With only 39 days left until the Presidential Election, it is difficult to watch television without catching a political ad. They are all over newspapers, radio and television. We can see ads on billboards and even before the "Gangam Style" video on YouTube. There is no question that we are surrounded by political advertisements and they aren't going away any time soon.
According to a Washington Post article and infographic, President Obama and his challenger, Mitt Romney, have spent large sums of money during their campaigns. In fact, according to the article, a total of $507.9 million has been spent by presidential candidates already and campaign spending has started to rise as we get closer to the election on November 6th. And, it's not just presidential candidates that are getting in on the action. Super PACS (or, very large political action committees with no direct affiliation with specific candidates) are spending millions of dollars to get their desired candidate elected. American Crossroads, a conservative Super PAC as spent close to $58.7 million on television ads. While the Democratic National Committee, a pro-Obama Super PAC, has spent $22.7 million. Super PACs have become more of a threat to campaigns lately because they do not have spending limits. Even today, Americans are limited to how much money they can spend on a specific candidate. However, there are no limits on the amount of money donated to a political action committee (PAC).
Looking at the map of the United States provided by the Washington Post, it is clear where most of money is going - swing states. Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Nevada and Florida are all considered swing states, or a state with electoral votes that could go to either candidate, and have seen some of the highest amounts of spending. Wisconsin is also considered a swing state, where spending has been high, especially in the Milwaukee metro area. Since the beginning of the election, candidates have spent $3.6 million alone in the Milwaukee metro area. President Obama has spent more than Mitt Romney in the Milwaukee area.
The biggest subject for the candidates' ads? Jobs. Candidates and other political groups have spent over $333 million on the subject of jobs alone. Following jobs, the next top topics are anti-Obama messages, government spending, pro-Obama ads and taxes.
Perhaps the most disturbing figure is the amount of negative ads compared to the positive. Close to 80% of all political ads on television are considered negative - or attacking the other candidate. It appears that the candidates, judging solely on their spending habits, believe negative ads are more effective. Do Americans feel the same way?
One thing does appear to be true - political ads are here to stay and we still have 39 more days with our airways filled with (mostly negative) political ads. Thank goodness for DVRs!
After reading this blog, I realize that I agree with Mrs. Jecha's opinion on negative commercial ads. Every time I try to watch a show on TV or a football game, I can guarantee to see a presidential candidate, whether it be Obama or Romney, talking smack about each other. I feel that presidential campaigns are essentially who can influentially talk in a negative manner towards their opponent. Presidential campaigns have little to do with actual knowledge, but more so on who can preach in a powerful manner.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you say that "campaigns have little to do with actual knowledge". Is it a problem? Do you think that's the way the candidates want it? Or, is there a way to change it?
DeleteWhen reading this blog, I was wondering how the 507.9 million dollars spent by the presidential candidates compares to the campaign spending of candidates in the past. From doing some research, I found that the 507.9 million dollars spent towards the 2012 election is well below the 1.4 billion spent by Obama and McCain for the 2008 election, but was on par with the amount spent by other candidates earlier in history.
ReplyDeleteSoroush - It will definitely be interesting to see how much money they actually spend after all is said and done. It might even be more than 1.4 million. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
DeleteResearch has actually shown that for elections like these, where one candidate is running for a second-term, that they tend to spend less on ads and commercials than what they did for their first-term election. This will probably explain some of the spending cutbacks this year.
DeleteInteresting thought, Tom. I never considered the differences between an incumbent and a new candidate.
DeleteReading this blog post reminded me of a conversation I had with my class in Current Issues. The focus of the discussion was the fact that negative political ads seem to be more effective than others, along with the effects television and radio had on political campaigns and races. An article on http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/02/opinion/lariscy-negative-ads/index.html stated that the reasons for this are because negative information tends to stick in the brain for longer and that negative ads are more complex than positive ones. I also think it's crazy the amount of money spent just on political ads is so large! I feel like the money spent on these ads could easily be cut back, and the money could be spent more wisely on other needed things.
ReplyDeleteThanks for adding this research, Jenna! It would be very interesting to explore the psychology behind it all.
DeleteThe T.V. ads get really old after awhile. I can completely understand seeing one every now and then but in general it just keeps repeating the same old things. If anyone votes for someone just because a T.V. ad they are completely insane and no nothing about politics. Everything on T.V. isn’t true as everyone has seen in the past. Altogether they should only be allowed a certain number of ads per channel, that will stop it from constantly repeating itself.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this blog post i think that it is crazy on how much money is being spent on television advertisements. just think on what that money could be used otherwise, for one thing it could be used to pay off some of the millions of dept that we have acquired. Another thing about elections in general is that around this time the president is so worried about the election i feel that he buts everything aside to focus on the election while if he just did his job correctly people would vote for him again.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteRyan - It's always amazing to see how busy the candidates are, especially when they are still in office. The Senate and the House are actually recessed until after the election. That's close to five weeks without Congress in session.
DeleteSeeing the political ads on TV from day to day does, in fact, get really old, coming from someone that doesn't care too much about politics. I feel as if the presidential ads only consist of repetitive words that have no actually meaning behind them. I agree with what Ryan said above, in the sense that it feels like the candidates spend so much time trying to sweet talk us citizens into voting for them, rather than actually doing their work and benefiting our country. Lastly, I feel that we have spend way too much money on this election so far, when it could be used on something that actually needs attention.
ReplyDeleteLexi -
DeleteIs there anything a candidate can do specifically to get you interested in politics?
I have always found it really interesting with the amount of ads I’ve seen on TV in which one candidate talks badly about the other. At one point, and maybe I still do,I had an opinion that candidates should not be allowed to talk negatively about each other on national television. I see their point of view on why they do it, because they simply want to show the country that they are more suitable than the other. However, in some ways, I think that it reflects them negatively to an extent in which they are trying to win the election by making their candidate sound bad.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs annoying and persistent as these commercials are, they get you to remember them. You can tell that majority of messages that come across in these ads are negative impacts the other has had rather than complementary impacts they have had themselves. It is used because people tend to remember negative things that people have done rather than benefits that they have done. Also, the amount of money used on the commercials is astounding and could be used on more beneficiaries. They could easily use less money on ads and put the money to good instead.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this blog I think that its dumb that we waste so much of are money just because people want to used ads to attack the people are going facing against them. If they did not waste are money for the ads we should used it to pay for are dept and help with disease. And with them on tv they just say bad things about eachother by spend more money. So they should used money more on the people and are country.
ReplyDeleteAustin - We will talk about campaign finance a little later in the semester. However, it is good to know that most of the money that goes into elections is usually given by private donors or the candidates themselves.
DeleteAfter reading this blog, I do agree that campaign ads have gotten too negative. I think that when Mitt Romney and Obama started to campaign, the negative ads were effective in capturing the American public's eye, but now that they have been going on for awhile, they are getting old. I think at this point in their campaign they should each talk about what they can do for the country, because this is what the American people need to hear, rather than what their opponent is doing wrong. The American people need to feel safe with their selection, and each presidential nominee can do this by connecting with their audience by being positive and focusing on what they will do for America!
ReplyDeleteI think that the campaign ads as a whole have become much too negative, all of these millions of dollars have been spent talking down on and telling the people what the competitor does wrong, instead of telling the American people the things that you do right. The best commercials and ads for consumer products are the ones that tell about how good that product is, or what it can do that others can't. You rarely see ads talking bad about the competition when it comes to the consumer products, because they don't work. Nobody wants to hear negativity all day. I feel that the campaign ads would be much more effective if they told about what you would do good as the president. It would give people a better idea of what your plans and beliefs are, and in turn I feel it would encourage more voters.
ReplyDeleteAnthony - Great comparison to product ads.
DeleteDo you think that positive ads will increase voter turnout?
Jordan Pearson
ReplyDeletePersonally, I really hate all of the political campaign ads that they show on tv and online. Especially because I am not able to vote, therefore I don’t really have an opinion or care what they say about each other. I also really don’t like how they pretty much say the exact same negative things about each other and expect everyone’s opinion to change just because of one add.
It is unfortunate to see all the negative ads on T.V. and even YouTube. It is even more unfortunate to learn how much money they spend on these ads. Yes, they are affective but should we really be spending that much money on an ad when it could go towards something more worthwhile, our economy isn't so hot right now. Where does all that money come from?
ReplyDeleteIzzy - Most campaign funds come from private donors and the candidates themselves. We will get into campaign finance a little more when we talk about the executive branch. There are actually a lot of rules and regulations when it comes to campaigns!
DeleteAlthough political ads can be informative it seems that lately they do nothing but slander the other candidate. This tactic may be effective, but I would rather know what the candidates stance is on important issues rather than hear about how the other candidate sucks. Plus its a huge money pit!
ReplyDeleteI think it is absolutely crazy to spend so much money on something so silly. That money could be going to the community to actually improve things, but of course, the politicians are going to spend millions of dollars just to SAY they are going to make a difference. That makes no sense to me. It is also a very dirty way to do things. What happened to playing nice in the sandbox?
ReplyDeleteBecca - I think a lot of people feel the same way that you do! There was a lot of talk about bipartisanship last night in the debate.
DeleteI always see political ads on TV and they always bash the other canidate. I think that it is not professional to do so. They should focus on what they bring to the table instead of bashing the other side. USA should not spend so much money on making the ads because they people that actually care already know who they want to vote for.
ReplyDeleteLindsey - Many people argue that it is the undecided and independent voters that decide elections. There are many people that know who they are going to vote for already and ads probably won't change their minds. Do you think that ads could influence an undecided voter?
DeletePolitical advertisements are a nuisance. The amount of money wasted is ridiculous just for an increase in popularity. When they are constantly being played on T.V. and the radio they get old and annoying very quickly. Anyways, they are only in commercials and now-a-days, everyone can fast forward through the T.V. or switch the station on the radio. Hearing an ad once is fine, but when someone sees the same commercial on T.V. time after time they will not listen and turn it off. Besides, everything they say on T.V. isn't true, so how can the people know what to believe? If they are hearing the stretched out truth over and over again, it could skew their vote. I would say that most of the time anyways that T.V. or radio ads don't persuade my vote. I would hope many people do actual research on the candidates to form an unbiased opinion on their vote.
ReplyDeleteAustin - Should there be some regulation when it comes to non-truths (I think "lies" might be a little harsh here) in political ads? How can the public be protected from ads that are misleading?
DeleteI believe that political advertisements in this year’s campaigns are too negative. If all America hears about are all the bad things that are going to happen how are we to expect any good things. These advertisements make we want to not vote because of all the things they say are going to happen. They should make positive and encouraging advertisements to persuade voters, because blowing out someone elses candle doesn’t make yours any brighter. Overall I think the election would benefit a lot more from positive political campaigns.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the article posted, I believe that all TV ads are a waste of money. If you pay attention to most of the TV ads that are airing now, in one way or another they say the same things about each candidate. An example is China; Romney says that Obama hurts the U.S. and helps China, while Obama's ads says he's helped protect against China for trade while Romney is assisting them. Both sides say the same things about each other, and after a while I don't listen to anything in any political ads; they're a waste of money.
ReplyDeleteBrandon - What would change your mind? Is there any way that you would listen to political ads?
DeleteI might listen to them if they're actually truthful and don't contradict themselves. Also they need to not be all over the place, on billboards, on youtube, on commercials, on the phone, and people coming up to our door. A couple days ago we had a lady come up to our house campaigning for Obama. Campaign ads should be truthful, unbiased, and preferably done by a third party, not by the ones who want to win. What I mean is someone else should do their research and state the truth, something that you don't see at all by candidates. However neither of the candidates would go for that so it wouldn't be that successful. So that wouldn't work. So we're back to where we started; Campaign ads are useless in my mind and don't change anything or anyone's opinion.
DeleteI think that it's a mixed kind of ad for a mixed crowd. There's always people that are wanting to see bashing and negative comments to support their views. But for me I don't really appreciate the political negative ads about political figures. It actually makes me want to be indifferent to ads because of the negative mentality that the ads portray. Ads that actually have real content in it and talk about the positive effects that a political figure has will gain more viewers, like myself.
ReplyDeleteI think that presidential candidates would appeal to more people if they were to stop being so negative. It would be more beneficial for them to present the views that they have instead of dissing the other candidates. It would be more beneficial for them in the long run because sometimes it is unclear as to what they are fighting for. Also, the commercials would be better if they were catchy and caught people's attention. It is a waste of money for a commercial that gets turned off in the first ten seconds it is played.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I'm on Youtube these ads come on in the beginning. Some of them you are able to skip after five seconds (thank god) and some you actually have to watch the thirty second ad. It is really annoying and I'm not sure how many people sit there and listen to them but I think they're wasting all that money to be put on Youtube if know one is going to pay attention to it. That money could be spent in a better way other than just an ad on t.v. and the internet.
ReplyDeleteAll political ads do is give very brief information to the people who know absolutely nothing about politics. To me most political ads are targeting people that are illiterate and that are completely unaware of what each candidate really stands for. Seeing a brief 10 second ad on television makes me sick because I know there is some close minded moron who decided to vote for that person because of that commercial. Which leads me to believe there should be a literacy test for all people that vote in any political election because if someone is lacks basic education skills how can they have a say in picking our nations next leader? That would be the same thing as letting a 5 year old vote.
ReplyDeleteZach - Literacy tests were actually used as a tool to prevent African-Americans from voting in the South during the Jim Crow era. It "disenfranchised" the a portion of the population. And, in turn, they were banned. Are there other ways that we can educate people?
DeleteI feel like it is unnecessary for the presidential candidates to talk badly about each other. If we have to deal with seeing the ads every day on the TV, then we at least shouldn't have to deal with the negative energy coming from Obama especially, but Romney too. Also, I believe that they are spending too much money on these ads, just to bash each other. There is no point. They should not focus on the bad of the other person, but the good that they can do for the country.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the ads for the presidential election cost too much. I wouldn’t say the ads are inconvenient but they are annoying. Most of the T.V ads repeat themselves and half the time they are not talking about themselves they are point out the flaws that the other campaign has. Frankly i think if they talked about themselves and what they can do for this country and not use their own campaign ads as a defense for themselves, it wouldn’t be so annoying and it would be easier to "pick" who you would vote for.
ReplyDeleteNegative ads are, in my opinion, a slippery slope. When one candidate airs a negative ad, the other fears that if they don't, the voters will get it stuck in their heads that one candidate (usually the one who airs the negative ad) has no bad record while the other one is clean just because no one's seen a bad ad about them. It winds up being a race to the bottom so that no candidate or party feels like they have their dirt dug up more than the other.
ReplyDeleteI feel like it is stupid for candidates to be spending so much money on political ads when there are so many greater things that the money could be used for. Obviously one person is going to lose so there goes so many dollars that were spent on the campaign, all wasted, when they could have been spent to help the economy. Political ads were not always around, and yet we were still able to vote and become a strong country without them. So i believe that it should not be necessary to have political campaigns, i mean i can understand in today's era, but i also feel going back to the old ways wouldn't be a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteThough negative ads can be effective for the candidates, I don't think that they should be producing so many. I would rather have the next leader of the country focus on the issues at hand than tearing down the other side. Part of politics is working together and they create a bigger divide between the parties through this kind of campaigning. Instead of creating so many ads that tear down the other side they should be focusing on what they have new to offer America. Some Americans are uninformed about certain issues so instead of creating so much negativity the commercials could actually be used to explain their stance of way of solving a problem. I would be much more interested in hearing the different plans of the candidates instead of hearing what the other does wrong. Sometimes we have a right to know those negative things the emphasis shouldn't be solely on them though.
ReplyDeleteI think that the negative ads are not going to help the candidates because it is just showing all of the voters how they can talk badly about people. That also shows that the candidate could turn what he has heard into something that he wants to hear and tell us only part of the truth and that is not something that we want for a president. Everyone wants to hear the truth but if it is coming from the other candidate then it isn't going to always be true because they can twist the truth around so it sounds like the truth and the voters then will fallow and believe what they are being told. It is one big circle, once the candidate hears that the other candidate is telling lies they are going to want to get back at them and find something that is going to make us not to want to vote for then, things then become bad and we don't know what is the truth and what is a lie anymore. In order to find the truth we have to do research on it and most people are not doing that they are just taking their word for it. Nothing good comes of negative ads it makes the candidate sound like a backstabber and no one wants someone like that as a president.
ReplyDelete