The article makes the claim the Democrat’s are becoming fiercer with their use of the media and that the use of negative ads is to “localize the races.” I think this claim is correct, because the term “localize the races” is to get the candidate to become more familiar with in their community. Because at the end of the day they have to vote. So sometimes getting to know a candidate becomes more then there history with the government or schooling back ground it becomes personal. What they like to eat, what they watch on television or what they like to do on Saturdays with their family. Democratic consultant Steve McMahon says “when you’re talking about whether an individual really belongs in Congress, you’re not talking about the national issues.” And this is exactly what the Democrat’s are focused on not their opponent’s positions on national policies. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent the last year digging into the background of the penitential Republican candidates. Anything dealing with public record was fair game like “lawsuits, tax filing, reports from the Better Business Bureau and divorces.”
Do you think the Democrat’s can be any fiercer? This is what the Democrats’ found about their Republican opponents “dishonest used-car salesman”, four hundred times for fraud, lying, and discrimination to costumers about repairs. Countless times of overcharging for services while endangering people’s safety. Giving new meaning to the phrase ‘“buyer[s] bewares!”’ and countless out findings involving “predatory real estate” and three hundred forecloses sending homeowners out on the street because they cannot pay mortgage. And other candidates who ‘“got rich while there construction company overcharged taxpayers thousands, was sued three times for injuries caused by faulty construction and was cited 12 times for health and safety violations.”’ But while the Democrat’s are using negative ads what is the Republican’s party’s comeback?
The ads are having a negative effect on the candidates because many of the Republican candidates do not have name recognition with their constitutions. The Republican’s need 39 seats in the House to have a majority and many of their nominees have never run for office before they all have a business background which often includes a “trail of documents.”
Although all the evidence seems to be in the favor of the Democratic Party will they are able to remain in power. Because not for nothing sometimes change can work as a benefit and really no matter how much background information is dug up on a specific person the outcome of the election rest on the people. And just like the Democrats’ are digging up dirt on the Republican opponents you can only assume that the Republicans’ are also digging up dirt on their Democratic opponent.
If the Democrats happen to lose the House this will most defiantly affect policy making in the Congress because we will have a split Congress. And history has proof that a split Congress will most likely cause stalemate. But because the midterm elections is not for another month new will all have to wait and see what happens.
Media has always been used negatively in most presidential elections. This example shows that it is happening at all levels of government. It is funny to me how they are being critcisized for their past careers and are predicted to be bad representatives because of their history.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ehot. Media is used negatively in all types of elections. By doing so, media stirs up citizens emotions. The only reason their backgrounds are coming out is to make one side or the other more powerful - all it is, is a game. By exposing a candiates background, one party is putting negative attention on the other.
ReplyDelete(FYI - some grammar issues - proofread)
I disagree with ehot that because they had past careers doesn't necessarily mean they will not have future bad careers. there's a difference between making a mistake and intentionally trying to scam people. These canidiate's seem to be doing that. This article shows how the democrats are starting to fight fire with fire because they had no strong conservative media for so long so they had no one to fight back. but now they are learning.
ReplyDeletei think that media is a great tool that
ReplyDeletepoliticians use in order to get people to vote for them. every person has the right vote for whoever they want and think that is suitable for them , regarless what the media is saying about a certain canditate. The media is just there to give details about the election, ultimately people decide their candidate's fate. Media is also for those candidates who can afford it. for example Bloomberg paid to air a bunch of ads during his campaing in 2009. spending over 90 million while thompson only spent over 6 milllions. Even though Bloomberg barely won, his wealth somehow helped him. in addition, politicians will use anything in their favor to win an election, them using media negatively doesnt surprise me.
Your subject matter here involves both media and politics, so this is good, but I think the main thing that needs to be addressed here is that you need more original content in this post. A great deal of the content here is just recounting what the article you point to says, so you need to make a more central theme from the start something that you are adding to this topic. One of the virtues of the blog format is that you can link to an article like this that is available via the web, so while you can explain what it says, you don't need to go into a ton of detail because a reader can use the link to go to the article itself. (This is another thing that could be added here - if you can provide links to sites or articles that relate to what you are discussing, that is always good). There are some grammar and proofreading issues that could be addressed as well in revisions.
ReplyDelete