Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Election Wrap-Up - November 14th
How would you assess the coverage of the election results? What form of campaign communication do you think was most effective for the winning candidate? What hurt/was the least effective for the loser? Be sure to refer to at least one of the class readings from this semester as well as two media sources to support your response.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Stephanie Griffin
ReplyDeleteThroughout last Tuesday night, the coverage of the election results was certainly informative, continuous, and appropriate. As the polls were closing in each state, news media would timely report the results of each state and provide an estimate of electoral votes for each candidate. Personally, as news media began reporting coverage for the election results, I was hosting my radio show for 98.1 WQAQ. Since I wanted to discuss the election results during my show, I mainly utilized ABC News as my source for information to report to listeners regarding the election results as ABC News was receiving their information. According to the Associated Press, “President Barack Obama's re-election was well watched but wasn't the TV ratings record-breaker his first victory four years proved to be. An estimated 66.8 million viewers watched election [falling] short of the record 71.5 million viewers [in] 2008” (Press). The article notes the many networks covering the election, including NBC that averaged 12.1 million viewers during the [prime time] hours, along with FOX News, ABC News, CNN, CBS, FOX, and MSNBC (Press). Without question, almost every network imaginable was covering the election, so regardless of news preference- people could access live coverage of the election results. This relates back to the role media plays in political communication. As Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices indicate, “As with radio, television became a major player in American politics in 1952 with the broadcast of the party conventions and the first political ads. [It] brought the candidates and leaders into the intimacy of our living rooms…without question, the wave of new media and communication technology has impacted the creation, collection, and dissemination of information, [enhancing] citizen issue understanding and political engagement” (Trent 366). Certainly, each candidate displayed some strategy in communication with the public through the media; however, many can argue Obama’s experience with such media like social media may have influenced his second winning since his campaign knew how to utilize it in full to communicate.
What is important to note about the candidates is they must learn to adapt to new technologies to reach as much of a mass audience as possible. In comparison, the Democrats have shown during the past four years at least through the Obama/Biden campaign that changing with the times and staying current is an effective strategy to stay politically communicated with the public. An example of this is President Obama’s utilization of social media since his beginning campaigns in 2008. According to Christopher Burgess of The Huffington Post, Obama was much more successful at utilizing social media to reach young audiences, women, and minorities- three key demographics to be voted into a second term. He states, “In sum, the Democratic Party machine showed their adroitness and leveraged social networks in 2012 as they did in 2008. [B]oth candidates had many tools available to them within Facebook which they chose not to use, such as personal messaging those who had "liked" their pages; enlisting their legions to do the same. That is not to say that there wasn't an over-abundance of original campaign pictures, diagrams, and info graphics being created and disseminated” (Burgess). His comment continues to refer to Republications “lacking” as much knowledge of these new media forms as the Democrats have exhibited since 2008. Consider Romney’s loss in the race, by not utilizing as many forms as the campaign could have and also changing with the considerable times, this could have certainly affected his chances of winning the overall presidency.
Griffin- Part 2
ReplyDeleteTo consider what “wrong” in the Romney campaign, one must analyze the changes of American society since the eighties. Over the course of these decades, the times have changed as far as the types of demographics making up the country as well as the advancements of technology allowing improvements of political communication for today’s politicians. According to Michael Falcone of ABC News, “The new dynamics we’ve been discussing – the rising influence of minority voters, the lopsided preferences of young voters, the dramatic changes we continue to see on social issues – mark more than a second term for Barack Obama. They mark, decisively, the turning of a political page” (Falcone). Falcone continues to quote Republication political observer, J. Hogan Gidley, staying “The Republican Party hasn’t done a great job, and should be ashamed of itself, for not going after all Americans,” Gidley said. “We can’t take any one group for granted and need to look for ways to appeal to black and Latino voters” (Falcone). In other words, the Republican Party is still considered out of date to the point where it has become difficult for them to relate to current American demographics and the issues of today’s society. Only time will tell for the 2016 election if Republications can learn from Obama’s term of the importance of becoming current and reaching out to all American demographics today.
Works Cited
Burgess, Christopher. "Election 2012: Obama Smoked Romney in Social Networks." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 08 Nov. 2012. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. .
Falcone, Michael. "GOP Asks: What Went Wrong? (The Note)." ABC News. ABC News Network, 8 Nov. 2012. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. .
Press, Associated. "Nearly 67 Million Viewers Watch Election Coverage." ABC News. ABC News Network, 08 Nov. 2012. Web. 08 Nov. 2012. .
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis past Tuesday night I rushed home from my internship to watch the election returns. As the night progressed, I kept switching between the NBC and ABC networks – I really just wanted to see the ice rink in Democracy Plaza! (It never happened, bummer.) I was watching NBC when they were the first to call President Obama as the winner. I found ABC to be somewhat manic in its coverage; jumping from person to person and with all of the stats scrolling along the bottom of the screen. I did like how the networks switched from national to local news frequently, providing targeted information to its viewers. As a resident of Connecticut, I enjoyed hearing the acceptance speeches of the leaders from my area. I also had the CNN website up on my computer to track the latest map update. I found this very useful, especially when the local news was on. I felt like I was still up to date with the information being broadcast nationally. It was also a great way to better understand and visualize the returns. In general, I found all of the coverage that I consumed to be very knowledgeable, entertaining and interactive.
ReplyDeleteAs a whole, I think that social media had a huge impact on campaign communication this election. Currently, “online users are more active participants in public conversations. It is not just journalists who set the public agenda. In the digital age, citizen observations, experiences, and concerns expressed over the Internet influence the political agendas of the politicians (Trent et. al 370).” Practically every moment and campaign event was somehow linked to social media over the past year. Hashtags were as common as network logos on television screens. Caleb Garling wrote in his article “Social Media and the Election – Any Impact?” that “it was the culminating moment in an election in which the role of the Internet was a constant, sometimes deafening, presence…Obama and…Mitt Romney boasted 33 million and 12 million Facebook fans, respectively. Countless election "memes" - digital snippets of pop culture - propagated on media sites like YouTube and Tumblr. The president even took time to have a question-and-answer session on ultra-geek social network Reddit” (Garling). While both candidates incorporated social media into their campaigns, I think that President Obama used it more effectively, and this may have contributed to his victory.
President Obama’s campaign successfully used social media to connect with supporters and undecided voters. They addressed issues consistently and frequently. Rod D. Martin in his article “Seven Things That Mattered in the 2012 Election” stated that, “if there’s a well-recognized “enthusiasm gap,” and you need that few extra points at the margin, an extremely organized well-oiled machine of millions of passionate volunteers, expertly-trained in what to do, equipped with the very most advanced tools, and intrinsically prone to creativity and initiative might just be your margin of victory. And moreover, at some point, if you keep ignoring a development of such magnitude while the other side keeps using it against you, your outdated tactics start making you look like the Polish Cavalry being mowed down by German tanks.” Here, Martin criticizes the Romney campaign for not noticing their weakness from the start. They knew that the Obama campaign had a strong social media presence, contributing to a large number of youth voters, and yet they did not rise to the challenge. The Romney campaign could not, and did not, match the level of social media output that President Obama did. By “ignoring” the opponent’s tactics, Romney may have lost critical communication to critical voters. Not surprisingly, “when President Obama used Twitter as his first communication medium to claim re-election Tuesday, the tweet became the most amplified message the service had ever seen” (Garling).
Deletehttp://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/09/seven-things-that-mattered-in-2012-election/ (Rod D. Martin – Seven Things that mattered in the 2012 election).
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Social-media-and-the-election-Any-impact-4026280.php#page-2
(Caleb Garling – Social media and the election – any impact?)
Matthew Struzzi
ReplyDeleteBlog 8
The coverage of the election results was not as strong and smooth as it could have been. Sometimes, and it seemed like this time during this presidential election, there was so much moving and jumping around that it was a little difficult and frustrating to follow. Further, on Tuesday night, I watched some of the coverage of the election on News Channel 8, and they were very behind with the final election result. Someone from New York City knew Obama won ten minutes before the news channel announced it. That seemed to be pretty significant. The fact that nowadays, especially with all of the technology and all the types of available coverage, a news station would be that far behind was really surprising. For instance, a New York Times article stated the following as ways it was going to keep people updated on the election results: “The New York Times will provide live, comprehensive coverage of Election Day on the Web and mobile devices and in print. The highlights include: TimesCast Politics, Live Blog, Election Guide, Interactive Graphics, Voter Portraits, Slide Shows, Election 2012 App, Social Media, Full Digital Access” (The New York Times, 1). Also on USA Today, their media stated that they would also have the following as coverage of the election results: “Electoral Vote Tracker, Political Ad Tracker, USAToday/Twitter Election Meter, and Following the Polls” (USAToday, 1). As you can see from other media sources, there were so many ways, types of coverage, and technology that should have allowed a pretty well-known news channel in Connecticut to be up-to-date on the final election results and not be ten minutes late with announcing which candidate would be the President of the United States of America. Just because News Channel 8 is not as large as some of the other media sources, and may not have as many resources as other media sources does not really make it ok to be so late in announcing news that is so simple and easy to get. The fact that someone could have been on the internet and have received the information much faster does not look great for television or that news channel.
Matthew Struzzi
ReplyDeleteBlog 8 continued
Unfortunately, the most effective form of campaign communication for the winning candidate (Obama) was probably the fact that he was able to use biography to go negative (Trent, 235). Personally, I do not really like when candidates focus on the negative aspects of their opponent’s campaign, because I think it is a little unprofessional, however, it would probably be safe to say that Obama’s negative views on Romney’s campaign helped him gain more support. In the book Political Campaign Communication, it mentions that, “Along with the growth of personal campaigning, one of the most discussed characteristics of American campaigns in the last twenty years has been negative advertising. But candidates can “go negative” not simply in their ads, but also in their speeches. Often, the biographical sections of their acceptance addresses are used to contrast themselves with their opponents, and hence to make attacks on their foes. All four of the principle candidates in the 2008 presidential election “went negative” in their acceptance addresses” (Trent, 235). As you can see, being negative toward your opponent can sometimes help in political campaigns. The fact that Obama had four years behind him where he could prove certain points, helped him seem to be stronger than Romney, and helped his negativity toward Romney’s campaign seem more believable. However, the same thing seemed to be proved least effective for the loser (Romney). The fact that Romney did not have four years as President behind him, hurt him, especially when it came to being negative towards Obama, because there was no evidence of what Romney could possibly and actually do as President. When Romney acted negatively towards Obama with his advertisements and speeches, it sounded not only harsh, but silly. It did not really seem right that someone who was never President could attack someone who has been President in one of the worst economic situations this country has seen so strongly.
Works Cited
The New York Times. "Election Day Coverage at a Glance." New York Times. N.p., 6 Nov. 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/06/election-day-coverage-at-a-glance/.
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
USAToday. "Election 2012." USAToday. N.p., 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. http://www.usatoday.com/topic/5c6e1f38-dba8-4faf-ae15-2fe7161db766/elections-2012/.
Last Tuesday night I had the honor and the privilege of watching full coverage of the presidential debate, in its entirety, for the first time in my life. While I found certain channels would react quicker to critiques of the night’s polls I found that for the first time within the election each news broadcasting station was covering similar news and similar facts. I feel this is due to the fact that, by the end of the election nothing remains left up to the imagination. Channels or networks that have been seen in the past broadcasting non-bipartisan things are no longer attempting to protect an image of the candidates. This is for the pure reason that the votes are already in and the changing opinions of people no longer matter. The votes are in and there is no changing that. When I look at the coverage of the election results now I feel that they were adequate. With use of the internet and special election maps I found that reporting was not always necessary because as an individual at home, I was accessing the same information the reporters were accessing and often within the same time. One thing that I did think about throughout the coverage was the image of an ill-informed voter the night of the election. While it is not the responsibility of the news reporters to educate, I find that presidential elections can be confusing to most and that viewers can be easily lost if they do not understand the process our electoral college.
ReplyDeleteWhile television is still a prominent news source, with this election we have seen an increase in the amount of people who followed the coverage with their computers or smart phones as opposed to there televisions. The Washington Post reported that, this year an estimated 66.8 million viewers tuned into the coverage of the election. Yes, this is an enormous amount of people but the number is down from the last election. During the 2008 election a record number 71.5 million people watched the coverage election night. (1) While this can be attributed to the fact that there are other more popular media outlets, 4 short years after the last election it cannot be ignored that, in general there was much more media buzz surrounding the 2008 presidential election.
continued.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of the idea of new media affecting the coverage of the presidential election, another place that this was seen was within the success of the Obama campaign both in 2008 and 2012. I believe this helped enormously in the success of his campaign because of the audiences he was able to reach. “In some respects this gives local activists the power to start their own discussions and, in effect, wage their own minicampaigns for the candidates of their choice, sending messages, persuading others, and raising money.” (Semiatin 151) Something like this was especially important in the Obama campaign when thinking about the youth vote and the people who primarily use social media. While this is expanding to an older population the majority of users are still apart of the younger population. For this reason and many others, I feel the Obama campaign’s use of social media both in this election and the 2008 election was most effective.
When looking at Romney’s campaign the thing I found to be the least effective was his attempts to connect with voters. The fact of the matter is that he is wealthy and many people found that he was unable to connect to the “average” American. “Romney failed to address key demographics in a way that appealed to them emotionally and on the issues.” (Feinblum 1) This was just least effective but while this is one of Romney’s weak points, it is one of Obama’s strong suites, which increases the margin of voters.
Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
"Nearly 67 Million Viewers Watch Broadcast, Cable Election Coverage, Short of 2008 TV Record." Washington Post. Ed. Associated Press. N.p., 7 Nov. 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2012. .
Feinblum, Benjamin. "PolicyMic." PolicyMic. N.p., 10 Nov. 2012. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. .
Matthew Harkins
ReplyDeleteI would say that the coverage of the election results was heavy. Literally every news outlet was covering up to the minute coverage of poll results for states and different offices. Even The Daily Show with Jon Steward was airing live coverage of the results, when in the middle of the broadcast, Obama was declared to have won what was needed for him to take his place back in the White House. The call was not made too early, but when it was certain who had won, it was appropriately reported. Many waited patiently for Obama’s speech that didn’t occur until around 1 in the morning, but overall the media’s coverage was consistent and informative during the emergence of this years election results.
I believe the most effective form of campaign communication for President Obama in regards to his victory would be the campaigns utilization of present, evolving and emerging forms of communication technology to target and appeal to specific demographics. A quote from our class reading regarding the use of Internet in political campaigns explains, “The key is to target ‘persuasive’ messages for the right niche.” (Trent 369) This year’s election showed there was a large difference in the competing campaigns usage of social media. I believe it was this that allowed for Obama’s campaign to be successful in reaching out to and gaining a broad and diverse multitude of demographics. “Obama's victory, said CNN contributor Van Jones, was possible because of the support of a coalition of people who reflect America's demographics.” (CNN) The Obama campaign, recognizing the importance of the media in successful campaigns reached out to as many outlets as possible. An article from the Huffington post, which analyzes the Democratic media campaign strategy highlights, “Since July 13, Obama has done at least 26 interviews with non-traditional or alternative media outlets, according to information provided by the campaign. Of those, eight were interviews with "urban outlets," six were with Top 40/R&B/entertainment outlets, two were with sports radio outlets, six were with Spanish-language outlets, two were with student outlets, and two were with women-focused outlets. Sixteen of the 26 interviews were done on the radio.” (Huffington Post) I believe this outreach allowed for Obama’s path to victory in this campaign because he didn’t spare any demographic. As the article mentions Obama had done many interviews with non-traditional or alternative media outlets, allowing for a greater reach in getting heard by demographics that would serve vital in certain swing states.
Harkins Cont.
ReplyDeleteI believe the biggest shortcoming of Romney’s campaign and one of the main factors in his loss was the campaigns inability to humanize Romney, failing to present his image as likeable. Obama has always had an edge in general likeability with his appeal to young voters due to his campaigns utilization of all forms of media, including entertainment radio stations and talk shows. Romney had a much lower relatability factor due to his general systematic approach, which was a continuous problem for Romney. Throughout the campaign, the media coverage of the speeches and debates clearly highlighted that Romney’s image and likeability was a flaw in their campaign. Another issue regarding Romney and his campaign was the media and their coverage of him. Romney had a few obstacles in terms of negative campaign coverage, one of them being the leaked video of Romney at a private fundraiser, “Romney argues that it’s not ‘my job’ to win over the 47 percent of voters committed to President Obama, because they are ‘dependent on government’ and he will “never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” (Washington Post) Other exploits that made headlines were the “binder full of women” comment and his attack on Big Bird and Sesame Street. Romney definitely got the short end of the stick when it came to news media and their portrayal and focus, but that doesn’t go to say Obama wasn’t negatively portrayed as well.
Ultimately, this campaign was a very negative one. Each side constantly attacked the other and often manipulating the words of each candidate or not presenting them in the full context of their situation. I believe this turned a lot of people away from either one of the candidates, but in the end the campaigns showed a neck in neck chance for victory. It was a close campaign, but ultimately, I believe Obama’s and his campaign won due to their focus of strategy and their ability to locate and reach out to the demographics they needed too.
Works Cited
Basu, Moni. "Obama Makes History, Again - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 08 Nov. 2012. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. .
Stein, Sam. "Obama Campaign Media Strategy Focuses On Non-Traditional Outlets." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. .
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. Lenham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
Weiner, Rachel. "Romney Funraiser Videos Leaked." Weblog post. Washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. .
I feel that the coverage of the election results was effective. With so many forms of media, I’m not surprised how heavily covered this entire campaign really was. I knew that November 6th was going to a day in which almost all media would focus their attention to the results of the election, tracking states and statistics and numbers consistently throughout the day. Mainly, I followed CNN on TV and various websites that would inform me when states were fully counted and declared Republican or Democratic. I think that the Internet was probably the most used aspect for coverage, at least by my peers. Since we all had classes and other things throughout the day, I think many of us took to the Internet for the latest news simply because it was easier.
ReplyDeleteFor the winning candidate, I believe that stump campaigning and the last 48 hours of the campaign were the most effective. President Obama was very wise in his traveling during the final 48 hours and I think that many of his decisions regarding locations and even choice of words solidified his electoral votes and the popular vote in many states, including the battlegrounds. Traveling to New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio and Colorado was essential to his victory. In the Trent et al reading Political Campaign Communication, chapter six discusses that, “In recent presidential campaigns, both the Republican and Democratic candidates have targeted about ten to fourteen states and directed most of their campaign efforts, including speaking, to those states.” (Trent et al 182) During the final 48 hours, Obama targeted many of the battleground states, which resulted in him winning every one with the exception of North Carolina. Ending his campaign in Iowa, where it all began four years ago, exemplified his loyalty to our nation and clearly, the message he was trying to send was well received.
In my opinion, the video of Romney discussing the “47 percent” is something that hurt his entire campaign so much. When that video was released by the Mother Jones website, controversy erupted. The article, “SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters,” breaks down the remarks Romney made regarding the 47 percent of Americans who will always have Obama’s support because they do not pay income tax. It was later revealed that many of the statements made during this event held in the Boca Raton home of a private equity manager were in fact not true. I think the release of this video and information really hurt Romney and his whole effort. The timing of the release of the video was detrimental, considering it was two months before the election. This was the start of crunch time for each candidate, and Romney took a huge blow because of this video. I also think his reaction to the exposure did not work in his favor. Even though many did not agree with his words, they were looking for him to at least stand behind his remarks. Instead, Romney went a different route and in the end, I think it made him lose a lot of voters. Politico posted Romney’s aftermath discussion with FOX News on their site, in which Romney explains his choice of words and remarks were “just wrong.” I do not believe that was enough to gain the trust in voters or the “100 percent” he proceeded to claim he really supported because no matter how hard he could have fought to take that statement back, it will never take away from the fact that the statement was once made in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Corn, David. “SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters.” 17 September 2012. Web. 13 November 2012.
Hartmann, Margaret. “How He Did It: Obama Sweeps Battleground States, Gets Boost From Hispanic Voters.” New York Magazine. 7 November 2012. Web. 13 November 2012.
“Romney: '47 percent' remarks 'wrong’.” Politico. 5 October 2012. Web. 13 November 2012.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. Lenham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
As the 2012 campaign has drawn to a close in the past few weeks, it has come to the moment of truth in the success of the strategic actions of each campaign. American voters have spoken, and our president, Barack Obama, has been reelected for the next four years. No matter one’s political preference, citizens can’t deny that this election has brought about groundbreaking evolutions in media coverage of election results, setting society on the path to further evolution in future elections.
ReplyDeleteI was quite impressed with the online media coverage of the election results in the 2012 presidential election. I personally had a significant amount of work to do the night of the election and therefore, I was in the library throughout the time in which the results were being calculated. For this reason, the majority of live coverage I consumed was via the Internet. I followed CNN throughout the night, and stayed glued to my computer screen as my twitter feed constantly updated. I was quite surprised to find the helpfulness of Google in reporting the election results. I found that in a search with any mention of the election or either candidate, Google Search presented a chart tallying the current results of the election at the top of the search results page. I found it very helpful in staying updated on the tallying of votes throughout the country. Aside from Google and CNN, it seemed that any website visited had a breaking news banner at the top, informing viewers of the vote count. I found this to be very helpful and informative throughout the night.
Throughout the 2012 campaign, social media was definitely the most effective form of communication for the winning candidate, Barack Obama. Although TIME Magazine reported that Republicans “have been quickly expanding their digital presence,” since the last election, Obama’s social media influence was hard to beat for the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney (TIME). Hispanic Business.com reports, “the Obama campaign confounded the smart money and largely, if not fully, repeated the social media-based ground game of 2008, to leave the Romney camp beaten, amazed, and dismayed” (Timpane). Overall, Obama’s campaign was able to use social networking to a much greater extent than the Romney campaign,
That being said, I feel that Mitt Romney’s downfall was the fact that his campaign did not use social media to the extent that they could have. The Romney campaign had not even set up an official Instagram page affiliated with the goings on in the campaign. In my opinion, through not being willing to adapt their campaign strategy to the means of social media that so many citizens use on a daily basis, the campaign, and in turn, Romney himself, was displaying the fact that they were not willing to adapt to the continuously changing society in which we live. I feel that for that reason, many citizens were turned off by the traditionalist nature of the Romney campaign and therefore, ended up voting against the Republican Party.
Overall, I felt that the media coverage of the election results, or at least the coverage I was exposed to, were greatly technology based. In her novel entitled, Political Campaign Communication, Judith Trent addressed the constantly evolving world in which we live, writing, “Everyone has a voice and shares views in ways never before witnessed in history” (Trent et. Al. 376). The Internet played an immense part in the reporting of both the political campaigns and the overall results of the election. We as a society can only imagine the ways in which technology will affect the results of upcoming elections and in turn, alter the future of the United States of America.
Work Cited
Sorensen, Adam. "Republicans Close the Social Media Gap." TIME.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2012. .
Timpane, John. "Social Media Pivotal in 2012 Election." Hispanic Business. N.p., 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. .
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
The coverage of this election was very intense because of how close this election was. It also seemed frantic; the news was trying to constantly update their viewers to every new changing detail in the election. Most television news stations such as CNN and FOX news had not only live reporting but also at the bottom of their screens showed the counts for the popular vote and the electoral votes for both candidates, along with showing who was winning the smaller races in each state. Each news station was also showing their own polling as to who was going to win in which states. It seemed that most of these polls were slightly different from each other. Once the news had stated Obama had won the election the main focus went to what Romney was going to say on his losing of the election and then Obama’s speech.
ReplyDeleteOne of biggest strength of Obama throughout the campaign was his speaking abilities. Obama is a very effective speaker and is able to portray is political views while making himself appear very personable and relatable to the American people. Because the election was so close it did come down to likeability in a candidate on who was going to win the presidency. The best form of campaign communication that Obama used during the campaign was his television ads. This was because Obama used his speaking skills and used very useful surrogates in his ads as well. This combination made for a very successful outcome. Obama had very useful and well-known surrogates in his political ads. Obama used many celebrities such Morgan Freeman and Chris Rock as his surrogates along with doing ads with just him speaking directly to the American public. Obama did a very good job when he himself was speaking during the ad. He came off as very personable and sincere in his message. He also used President Clinton in his political ads as well; this became a well-liked ad. CNN discussed an ad done by Chris Rock that was done to appeal to white votes. He used a comedic approach in this specific ad. In the text, Trent discussed surrogates; “Third, the surrogate should have some clearly identifiable connection to the audience”(Trent 203). Obama’s surrogates were all well liked popular individuals in the eye of the public. This made individuals who may not have known much about political issues listen to Obama’s message because they had liked one of Obama’s surrogates. I also found it interesting that Obama chose many surrogates who were celebrities and not political figures. This may have helped attract many unlikely voters attention to the campaign.
Throughout the campaign Romney was constantly being criticized for being too stiff and not being relatable to the American public. The opposing party had made Romney appear as an extremely wealthy individual who if elected wanted to lower taxes for the wealthy and did not see the middle class as a priority. This made Romney’s biggest challenge to be his likability. One way to help ones likeability as a candidate is to do interviews with the media and discuss more personal issues for the American people to see. Therefore, one of the reasons Romney did not win was because he did not appear on enough talk shows. This hurt Romney because not appearing on these talk shows, or any type of personal interview, kept him from showing a more personal side of him to the American people. Romney did use surrogates to in talk shows but it would have been most beneficial if the candidate themself had been in the interview. CNN discussed Ann Romney appearing on the view and discussed abortion issues with the hosts. Having a surrogate can be useful but there are situations when the candidate would be better off discussing their own view rather than someone else. During the interview the hosts asked, “Asked whether she, like her husband, had changed her stance on abortion, Ann Romney demurred” (CNN). Romney most likely would have been able to given a better response than Ann had during this interview. Appearing on talk shows and interviews was especially crucial when running against an incumbent who had a strong likeability. To have been able to compete with Obama in the likeability factor Romney needed to appear on as many interviews and talk shows as Obama had. Likeability has been shown to play a role in who voters choose to vote for come Election Day.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
"Ann Romney Talks Abortion on 'The View'" CNN Political Ticker RSS. N.p., 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. .
"CNN Video on Facebook - CNN.com Video." CNN. Cable News Network, 5 Nov. 2012. Web. 11 Nov. 2012. .
Overall I found the election coverage to be satisfactory, but I was not extremely impressed. Much of the night I followed coverage on twitter via different television news channels, newspapers and political websites twitter handles, as well as viewing CNN on television and through their iPad app. Obviously my twitter timeline was constantly updated throughout the night, but I found a disconnect between all sources. For example, NBC news reported that South Carolina was called for Romney before the state was even discussed on CNN. I felt that in our fast-paced 24 hours news cycle, many media outlets were most concerned with getting the results in first than the implications behind the results. I attempted to watch the coverage on other news channels besides CNN but I found that the pundits or news anchors on their respective channels to be more concerned with talking amongst and about each other than talking about the results or importance of the voting. One channel that I was surprised with their coverage was ABC, where Diane Sawyer seemed off to say the least. Upon doing some searching online, I found that I was not the only one. Many people were insinuating that she was intoxicated and it eventually was trending on twitter. Also a mock account @DrnkDianeSawyer was created (Moraes). In my viewing CNN was the only channel that stuck with the results the whole night and had an easy tracker on their screen of the electoral votes for Obama and Romney. While CNN was getting a bit ridiculous with their constant use of their touch screens, they remained on topic and reliable throughout the night.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to campaign communication, I think Obama’s iPhone app was crucial to his campaign success as it helped prefect canvassing. Trent at all discusses how new media in the future will “provide instant contact 24/7 with voters” (Trent et al, 377). Obama was able to accomplish this 24/7 contact with voters this election and I ultimately believe that it was helped him to victory in the swing states. Obama’s app allowed users to gather information for canvassing directly from their phone. They are able to see local voters to contact and different areas that available to canvass in. As Helen Popkin of NBC describes, “when you log in (via Facebook or Obama's own campaign) to be a canvasser you see a cluster of blueflags. Each flag represents a home you can visit to get out the vote” (Popkin). From one’s smart phone a volunteer is not only able to coordinate with other volunteers, but also able to gather information for campaign canvassing and immediately provide the campaign with updated results of their canvassing efforts. Volunteers and the Obama campaign communicate directly through the app. There is no need for a volunteer to seek out a campaign headquarter, as volunteers are able to act independently and work effectively via the app. While there are often complaints that technology is isolated us from personal communication, Obama’s app helped to enhance personal campaigning. In states like Ohio where voters seek to be coddled by the candidates because they are so important in terms of electoral votes, Obama’s app allowed volunteers to specifically contact and therefore coddle these voters. Romney did not utilize this technology. His iPhone app gives an option for users to volunteer, but not to the extent that Obama’s. Obama’s app allowed his campaign to accomplish traditional campaign goals to “work to identify supporters and volunteers and mobilize those individuals to give money, contact other voters and otherwise do the heavy lifting of the campaign” while utilizing new media and technology (Turk, 52).
Also Romney was hurt by the Republican’s party failure to sufficiently transmit a message or theme which the party stands for that positively attracts voters. Recently the media and the Republican Party itself has questioned if they need to rebrand and I believe they do. According to Dylan Byer, a political media blogger for Politico, “As moderates see it, the “conservative entertainment complex” of talk radio, Fox News, and right-wing blogs has an outsized and potentially fatal influence over the party, alienating Latinos with crass solutions to illegal immigration (“self-deportation”) and insulting women with disrespectful remarks about abortion and birth control” (Byer). The ability of the media to turn politics into entertainment with its focus on personality pundits, rather than issues has hurt the Republican Party. The themes of the party and Romney’s stance as a Republican candidate are lost amongst the far-right entertainment media. The Republican Party needs to take advantage of the abundance of media outlets available and reconstruct and distribute where the party stands. Romney’s campaign specifically stayed away from the media and did not step into their conversation. With Romney remaining silent, the media was able to create their own script of who Romney was. Therefore, Romney was unable to effectively represent himself as a candidate. His inability to use both traditional forms of media and new, social media lost him the election.
DeleteWorks Cited
Byer, Dylan. "POLITICO." POLITICO. Politico, 11 Nov. 2012. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. .
Moraes, Lisa De. "NBC Led Election Night Coverage Ratings-wise, but ABC’s Getting All the Tweets." Washington Post: The TV Column. The Washington Post, 08 Nov. 2012. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. .
Popkin, Helen A.S. "Obama's IPhone App Reveals Democrats in Your Area." GadgetBox. NBC News, n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. .
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. Lenham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
Turk, Michael. "Social and New Media - An Evolving Future." Ed. Richard J. Semiatin.Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. 48-64. Print.
Phil Nobile - Blog #8 (Part 1 of 2):
ReplyDeleteFor the first time in my life, I was self-motivated (well, maybe thanks to this class) to read, watch and absorb as much political knowledge as I possibly could. Although I attempted to follow politics back in 2008, I found my knowledge was based primarily on my parent’s projection of their views, and not of my own, as was the case for many high school students who claimed to be into politics.
That being said, this election serving as my first conscious political election comes at an interesting time. I say this because for the first time, factors previously deemed not as important truly shaped the election. For example, minority, female and youth vote propelled President Obama to an astounding win, rather than the majority white male vote being the sole factor. Also, technology dependence and cyber campaigning became heavily important, whether it was new tools from the campaigns / news outlets, or reiterations of traditional techniques such as email lists.
So overall, I would say the coverage of the election results was done very aptly and appropriately. When it comes to effective campaign communication, the Obama campaign’s strong social media and cyber push played an important role. From websites like Facebook to Tumblr to Reddit, the campaign pushed people to vote by providing an easy to use system through the Obama website, directing the user where to register and where to vote.
Phil Nobile - Blog #8 (Part 2 of 2):
DeleteAlong with the efforts of the campaign itself, the online community as a whole had true effects on the campaign. In Political Campaign Communication, the authors admit that although journalists have traditionally played the role of agenda setting, now “online users are more active participants in public conversations…. In the digital age, citizen observations, experiences, and concerns expressed over the Internet influence the political agendas of the politicians” (Trent et all 370). With this in mind, the Obama campaign began to maintain firm and energetic relations with online communities. For example, the campaign performed an AMA (ask-me-anything) on the incredibly popular website Reddit, which boasts a very large and varied internet community. While the Reddit community was already majority pro-Obama, the fact that he was willing to reach out and acknowledge a huge voting base’s existence was a step in the right direction.
On the other hand, some techniques the Romney campaign performed were detrimental and borderline strange. For majority of the latter half of the campaign, the Romney campaign went on a “media blackout,” not speaking to any national nor local news outlets. Romney even blatantly ignored questions, when pressed about FEMA during the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Romney even denied an interview from Nickelodeon when they attempted a “kids pick the president” type event. I believe this lack of interaction with the media created a completely impersonal view of Romney, which is something their campaign strived to destroy leading up to the election. Instead of a caring and willing candidate, the media, due to a lack of interviews and answered questions, was forced to tell audiences about Romney denying their advances. This image isn’t supportive of any type of campaign, especially because the Obama administration had shown a stark contrast, with consistent and abundant interviews and appearances.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. Lenham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
As a student who was participating in election day, I have to admit that I failed to listen to the radio, watch the television, check my Twitter, or follow any sort of mass medium on November 6th. I found this to be very relaxing because I wasn’t being taunted by exit polls or aggressive Tweets summarizing years worth of work in 140 characters. It wasn’t until around 7PM on election night that I was able to connect and watch the results roll in on the T.V. I found it shocking that some states were called so early and with so few polling places returning – that is still one thing I have yet to come to terms with and fully understand. How can a state be called for one candidate or another with only a small percentage reporting? Other than that I thought that the campaign coverage was fair and honest on part of the news sources.
ReplyDeleteWhen reviewing the results I was rather surprised that Romney didn’t do as well as I had anticipated, as much of the nation had hoped. In the final weeks of the campaign the election seemed so close and there were still numerous states up for grabs, not to mention the pure toss-up states. In my own rendition of the election map I had given Florida to Romney (with a very small margin of victory), he would also take Virginia I thought and Wisconsin as well. Obama, in my mind, was sure to take New Hampshire, Nevada and Ohio along with all the other big number states like California and New York – the true blues. After seeing the final results I couldn’t believe that Obama stole Florida right our from under Romney, but then after hearing of the “fiasco” with his campaign’s Get Out The Vote (GOTV) system it all became clear. What Obama’s greatest strength was became Romney’s greatest weakness.
Judith Trent in her book Political Campaign Communication Principles & Practices, notes that, “GOTV activities have changes in at least two rather dramatic ways in recent elections. First, they have simply become much more critical to the success of campaigns,” and, “Second, interpersonal communication is becoming more and more widely recognized as the key to a successful effort,” (Trent, 318). With this understanding it is easy to understand how Romney’s weak ground game and Obama’s masterful GOTV effort solidified victory for the Obama team.
The Daily Beast published an article “The Romney Campaign’s Ground Game Fiasco” written by Eli Lake , and , Ben Jacobs which notes the shortcomings of Romney’s GOTV program. The article reads, “The Romney high command had cloaked the system in secrecy to maintain what it hoped would be a true competitive turnout advantage. But by limiting the number of people with access to Orca, the campaign was not able to train its field operatives to use it or do the necessary beta-testing to work out the kinks that typically plague new software.” This excerpt refers to the software system which was designed to turn-out voters at an extraordinarily high rate with great accuracy – it was intended to be the Republican response to the Obama program, Narwhal. With the problems with the software system the GOTV efforts dwindled and were unable to compete with the extensive grassroots efforts of the Obama camp. CNN suggests that even if Romney were the dream candidate of the Republican party he would still have a hard race to win because, “Democrats showed decisively that their ground game -- the combined effort to find, persuade and turn out voters -- is devastatingly better than anything their rivals have to offer.” CNN also noted that Romney focused his efforts on mass contacts while the Democrats found more value in qualitative conversations. “Obama organizers, meanwhile, had been deeply embedded in small towns and big cities for years, focusing their persuasion efforts on person-to-person contact,” CNN notes in an article published on November 7th.
DeleteThis election was not decided on the debate floor, a gaff didn’t break it, and it certainly wasn’t clear from the start. This campaign was decided on the ground. When it came time to show the nation what each candidate was made of Romney just didn’t have what it took on the ground to get the voters moving. Obama’s strength proved to be Romney’s greatest weakness and once again Obama proved that grassroots successes lead to ultimate victories when it matters most.
Works cited:
Lake, Eli. Kladman, Daniel. Jacobs, Ben. The Romney Campaign’s Ground Game Fiasco”. Election Beast. The Daily Beast., 8 Nov. 2012. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.
Hamby, Peter. "Analysis: Why Romney Lost”. CNN Politics. CNN, 7 Nov. 2012. Web. 13 Nov. 2012.
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print
I would say that overall, the coverage of the election results was good. I felt updated while election results were coming in from around 6pm through 9pm, and I found that the networks did a good job of predicting results as they were coming in. The one thing that I found funny was turning on fox news as Ohio was called for Obama. Karl Rove threw a fit and essentially refused to admit that the state was determined even though Obama was ahead and he had more districts left that were guaranteed to vote for him (Doubtful).
ReplyDeleteCBS news had a good article on their site on election day that told people what to look for and at what time. The article said what states closed their polls at which times, and which ones were important to watch. They also had facts about the states, with an overview of which way it has voted in the past and what has been happening this year. (What to Watch for)
I think that Obama's emails and social media were still far ahead of the Republican's and that it truly helped him. His email campaign certainly helped to raise a lot of money for his campaign and I think that, combined with his ground work helped him to win the election. Obama truly got out all the votes he could, even voters who may have been slightly disillusioned by the last 4 years and that was the key to his victory. I think discussing the fact that he needed more time to solve the problems facing America really affected people and made them get out to vote. As Trent says, “The Obama campaign enjoyed a far superior GOTV effort in 2008. They certainly learned from the Bush campaign in 2004. Their goal was to construct a “voter builder program.” What is interesting about the Obama field organization is that among the staff and volunteers, 75 percent had never been actively involved in a campaign before” (Trent, ch. 9). I think that this year Obama utilized the same strategies and it really helped him, as an Obama campaign official was quoted in a CBS news article "Every day has been get-out-the-vote for us in those states that allow in-person early voting. We're basically under the operating assumption that every day that we can undertake as robust a get-out-the-vote as possible, we're going to do that.” (Final Push).
The part of the Romney campaign that was least effective was I would say all of his communication. In my opinion, Romney was hurt most by his own party. Romney truly had to turn into a neo-con poster-boy in order to win the Republican ticket, and this message continued through the RNC. This truly gave people a chance to get to know a very conservative Romney. When Romney made it to the debates he was far more moderate, and he changed his stances on many of the issues because he knew that he could not win the election by stating the ideas he expressed at the RNC. I think that if Romney had been able to utilize the same stances he used in the debates from the beginning he would have had a far better chance at winning the election. The problem is that he never would have won the primary without pandering to the tea-party voters. It is clear though, that their agenda was to make Mitt more conservative, according to an ABC news article; “These guys are going to force Romney to the right,” said Amanda Shell, a spokeswoman for Tea Party group Freedom works. “That is our entire mission.” (Move to Right). I think that in the end, that mission hurt their candidate and may have lost them the election.
DeleteWorks Cited
Goldman, Russell. "Mitt Romney Better Move to Right, Says Emboldened Tea Party." ABC News. ABC News Internet Ventures, 1 Aug. 2012. Web. .
Karl Rove Doubtful of Obama Re-election Win Questioning Ohio Votes "I Do Not Believe Obama Won" Perf. Karl Rove. Youtube. N.p., 6 Nov. 2012. Web. .
Madison, Lucy. "A Final Push to Get out the Vote." CBS News. CBS Interactive, 5 Nov. 2012. Web. .
Montopoli, Brian. "What to Watch for as the Presidential Results Come in." CBS News. CBS Interactive, 6 Nov. 2012. Web. .
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print
The coverage of the election results was informative and updated as quickly as possible. My roommates and I watched the results streaming on ABC News via Youtube. There was a lot to follow because numbers kept changing, and we would often compare those results with tweets from other news sources. We were following NBC News and CNN’s tweets and compared their results to the ones we were watching on ABC. Although some sites and news sources were ahead of each other, neither called the election too early. When the president was definite, the tweets, posts, and live coverage all posted the same information within minutes of each other.
ReplyDeleteA site that had a plethora of information on election eve was the WSJ.com. “Along with a packed lineup of interviews with political experts and Washington veterans, every hour will feature an “Opinion Journal” segment for commentary by Journal editorial page Editor Paul Gigot” (“How to Watch…”). This interviews and commentaries were helpful ways to keep the viewer informed while waiting for the results. The Wall Street Journal online added, “We’ll also have an hourly social media update with WSJ Social Media Editor Liz Heron, with guests from Twitter Facebook and Google throughout the evening.” These social media updates helped to connect with the technology based viewers with suggestions of who to follow and how to access the fastest information.
Watching ABC News via Youtube was a good example of a new media tool for election information. According to Trent et al, “Youtube as a website not only is entertaining, but also demonstrates the power of individual voters to influence an election. Posted material may be viewed by millions, be picked up by the news media, and generate public discussion” (373). In addition to those aspects, Youtube has been able to give live coverage, which makes it easier for people who are constantly on their computers and Internet.
The most effective form of campaign communication for Obama was his ability to utilize new forms of social media. With technology constantly advancing, people become immersed in the social trends. Obama and his campaign team realized and took advantage of the new ways to reach a majority of voters. The Wall Street Journal online reports, “It was a bumpy week for tech stocks but social media was a clear winner during Election 2012, Matthew Lynley reports on digits.” Matthew Lynley said, “Election day was a maturing moment for Twitter.” People were using Twitter and Facebook to voice their opinions, as well as retweet and favorite Obama’s tweets.
DeleteA fault of Romney’s campaign was the lack of his use in social media. Although Obama has been using social media since his 2008 election, new forms of social media have been developed. Obama’s campaign team had to adapt to them, while Romney’s team could have taken voters and followers by storm. Romney was too focused on reaching certain demographics, rather than trying to reach as many as possible. According to The Irish Times, “ ‘Romney could have done much better on Twitter. Romney has only tweeted about 1,300 times, and he’s only following 274 people,’ notes Ciaran McMahon… Romney could use Twitter to better effect to try and win over voters that might be undecided, or leaning towards Obama” (“Romney All Thumbs..”). More tweets or facts on social media could have gained the attention of voters, especially if they didn’t tune in to any of his speeches or debates. I think the lack of his motive to attract all demographics, especially through social media, ended up hurting him.
Works Cited
"Digits Live: Top Five in Tech: The First Social Election." The Wall Street Journal Online. 09 Nov. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. .
"How to Watch Election Night Coverage on WSJ.com." The Wall Street Journal Online. 06 Nov. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. .
"Romney All Thumbs When It Comes to Social Media." The Irish Times. 01 Nov. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012.
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
Kimberly Rizzitano
ReplyDeleteThis election has finally come to a close and has produced Barak Obama as the winner and president for the next four years of The United States. As the results began to come in from each state every news outlet was reporting numbers as well as attempting to be as clear and accurate as possible. Looking over both the breaking news coverage and reflection articles written in the days after the results were in, there is a variety of tones about the results however most state that Obama was the clear winner. For the immediate breaking news coverage many news outlets chose to use graphics, tables and videos to report. Using these tools rather than just writing lengthy articles allows numbers and facts to be reported clearly to viewers without much strain of trying to look through a large amount of information. Newsweek chose to use interactive maps that allowed you to click to view information on the results state by state. The following morning Newsweek compiled the completed graphics and put it all on one clear page to display the results of not only the presidential election but the results of the senate, house and governors as well (Full Election Results: Senate, House, Governors & President, DailyBeast.com). By using mostly just the numbers in their reporting, it is kept unbiased and easy to understand for the viewer. Newsweek has since also followed up the immediate election results with several articles reflecting on the outcome. One such article produced days later reported on how important the use of the vice presidential candidates as surrogates is and detailed the strengths and weaknesses of each man. It does so by opening with, “For a major-party nominee, the selection of a running mate is the first “presidential” decision,” (Rating the 2012 Veep Candidates: How Biden, Ryan Did, DailyBeast.com).
Choosing a strong vice president is important to a presidential candidate because they become a surrogate, speaking on their behalf to voters. Newsweek’s article continued to outline the effectiveness of each vice presidential running mate noting that Biden had two standout moments in the campaign that made a difference in the race. Biden was an asset in effectively communicating to voters in both his speech at the Democratic National Convention and in the vice presidential debate by emphasizing Obama’s message of moving forward and optimism of a better future while also revering the successes of the past. Trent mentions in the text how emphasizing optimism of the future is typically a challenger’s platform technique. It is clear that this was a tactic in Obama’s 2008 campaign however he is still able to utilize this technique even as the current president because he sets not only Romney as his challenger but old style government as well. Trent mentions “…the task of the challenger is not to only attack but to hold out on the promise of a better tomorrow –a day when wrongs will be righted, when justice will prevail and when health, wealth, and happiness will be more than just vague illusions,” (107, Trent).
CONTINUED:
DeleteBiden was able to aid Obama in this message at the DNC by showing justice prevailing with the death of Osama Bin Laden and discussing how this trend of success will continue in the future if Obama was to be reelected. Another technique that was effective for Obama was his attacking style in the second and third debate. Obama attacked Romney’s record and took the offensive position, forcing Romney to be on the defense for most of the debate. Trent mentions this as an effective strategy saying, “…the ability to criticize freely (and often in exaggerated terms) may well be one of the most important benefits the challenger possesses,” (103, Trent). Though Obama is the current president, he is still able to use challenger strategies because he is able to assimilate Romney with the problems of past presidents. He shows himself as the one that is bringing about change to the country and how Romney will only revert the people back to a failing government.
Romney was less able to properly communicate effectively to the public than Obama. He failed at properly creating an image of being a man of the people who could relate to the middle class. Huffington Post noted in an article that Obama was able to achieve 90% of the black and Hispanic votes which shows Romney’s failure in reaching out to minorities (Huffingtonpost.com). The article also mentions Obama’s lead in the women’s vote which could show the lack of effectiveness of Ann Romney as a surrogate when speaking to women. In all his failure came from the inability to reach out to specialty groups of voters.
Works Cited
Alexander, Paul. "Rating the 2012 Veep Candidates: How Biden, Ryan Did." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 08 Nov. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. .
"Full Election Results: Senate, House, Governors & President." The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 06 Nov. 2012. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. .
Siegel, Elyse. "Obama 2012: President Wins The Way His Campaign Predicted." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 08 Nov. 2012. Web. 13 Nov. 2012. .
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
This years coverage of the campaign results was definitely informative and frequent. Most news stations did a wonderful job in providing the latest news, results, polls and analyses. It seemed as though television stations through whatever they had into the story. They allowed people to “construct their own media experiences, seek out desired information instead of waiting for it, participate in conversations and hear analysis that reflects their own perspectives or none in particular” (Huffington Post). Also, each station seemed to have much information that was made available online, from the state-by-state map results to data from exit polls.
ReplyDeleteSocial media played an important part in this years election, especially to capture the new, young voters. As mentioned in the text, “new technology has generated a new political environment... it allows connections with supporters on a more personal bias... more specifically, social networking sites such as Facebook allow campaigns to get younger voters and to stay connected in a variety of ways during a campaign” (Trent 371). Barack Obama was able to utilize these outlets, while Mitt Romney stayed further away from them. Obama used to social media to the extent of sharing song playlists on Spotify, adding frosted pumpkin break recipes to Pinterest and posting moments at home with his children on Instagram (Wortham). Social Media presence of the Obama campagin tended to be “sharper and more attitude-laden” than the republican efforts. For instance, on Tumlbr, the morning after the debate, Obama followed up on Romney’s reference to cutting financing for PBS by posting something that was circulating on Twitter. The picture posted was of Big Bird from Sesame Street with the caption “Romney’s Plan to Cut the Deficit: Fire This Guy” (Wortham).
Although social media played a big impact in hurting the Romney campaign, it was not the only factor. Based on the results, one is able to notice that Obama had ran a more adaptive and intelligent campaign. However, one important aspect that he was able to take control of that Romney had not was data (Press). The Obama camp were able to “set up a sophisticated feedback system and tested massive amounts of scenarios on potential voters” (Press). When they found feedback that worked, they were able to adapt them into the campaign. For instance, the Obama team’s data analysts knew that he appealed to women in aged 40-49. So, with this information they hosted a dinner with George Clooney. “The women were far and away the single demographic group most likely to hand over cash, for a chance to dine in Hollywood with the two” (Press). Unlike the president, Romney’s campaign did not tend to target his strengths and instead went after a more broad approach.
Works Cited
ReplyDeletePress, Mark. "5 Ways Romney Could Have Won the Election With Data, Social and Mobile." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 11 Nov. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. .
Siegel, Elyse. "Election Coverage." The Huffington Post. N.p., 06 Nov. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. .
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
Wortham, Jenna. "Winning Social Media Votes." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Oct. 2012. Web. 14 Nov. 2012. .