through so many branches of our government and the processes within it that it was difficult to even start to think about what I wanted to write my reflection on.  After a while, I began to think about not only what I found interesting, but what actually was important to me in regard to become a better citizen of the United States. I spun the wheel and I finally landed on technology’s impact on elections and the political process today. As technological advancements are made each and every day, political leaders gain more and more access to the public via the internet, the media, and more. Examples of these are: campaign commercials that can be accessed from all over the world, candidates gaining donations through the internet, and the ability to connect more to the public through the ability to really hear what they have to say. All of these things are both good and bad; however, I believe the increase in access to the public via technology is, in the long run, a good thing. The fact that political leaders are able to get themselves out there much easier allows for people to participate more and be more engaged. As the United States has become more reliant on technology (which is not a good thing for it promotes laziness), it has become all that people do. This is why I chose this topic to reflect on; simply because I, myself, spend so much time utilizing technologies that are available to me.

The campaign commercials’ availability on the internet is a good thing because it allows those who rely on technology to receive political news to see them. It began with only those who had access to a radio could hear the candidates, then it went to television which progressively increased until now, when “47 percent of non-Hispanic whites use the Internet, e-mail or text messaging to get political news or exchange their views, compared with 43 percent of non-Hispanic blacks and 50 percent of English-speaking Hispanics” (1). This statistic shows just how many people solely rely on their access to technology. This allows a more technical fight for presidency because it allows more people to see commercials that are both for and against the candidate of their choice, giving them a broader perspective.

http://dekerivers.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/2008-presidential-predictions/

                Candidates now have the ability to take in donations and other sources of money to spend through the internet. This is a fantastic thing because it helps prevent the “risk of money power dominating the candidate” (2). For so long, candidates that have more money are simply always going to have a better chance to win. This is because, from the get-go, they are able to campaign more, influence more people through said campaigning, and more. Now, with this availability of technology to aid in this financial issue, candidates can be more evenly matched. There will always be a candidate that is funded more heavily than others; however, with technology, hopeful candidates can start their campaigning over the web before the really start it in the political process. This allows for more equality for all.

 http://www.prx.org/pieces/25096-clinton-addresses-money-in-politics

                Lastly, the ability to have access to the true voices is crucial when talking about the benefits of technology in today’s political process. As Prof. Daniel Kreiss from Stanford University said, “These technologies are bringing about a radical change in the political process as ordinary citizens are increasingly participating and making their voices heard”(3).  As more people turn to technology to get their news and see the latest updates about their candidates, it allows more people to communicate in some form with them. In the 2008 election, people made videos and posted them to YouTube to ask questions to candidates of the presidential election during various debates. This alone speaks at length at the vitality of technology in regard to communication between the people and the candidates.

http://socialmediasaturday.eventbrite.com/

                This is just a glimpse at what I learned in my government class. As I conclude this post, I think about the fact that before this was brought to my attention, I didn’t even think that this was a factor in the political process. I have been raised in such a technologically advanced age that I wouldn’t have ever known the difference. Before, I can’t imagine what campaigning was really like and the challenges they must have faced. Voter participation wasn’t a big issue because of the universal patriotism during that time, but during the years after that and before the age of technology began, the hoops that candidates must have had to leap through to promote voter participation must’ve been crazy. However, now, “people need little more than an Internet connection to become a more active part of the political process” (1). This is what makes technology so important. At the end of the day, promotion of voter participation and having the peoples’ voices heard are the things that make technology such a benefit in today’s political process.

(1) : http://articles.cnn.com/2008-06-26/politics/technology.election_1_mindy-finn-political-process-online-media?_s=PM:POLITICS

(2): http://www.sbs-resource.org/technology-in-the-political-process-a-grey-area-with-no-clarity-yet.htm

(3): http://www.stanford.edu/~dkreiss/Comm111S.html