American politics are unique, and it comes as no surprise that the driving force behind them is money. Media exposure of potential candidates signifies that the money grabbing for the 2016 presidential campaign has unofficially begun.
It’s safe to say that most could do without the candidates’ political propaganda littering the daily news for a few more months. But in these unofficial days, the candidates must win the hearts of financial donors, those who will decide their fate.
According to professor of marketing Bruce Newman, any candidate wishing to represent their party must attract the most cash. To do that they need to get their face in the press as soon, and as much, as possible. Before widespread use of the Internet, potential candidates would start their unofficial campaign two years before the polls opened.
In the beginning, each campaign is a start-up organization, resembling more or less Apple Inc.’s first days, which were out of a garage. It requires quite a bit of time and persistence for a relatively unknown politician to generate enough funds to be recognized and sponsored.
Other regions such as Latin America and Europe do not permit their candidates to run such long campaigns, perhaps, because their political system isn’t as tainted by the mighty dollar. In Latin America campaigns run for about 6 weeks and in Europe for only a few months. In fact, The Telegraph recently reported that the main British parties have started their “long” unofficial campaign four months before voting.
Although cash runs campaigns, it doesn’t necessarily win elections. The Washington Post reported that in 2012, President Barack Obama’s campaign cost $404 million, whereas Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s cost $492 million. Obama’s campaign spent 85 percent of that on negative ads, while Romney’s spent 91 percent on negative ads.
Interestingly enough, Newman stated that the earlier a candidate begins his campaign the more time they have to define themselves, as opposed to their opponent doing the defining. Perhaps Obama’s campaign began sooner, or perhaps Romney just had fewer positives on which to base his campaign.
With today’s technology, nearly everything done or said is recorded and put online. Voters currently have unlimited access to almost every aspect of a politician’s life. Although this could be negative, politicians could use it to their advantage. Utilizing Instagram, Twitter and Facebook correctly could potentially sway the swing votes or prompt citizens who don’t exercise their right to get to the polls.
However, these platforms could also negatively impact their campaigns if misconstrued or distasteful quotes reach the undecided public, especially millennials. Only time will tell.
Since 2016 is fast approaching, American campaigns are sure to be bigger than ever before. With new technology and wider press coverage, these campaigns are hard to miss. The money grabbing game has begun, and it’s stronger than ever. If you have already begun looking for a candidate whose values match your own, you may be better served to look at who is funding their campaign.
