The Three Types Of Political Astroturfing

The form in which political parties campaign has changed over time. And, there are many explanations historians provide describing the evolution of campaigns over time. In the present days, there is no doubt social media such as Facebook and Twitter has changed the game; these tools allow presidential nominees to reach far more people than ever before. It also allows the candidate to talk to people without filtration. In the last decade, the goal of the campaign focuses more on demoralizing the contestants than addressing real issues.

Over the years Campaigning in the U.S. has changed drastically because of technological advances, the internet, social media, and the real-time information sharing across the globe. One study suggest that over the years, examining 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, political advertising has become more negative. The Wesleyan Media Project’s charts states and 2004 election 45 percent of the ads were negative, where in 2012 about 65 percent of the ads were negative.1 There are many speculations on why these negative ads are increasing with every election, but one fact is that campaigns can use negativity to bring attention to a certain topic and sometimes benefit from the free media coverage if the controversy is popular enough.

How presidential candidates present themselves in the media can be proven to impact election results dramatically. Political figure using social media did not start to become more common until after the 2008 election because Twitter and Facebook were just recently created, but by looking at data from the past two elections it shows that the news presidential candidates put on their social media can correlate with how people will decide to vote. After researching what topics political candidates post and how they present themselves in the media with election results it can be established that a candidate’s presence in social media can have an impact on how people might vote in an election. “By 2008 candidate websites were standard and campaigns

In the 2012 Presidential election, the majority of outside spending was a result of the Citizens United decision1. The unique increase of money translated into an increase in television ads, radio ads, and direct mailings. Unfortunately, the large increase in political rhetoric caused a move to political extremes rivaling those at the end of the Civil War2. It explains that micro-targeting of advertising allowed corporations and Super PACS to create echo chambers, where only points of view in agreement with the audience were expressed. Polarization was an issue before the Citizens United ruling, but the unique increase in rhetoric caused the “worst polarization in 120 years.

That is one reason why the public has come to reject the idea of the Super PACs. It has the turned the political campaign into a shallow, reality television, mud-slinging type of contest from which the candidates can never return. The ads being run in the newspapers, television, and radio stations cost these candidates and Super PACs money that could have been used for better political means such as contributions to charitable organizations by the candidates or their support groups on their behalf. That sort of act would have had a greater political impact upon the voting public than an ad campaign explaining the ills of Newt Gingrich. Even more sickening, is the fact that most of the candidates will feign knowledge of participation in any negative campaign movements because of the independent nature of the Super PACs. The candidate can deny any involvement in the act all the while coordinating with his Super PAC under the radar of mass media. These negative campaigns leave the candidate free and clear of any involvement as all the Super PAC has to do is run the ad with a clear disclaimer absolving the candidate the ad supports of any wrong doing because the ad was not sanctioned by the candidate or political party.

The media runs rampant, promoting both true and fraudulent information. Many Americans do not trust political advertising because it lies about personal backgrounds, exaggerates, and take things out of context to manipulate voters’ sentiments. (Gerdes, Louise) Each year, it seems like the candidates find new and clever ways to cast their opponents in negative lights. A more recent example of this was the 2014 North Carolina Senatorial race between Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis. An abundance of bruising commercials aired on the radio and television all around the state, bashing each candidate’s views, from taxation to abortions to women and gay rights. However, despite all this negative campaigning, the American public has learned to decipher between true and false. Mudslinging is not a new occurrence. With a long history dating back to the near founding of the country, negative campaigning had plagued nearly every political candidate in America. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams criticized each other mercilessly during the 1800 election, from foreign and domestic policies to their own person behavior (Gerdes, Louise). Alexander Hamilton, under his pseudonym “Phocion,” accused Thomas Jefferson of having an affair with on of his slaves (Editorial Accuses Jefferson). Jefferson was also accused of being an atheist, causing many older women to bury Bibles in their backyards in case he got elected. During the 1828 campaign, Andrew Jackson himself was accused of murdering Indians. His wife was charged with adultery (Kennedy, David M.). After many decades, Americans have learned to decrypt the negative campaign advertising and find the facts. The people are neither obligated to believe everything they listen to, nor are they required to gather their information from just one source. Newspapers, Internet articles, political speeches, and radio and televised news broadcasts, such as 60 Minutes and Face the

Interest groups provide funding to the candidate which should be utilized properly to run for office. Different types of means of communication such as newspapers, social sites and official and celebrity involvement can be used to publicize about the matter. However, selection of those means of communication and individuals should be made only after proper research. I will use “The Washington Post” for the to make the campaign succeed since most of its readers are open minded. I will also use “The New

These industry donations can be made through party websites, social media, blogs, fundraising events, campaign canvassing, etc.

This campaign season, I worked for Bruce Davis. Bruce Davis was the Democratic candidate chosen in the primary to run for House of Representatives in the Thirteen District in North Carolina. This campaign season was not a traditional one in comparison to what I’ve studied of past campaign’s. Our world has changed with the creation of social media and campaign’s have changed with it. In our campaign we had to look harder to find a proper strategy for using social media to are advantage and think outside the box. Bruce Davis chose to give his intern’s and his staff free reign to come up with ideas to move our campaign into modern times. These ideas will be discussed throughout this paper. I will discuss my personal experience, which was an

As during any election cycle, nearly all types of media are currently flooded with campaign advertisements that viciously attack various candidates’ politics, character, or sometimes both. People are willing to go to extraordinary lengths in order to gain power over others. This is likely due to the fact that everyday citizens are so susceptible to influence from those above them. As demonstrated in World War II, individuals are extremely susceptible to impact from authority figures.

Proliferated in 2010, Super PACs have played an immensely influential role in the outcomes of elections and collective action. Super PACs are a new kind of committee that operates politically. As reported by opensecrets.org, Super PACs acquire any amount of donated money in a phenomenon that aggregates towards a fund “to advocate for or against political candidates and must report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or quarterly basis”. They are not allowed to give the money to the political candidates, campaigns, or parties explicitly. However, Super PACs can contribute to the outcome of an election by paying for ads that are in support of the candidate that they want to take office, or spend

Appearances on entertainment shows, gives candidates an escape from the highly critical national press to a much more friendlier environment for them. A great example would be interviews on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show or Colbert Report. Another beneficial outlet for campaigns is social websites that were mainly used in the 2008 election and continued through 2012 elections. “For example, nearly six million people viewed the New York Time’s posting of the first Obama-Romney debate on YouTube”. (Dunaway & Graber. 2009. Pg. 316) In 2012 the Obama campaign turned to Twitter to target direct messages to voters and contributors, they also had more than sixteen million e-mail addresses. Others sources of direct social media that campaigns use are candidate-sponsored websites, campaign websites, and special interest pages for groups such as senior citizens, veterans, college students, or young

Lawn signs, television advertisements, billboards, and political rallies are some of the key components of a successful political campaign. A political campaign is an organized effort which seeks to influence the democratic public that is voting for its elected officials. These seemingly trifling parts of a campaign cost money. Money equals power, is the political mantra in today’s society. Campaigning can cost millions of dollars, and it is logical to believe that only those with the means have the ability to participate in the race for leadership. In a democratic society such as ours, every person has the right to vote and stand up for what they believe is right. Every person, from Donald Trump to the regular middle class citizen,

In the writing by Briggs (Young People and Political Participation: Teen Players) she notes that “social media are a critical new space for political discourse and engagement, which political institutions cannot afford to neglect” as the younger audiences use social media, and the people they follow as a guide it seemed vital that modern day politics has to infiltrate social media formats. This can be utilised by politicians and their agenda to widen the scope of their message. In the Praeger Handbook of Political Campaigning in the United States, Benoit investigates how successful an organised strategy using new media to win an election can be for political candidates. He states that “the innovative use of new media contributed to President Barack Obama's presidential campaign win in 2008” (Benoit, 2016). Obama's presidential campaign was one of the first to set the standard for political strategy online. The literature talks about the expansion of the internet and how that has provided a suitable platform for political agendas to grow exponentially. With the focus of the research project highlighting the specific use of social media it is important to reflect on the initial stages of online political campaigning, and to understand how Trump has cultivated this style of political

Social media has grown at phenomenal rates over the past decade, with its rise being easily visible in several fields such as publishing, business, and activism, among others. The rise of its use in the field of politics is well known by those who are on and off social media, as a result of increasing number of politicians using this global platform to their maximum advantage.