The Dish Has Been Served

While the 2012 presidential election is merely around the corner, the candidates’ campaigns are becoming even more harsh and direct, specifically between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Romney’s detractors often target him for his work done at Bain Capital, pointing to companies in which he invested both time and money that failed, causing the loss of several jobs. Recently on Twitter, however, Barack Obama released information about a particular investment of Romney’s, tweeting, “After Romney’s firm drove a 105-year-old steel mill into bankruptcy in less than 10 years, they walked away with at least $12 million.” President Obama continues to tweet about the wrongdoings of Romney’s firm in the following hours, asking his followers to join him in the fight against ‘Romney Economics’. Mitt Romney had a retaliation plan in mind and within the same day, releasing a campaign video entitled ‘American Dream’ that defended Romney’s actions at Bain. The video references a steel company of Indiana by the name of Steel Dynamics that was evidently saved by Romney’s actions. Several Steel Dynamics employees are featured in the video, each revealing how much of an impact Steel Dynamics’ economic growth has had on both their finances, their families and their community. It includes what we know very well as an emotional appeal, or pathos, that evokes feelings of pride and reverence for the viewers. At one point, the voice in the ad says, “SDI almost never got started. When others shied away, Mitt Romney’s private sector leadership team stepped in.” Although Romney’s return address was a bit more subtle than Obama’s original attack on ‘Romney Economics’, the essence of politics can still be clearly noted in this event.

(Click the picture to watch the video on YouTube)

I believe that this confrontational back-and-forth debate displays the true nature of campaigning. In class, we explored the different tiers of elections, discussing the Electoral College, electoral strategy, money and elections, voter participation, and campaign commercials; but this disagreement, only one of many, between the top candidates in the 2012 presidential election has pushed me to think further about the importance and power of words while campaigning.We were able to look into the incredible amount of influence that money has in elections, however I would like to propose something that gives money ‘a run for its money’. Perhaps words, expressly harsh attacking claims against candidates, hold a similar influence. It seems as if politics are evolving into an even deeper etched divide between the two political parties as well as opposing candidates. It’s partly due to the fact that it’s election season. As we are in the midst of a very important presidential election,  the more important the election, the more publicity it receives. However, the media, fellow politicians and voting citizens can see through this harmless example of politics in which Obama grills Romney for his poor economic tactics, thus encouraging Romney to retaliate, that words can be extremely powerful, and like the prominence of the election, the more direct and harsh the words, the more attention they will receive. Candidates have been employing this tactic for many years, as evident in campaign videos such as Lyndon Johnson’s well-known Daisy Girl attack ad of 1964. Despite the popularity of this tactic, is pinpointing often insignificant things about a potential candidate’s past actions truly in the spirit of elections? Is this knowledge that candidates are leaking about each other eventually going to be beneficial for the general public to know, or are they merely trying to elevate themselves by putting down others?

In my opinion, the primary focus of a President while campaigning is to tell the public of his personal policies and how they will benefit American citizens. He should discuss what he will do for his country if he is to be elected rather than investing too much time and money into attacking his opponents. After all, we are not necessarily voting on the candidate that has made the least amount of mistakes or has the least controversial past, we are voting on the candidate that in our minds will be the best at leading our country into success. In the end, the candidates are merely trying to gain as many supporters and guaranteed votes as possible in order to secure the victory, and they often go to extremes in order to do so.

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.

President Barack Obama: A Revolutionary President & Campaigner

In our study of “Voter Participation” in the Elections Process, I was fascinated by the ways in which people respond to political campaigns.  As suggested in our textbook, going to the polls is the most common way that individuals become involved in the election process.  Voters can participate in elections in other ways either as an individual or through collective action.  Individuals can participate by becoming informed, endorsing or financially supporting a candidate or party, or writing to an incumbent officeholder.  However, in order to effect significant change in public policy, individuals must team up with other like-minded citizens to communicate a message.  Networking at the grassroots level, being part of a community, and exchanging ideas with other citizens are fundamental to and enrich the democratic process.

During our class investigation of voter participation in elections, I was intrigued by the references to mobilizing new voters.  In fact, according to John P. Frendreis, a Professor of Political Science at Loyola University in Chicago, jurisdictions that experience a close-knit sense of community and well-organized local party organizations historically have higher voter turnout.  Often, the mission of local level party organizations is either to increase voter participation in a jurisdiction anticipated to vote “favorably” on issues of concern or to convince people to vote for a particular candidate or party.  As suggested in a study by Ben Pimlott, the grassroots politics of local organizations can mobilize the swing votes that often determine the outcome of elections.

Based on this premise that jurisdictions with strong local-level party organizations have higher voting turnout, I was curious to examine the effect that such organizations had on the Presidential campaign in 2008.  From a historical perspective, this election was one of the most interesting, arguably the first where new information technologies became embedded in the process.  Therefore, it would be important to examine how this campaign was strategically conducted.

 

In his article, “How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks’ Power,” David Carr explains how President Obama began his revolutionary campaign with a novel strategy to promote his label.  This article analyzes President Obama’s successful use of technology not only in his campaign, but also in his subsequent Presidency.  By using the new digital tools, the Presidency became more transparent allowing the government to run more effectively and with a new level of intimacy with respect to the individual citizen.  Barack Obama and his administration communicate directly and instantaneously to the nation using Facebook, Twitter, and Blogs.  The significance and power of these entities were poorly understood concepts by the seasoned and well-positioned Democrat, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as well as the Republican challenger and traditional old school politician, John McCain.

During Senator Obama’s campaign for President, he was able to communicate to the nation on a mass scale, raise campaign funds, and advertise his run for the White House at a much lower cost.  Relative to the traditional political techniques that include voter lists, phone banks, and direct mail, the incorporation of Internet technology into politics levels the playing field and makes it easier for a candidate to campaign.  Money and the traditional forms of social influence that it can buy are diminished in importance, and the electoral system becomes more Democratic and more just.  The networking of citizens can now occur from one’s laptop at the cost of the monthly Internet service, rather than a country club membership.

Information is power, and databases allow politicians to more clearly understand the constituency they are representing.  The political and election processes have evolved again, as they have several times in American history as the result of a fundamental change in the technological framework of information and communication.

Click here for a link to another great Obama Campaign video on Youtube.

Social Media Taking Over

Social media has the ability to reach an incredibly large amount of people, especially those of who are young. Social Media reaches young people in a way we will want to read it and it will gain our attention in 140 characters. In addition to that it is short and down to the main point. If we are involved in these social media sites people’s issues will be more prone to get attention and more involvement in the future. I believe there will be a big shift in how public figures are perceived and how campaigns are conducted through social media in the future.

The good things about social media are people can engage in groups of people whoagree with the same things they agree with.  These snippets of information that otherwise would not ever be seen allows people to be engaged in many forms of topics. Truthfully at my age and in these days I would not pick up a newspaper or a magazine article or sit down and watch an interview on TV unless forced to for school work. Social media allows me to not have to do those things. As I said before twitter only allows there are 140 characters which peek our interest and influence us, instead of reading the newspaper or watching TV interview which are usually long and can be tedious. Of course there are also risks to social media people can say things that aren’t true, people only see those 140 characters and don’t actually dig into the issue further; therefore leading them to believe something that is not fully true as well as being influenced in the wrong way. My personal option is that the good out ways the bad in social media. Social media may be deceiving it’s not simply just a communication tool, but actually includes the American public in substantive decision making were they feel like they can make a difference and get informed.

One digital democracy experiment led by House Republicans called “You Cut”, a social media hub where participants can suggest and vote on which government spending programs should be cut from the federal budget. Millions of votes were cast across the country to encourage the House to cut spending. The website gives a list of spending cuts we believe should be sponsored by the YouCut program all you have to do is vote.

Our government class has been using twitter in order to share our options on certain topics as well as follow our choice of candidates that share are interest. We can see how candidates promote themselves as well as their campaign rallies. Using Social Media in class has really opened my mind more into politics. It’s a way to educate the public as well as entertain. These days Social media is such a big part and will only continue to rise. Our future depends on technology and social media. I wonder how long until we see a winning campaign strategy that is purely social?

How Social Media Effects Politics

In our current day society, social media has a huge impact on the way in which we live our lives.  The most popular social networking website, facebook, receives hits from over 250 million daily users. According to pew research center “approximately 8 percent of Americans use twitter”. Nevertheless, how do these social media sites effect politics today; overall are they beneficial or harmful to our current political system?

Social networking sites can be used as tools to spread political information and views quickly and efficiently. Websites such as twitter and facebook can spread information much more quickly than that of pervious media outlets such as newspaper and local Television. The reason for this is because there are many more people on these sites who can repost or re-tweet important information making it more visible to other users on the site. In addition, with social media sites, there is no need to wait for television crews to arrive when something happens. This is because of how portable social medial can be, it something important where to happen it would be much faster for an onlooker to tweet the information on his or her phone rather then wait for a local news crew to arrive at the scene. For example when Osama bin Laden was killed the story got out almost instantly because a person living near the house where bin Laden was staying tweeted about the raid while it was happening, many hours before television reporters heard about it.

Social media Websites also help to “reach out” to a younger voters who are familiar with these sites and use them often. Since younger voters often use social media sites just like politicians do the voters can become more informed about the views of different candidates in elections and will be able to more accurately vote on who they feel is the best. Not only do social media sites help to inform younger voters but they also can encourage them to go out and vote on election days, the reason for this is that if they are more informed on different candidates views they will be more likely to vote. Also people often tweet reminders about elections on twitter which can help voters remember which day elections are taking place on so that they can go out and vote.

In conclusion, Social media Obviously plays a huge roll in how politics works in our country today. Not only can it aid in rapid and efficient spread of information, but it can also be used to help politicians connect with and inform younger voters about their political views. In addition social media sites help to filter out false information by allowing it to be read and reviewed by millions people through out the world

Tweeting His Way to the Top

According to our Founding Fathers, the presidency is primarily a check on the powers of the other two branches of government and the military. The first clause of article two of the Constitution declares “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” They assigned the role of the president to be the head of the executive branch, not the sole leader of our country. So, if the Constitution does not give presidents as much power as they seem to have, then how have they become such central figures in American government?

In class, we have recently discussed Richard Neustadt’s idea of presidential informal power. In the White House, Neustadt argues “[The President’s] strength or weakness, then, turns on his personal capacity to influence the conduct of the men who make up government.” Essentially, modern presidents derive their power from their ability to influence others, particularly politicians, rather than directly from the Constitution. In today’s modern world of technology, the Internet has become an essential part in a president’s informal power. For example, President Obama uses social media sites as an outlet to impose his beliefs among people around the nation, specifically Twitter.

Twitter is growing in numbers everyday; since its debut in 2006, over 175 million users have joined in the tweeting, re-tweeting, following and favoriting (http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/just-how-many-active-twitter-users-are-there-124121). Our government class has been using Twitter along with millions of people in order to discuss and learn about political processes and recent happenings in the 2012 election. We can even view the tweets of prominent politicians, including President Obama along with a team of tweeters that help manage his account. Through his Twitter account, President Obama is able to practice his informal strength by promoting his campaign, success and ideas in a variety of tweets. To follow the President on Twitter, click the following link: http://twitter.com/#!/BARACKOBAMA.

Obama’s followers can find any information about the President and his campaign simply by viewing his tweets. Looking at the most recent tweet from the four above, Obama tweets often to let his followers know how they can get involved in his campaign, for example linking them to sign up sites for his campaign rallies. By gathering more supporters via Twitter, Obama’s capacity to influence, or his informal power, grows even larger.

In the second most recent tweet, Obama posted about the newfound success of Chrysler, a business that found its way during his time as President. When any American business improves, regardless of its importance, it indicates economic growth. Obama tweeting about the minor growth of success in America on his hand may positively impact people’s impression of President Obama. Without expressly writing that the American economy is improving on his watch, he still allows people to think that perhaps he is helping its growth with small steps.

Often times, politicians use Twitter to criticize policies and proposals of other politicians, and this can certainly get heated in the midst of a Presidential Election. Becuase Mitt Romney will most likely pull ahead as the final GOP candidate, he is Obama’s direct target in attack campaign videos, ads and tweets. Twitter is an ideal form of attack, simply because he can link out to videos or external links that support his reasoning as to why Romney is the wrong choice, and millions will see it. However, Obama must keep in mind that negative publicity will also come his way from other candidates. Attacks can be very harsh, but it’s all part of politics.

Finally, Obama is able to directly interact with American citizens and gather their opinions on new bills and policies through Twitter. He can summarize it in a brief tweet and watch the replies roll in, collecting immediate feedback in order to give Americans precisely what they want.

Many of Obama’s critics say that he is far too wrapped up in media involvement, and that it has resulted in an unfair balance of coverage between him and other Republican candidates in the 2012 election. However, why would the President not use this deemed “love affair” to his advantage? If he is able to ramp up his power through the Internet, or even the television and radio, why wouldn’t he seize the opportunity to do so? Modern times call for a change in political approach; it is an undeniable fact that the media now plays a large role in politics. If the media wants to follow President Obama around while he has them wrapped around his finger, he should continue to utilize his power over media in order to display his informal powers.

The ability to use sites like Twitter in order to hype up presidential informal powers of influence and persuasion has made a tremendous impact politics, and should certainly call for an interesting 2012 Presidential Election. President Obama will continue to use Twitter as an avenue to connect to citizens, gather support and possibly influence people to see his side of things. I personally believe that Twitter is an excellent way to share and spread ideas considering the Internet is one of, if not the primary form of communication today. We must share ideas to keep the general community informed of important news, interesting articles and controversial moments in the world, and it’s easy to share things on Twitter. After all, very powerful things can be stated in a mere 140 characters or less.