Why do the political parties continue
to spend millions of dollars on nominating conventions when the candidate has
already been decided? Your response should draw on the textbook readings for
this week and offer examples from media coverage of both the RNC and DNC.
First off I’d like to say that I find this question to be particularly interesting because a lot can be said about the amount of money that is spent on both the Democratic National and Republican National Conventions, especially during this election with all of the controversy surrounding both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The simple answer is that when a party chooses to spend a lot of money on their national convention, they are showing the strength of the party and the confidence that they have in their candidates. This election, the National Conventions are the most expensive conventions that either party has ever put together with the “RNC spending $114 million and the DNC spending $127 million” (Emily Shah, TheFiscalTime). If you asked both parties, their reasons for spending so much money would be very different. For the RNC, Trumps campaign is spending money in for a couple of reasons. One, Trump is hoping to unify the GOP, which has basically been in a civil war for quite some time now. “ Party Chairman Reince Priebus says he’s confident that the Republican National Convention that begins on Monday and culminates with Donald Trump’s acceptance speech Thursday evening will turn the page on a stormy and divisive presidential primary season –- one notable for Trump’s ability to alienate minorities, women and even party regulars” (Eric Pianin, TheFiscalTimes). Another reason why the RNC is spending so much money on this convention is for security purposes. I think that Trump and the Republican Party knew way before the convention that security would be of the utmost importance due to the amount of controversy surrounding a lot of Trump’s statements about race, gender, etc. over the last couple months. “Trump’s rhetoric — offensive to his critics, bracing to his fans — has thus far been the engine fueling his ascent as well as his Achilles’ heel. As he and his allies start pitching the voters from the stage in Cleveland today, Trump is hoping to avoid an open revolt on the floor, unite his fractured party, and avoid coming across as temperamentally unfit for the job” (Matthew Dalleck). “As of July 1, 10,867 people were registered to protest with permits to march, rally and demonstrate. But many protestors haven’t bothered to apply for permits. Adding to the security concern is Ohio’s open-carry law, which allows people to walk around with loaded handguns and long guns” (TheFiscalTimes). Here is the breakdown of spending for security at the RNC. “The federal government has provided a $50 million grant to the cities hosting presidential conventions. Protest insurance has gobbled up $9.5 million of that grant, more than five times the $1.2 million spent by Tampa in 2012. The rest of the money is paying for personnel and equipment, including 3,000 federal officers and 2,000 out-of-state officers who will join 500 Cleveland officers in patrolling the streets” (TheFiscalTimes). The rest of the money is being spent on entertainment, food, equipment, lighting, airfare, film production (biography films that they show), etc.
ReplyDeleteEthan Aronson Cont'd
ReplyDeleteFor the DNC, most of their money was put towards staff; “The DNC committee spends more than half of its budget for the convention on staff” (TheFiscalTimes). They also spent a lot of their budget on reserving Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center to host the DNC. Additionally, “The City of Philadelphia plans to spend $695,700 on preparations for and work during the convention, including cleaning, employee overtime, patriotic decorations and ‘homeless outreach’” (TheFiscalTimes).
Work Cited
Delete1) Dallek, Matthew. "This Time the Words Matter: What to Listen for in Cleveland." This Time the Words Matter: What to Listen for in Cleveland. N.p., 18 July 2016. Web. 04 Sept. 2016.
2) "How Much Will the Democratic National Convention Cost?" Yahoo Finance. Yahoo, 27 July 2016. Web. 4 Sept. 2016.
3) Murse, Tom. "Who Pays for the Political Conventions?" About.com News & Issues. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Sept. 2016.
4) Shah, Emily. "How Much Will the Democratic National Convention Cost?" The Fiscal Times. N.p., 27 July 2016. Web. 04 Sept. 2016.
Political conventions can seem unnecessary on the surface, at least in the modern era. Millions of dollars spent on what is essentially an extravagant formality. They are still relevant however, and in my opinion, a worthwhile expenditure for the GOP and Democrats alike during the presidential nominating seasons.
ReplyDeleteThe changing media landscape is an important reason to continue the convention tradition. Our textbook highlights the importance of blending old and new media for the most effective conveyance of message. The book mentions the Clint Eastwood fiasco that plagued the 2012 GOP convention with confusion and embarrassment. “The rapid spread of the Eastwood incident on Twitter, Facebook, and cable news distracted from the substantive post-convention coverage of Romney’s speech (Semiatin, 321).” Conventions have been broadcasted on television for over fifty years, and that medium of media is primarily considered “old” or traditional. However, most Americans tune in to their cable lineup to watch convention coverage, and that will certainly continue to be the case in the near future. There simply isn’t an easier way to watch a delegate or politician deliver a speech in real time. The “new” media is the method ordinary people react to what they see or absorb on the old media. As highlighted previously, Twitter and Facebook play a key role in sparking conversation amongst a vast demographic—especially when crisis ensues (i.e. Melania Trump’s plagiarized speech). Perhaps in the future conventions and speeches will be viewed in some sort of different platform, but in the macro demographic sense, cable news networks will prevail in the delivery of this sort of event.
Even though the nominating process has been streamlined entirely over the years, national conventions still serve as one long advertisement so to speak. Although every last word uttered into a microphone is scripted for the most part, the messages are still reaching a new class of people who either know less than the typical political junkie, or simply haven’t had the time to follow the presidential campaigns of the party’s platform. They offer an opportunity for popular figures in the political realm to express their support or endorsement for the presumptive nominee. Even more importantly, they also serve as a grand stage to bash the opposing party in a totally unopposed manner for days on end. Negativity often inspires more effectively than positivity, and the conventions are a terrific forum for denouncing the opposing party and their political philosophies, scandals, and weaknesses.
Perhaps the most important purpose of the national conventions is the presidential acceptance speech. Julian Zelizer of CNN agrees. “In an era when voters have fewer opportunities to see candidates in person, the acceptance speech has value by providing voters an opportunity to see firsthand how a candidate will perform when faced with this kind of high-stakes challenge.” The acceptance speech solidifies the candidate’s intent to take on what has been said to be the most difficult job on earth, and is a chance to demonstrate their prowess and appeal to millions of people at the same time.
To conclude, the original concept of a national convention may be obsolete, but the event has taken on new purpose in the last generation. It is a marketing opportunity too good to pass up on for both major political parties.
Works Cited
DeleteSemiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Zelizer, Julian. "Why Political Conventions Still Matter." CNN. Cable News Network, 6 Aug. 2012. Web. 04 Sept. 2016.
In my opinion, political parties continue to spend millions of dollars on nominating conventions when the candidate has already been decided in order to push the candidate for the party, not pick them from a pool. The party convention has more of a symbolic than selective function. It is extremely candidate focused and “all real decisions regarding the convention are made by the candidate,” (Trent, et al. 39). The nominee is in charge of the platform, issues, speakers and who receives prime time coverage. With the conventions televised, various aspects have been altered to make it more of an at home viewing attraction than an in the moment celebration. So much effort goes into selecting opening/closing songs, decorations and balloons, symbols, graphics and more. “[These] various communication acts and symbols of conventions … serve to renew our faith that U.S. citizens share not only a glorious tradition but a grand and proud future,” (Trent, et al 39). At this years convention, both candidates set the stage for a symbolic and showy nomination ceremony where over 9.4 million people watched Donald Trump’s speech on Fox News and 7.5 million people watched Hillary Clinton’s on CNN (Belkin 2016).
ReplyDeleteOn top of showing off the candidate, I think political parties continue to spend millions of dollars on conventions to also legitimize the candidate to garner party unity and support. “Parties are once again key players who can affect the course of elections,” (Semiatin 107) therefore the candidate that receives the party endorsement and confirmation as the nominee is likely to be recognized as a viable candidate for president. “With the act of confirmation comes added prestige and respect. The person is no longer just a candidate, but the nominee of a political party – something of an American icon,” (Trent, et al. 41). Already was Hillary seen as a political icon, being the former first lady and secretary of state, but the convention confirmed her legitimacy as a candidate and the first woman to be a presidential nominee. The testimonials given by other prominent party leaders and celebrities at each of the conventions solidified this as well. Obtaining the endorsement from President Obama as well as first Lady Michelle Obama was not only one of the highlights of the democratic convention, but also a call to get out the democratic vote in Hillary’s favor.
“Attempting to transfer to Clinton some of the enthusiasm voters have shown for the president in the past two elections – enthusiasm that pollsters have found is lacking this time around – Obama exhorted delegates to “do what we did eight years ago and four years ago, get out every vote, pour every last ounce of our passion and our strength into electing Hillary Clinton as president of the United States of America,” (Belkin 2016). The call for votes and party unity, especially after the DNC e-mail scandal surrounding Bernie Sanders, was strong and prevalent in all of the speeches at the convention – again demonstrating how the nominee is in charge of the messages being delivered.
Nisa Villareal Cont'd
ReplyDeleteOn the opposite spectrum, Donald Trump makes it very evident that the convention is candidate centered. Not only was the convention mismanaged and disorganized, but brought out even more evidence of party disarray. I think the clearest example of this is when Ted Cruz addressed the convention and told them to ‘vote their conscience’. Having Cruz, a primetime speaker, refuse to endorse the party nominee did spark harsh reactions from the delegates and tore open wounds that the republican party was looking to heal through their convention. I also think Trump’s decision to give all of his children primetime spots for their speeches was more promotional than party uniting. While Hillary received testimonial speeches for party leaders as well as her family, Trumps selected his children to garner support and attest to his qualifications to be president. His choices in the RNC demonstrate his personal agenda, rather than what the party is advocating for or has traditionally advocated for.
Overall, though the party’s candidate has already been decided, nominating conventions in my opinion do serve a purpose to promote the candidate even more so as another election push. It is more about the symbolism and tradition than the actual act of nominating, but over recent years it has become more of a spectacle than significant event. Donald Trump, however, changed the typical convention style and tailored it more towards himself as a candidate. It truly demonstrates how candidate centered these parties are becoming. Hillary’s convention was more traditional and you were able to see the parade of expected speakers – party leaders, activists, notable individuals and celebrities – all attesting to her qualifications and calling for party unity. Overall, the different execution of the party conventions corroborates the personality of the candidate.
Works Cited
DeleteAdalian, Josef. “The DNC Ratings Bested the RNC’s Overall, But Trump’s Speech Still Came Out on Top” New York Magazine. 29 July 2016. Web.
Belkin, Lisa. "Michelle Obama: 'Don’t let anyone ever tell you that this country isn’t great.'" Yahoo News 25 July 2016. Web.
Semiatin, Richard J., ed. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI want to begin this post by explaining that this election is the most publicized and raunchy election there has ever been. America is divided, split right down the middle with conservatives who support the only republican candidate left standing and liberals who have no other choice but to debate between Hillary Clinton or the independent nominee. While I feel wasting money on television campaigns is ridiculous and outdated many “older Americans” use this as their only sources for GOP and Democratic information. The question posted is one that I have been thinking about quite frequently. When all the nominees whether Republican or Democratic begun to drop out of the race there was only two options left. There was no need to pick a candidate because there were no other choices. If you ask me I agree with Matthew Dallek, “Conventions don’t matter. They are sideshows. Rehearsed and fake, the speeches are all alike, akin to the droning whine coming from the adult characters on Peanuts” (Dallek, Yahoo News). We are told to make a choice to run our country based on pre rehearsed, tailored speeches that most likely are full of lies. The money that goes into these campaigns is more or less corrupt. The money funds the writers who make phony speeches, and promotional ads. Therefore, inevitably these conventions are full of fake people, fake speeches, and fake hope. With these conventions being scripted to the letter it gives the candidates just another chance to repeat what they have already mentioned in previous appearances. Just because they hire fancy writers to fluff their ideas doesn’t make the original ideas any different and something we haven’t heard before. Conventions are completely unnecessary in this situation where we have heard every possible stance from each of the nominees. Even “some political analysts have said that these conventions are quadrennial, multimillion-dollar, tightly scripted three-ring circuses, substance-lite spectacles rather than places where intraparty differences can be ironed out” (Dallek, Yahoo News). Not only did we already know who would receive the nominations at these conventions but the rest of America was forced to listen to their speeches about topics we already knew their position on. Trump had a speech where he surprised everyone with his lack of narcissism and Hillary had a conventional speech that was as boring and non-descript as it always is. I am not a Trump supporter but the only fresh speech was his. It was refreshing to hear him speak not about himself but about his campaign. Trump spoke in a new light and Hillary had a mundane, monotone speech just like her others. If we already knew the nominees at least give us a fresh and insightful take on what you actually plan to accomplish in your time in office. Don’t waste the millions of dollars spent and make the RNC and the DNC unbearable for the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
DeleteDallek, Matthew. "This Time Words Matter: What to Listen for in Cleveland." Yahoo News, 18 July 2016. Web.
Political Conventions are an essential part of the election cycle. Political parties bring out the best and brightest of their party to help display their platform going into the election. They range from leaders in their party to celebrities to regular citizens who can clearly articulate important parts of a policy. The party works hard at creating a platform telling viewers why their nominee deserves to be in the Oval Office. It is a chance for party members to rub elbows and bask in the hard work they put in during the primaries. Conventions are really an easy way to put out how exactly their candidate will impact the country.
ReplyDeleteIn “Political Campaign Communication” (2015), they compare the reason for the nomination conventions in the past to the reason for them now, “Where instrumental or pragmatic communicative functions were once the primary reason for holding part conventions, now the symbolic or ritualistic functions are, in most instances, the chief purpose.” Yes they are symbolic, but it is also a free way for the campaigns to articulate their message. It is an easy way to get this done and a well-executed convention is a good look for the campaign. The campaigns are able to provide their platform without having to have it questioned by the opposition like in a debate.
For the 2016 Conventions, just a combined 62 million viewers watched both Sec. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump accept their party’s nomination (Grynbaum 2016). Though it was down from the about 65 million viewers of the 2012 conventions (Trent 2015). These numbers show that people pay attention and the campaigns need the convention to go smoothly to make a good impression. If failed this could hurt the candidate by giving the appearance they are not able to do the simplest tasks.
Conventions also give a stage to up and coming political figures. There is a history at political conventions that future candidates are given a platform to introduce themselves to the nation in hopes of a future candidacy. Barack Obama in 2004, Ronald Reagan in 1976, and Bill Clinton in 1988 all gave speeches at their party’s convention and later became the party’s nominee. Of all the speeches at this year’s Democratic National Convention Sen. Cory Booker, from New Jersey, I believe has a possibility of falling in line with the precedents. His speech felt like that he could be a front-runner for the nomination in 2020.
In the end, conventions are a perfect way to take a victory lap before the general elections. The parties put on a show to impress their voters and plead their case to why they deserve the vote in the general. Each party had problems in their conventions. The Republicans had a problem bringing out their best speakers. Even though it was taking place in Cleveland, Ohio Republican governor John Kasich skipped the convention in protest of their nominee. Along with Kasich so did both former Republican President George H. W. Bush and his son George W. Bush. The lowest point at the convention was former Republican nominee Ted Cruz’s speech. Andrew Romano of Yahoo News (2016) described the Cruz incident as a “dramatic mutiny” by failing to endorse the nominee. By going first the Democrats had an easier time to avoid problems, but they still existed. At the Democrat’s Convention there was a divisive split in the party between the Bernie or Bust people and the Hillary endorsers. The Bernie people hosted a protest in the convention and it was a bad look for the party. Even with the protest the optics of the Dems convention seemed much better than the Republicans. According to the polling after the conventions the Dems convention swung more votes than the Republicans and helped show the importance of the conventions.
References
DeleteGrynbaum, M. M. (2016, July 29). More Tuned in for Drumpf’s Speech, but Democrats Won Ratings Over All. The New York Times. Retrieved September 5, 2016.
Romano, A. (2016, July 22). Where Does the GOP Go After Its Ugliest Convention Since 1964? Yahoo News. Retrieved September 5, 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePolitical conventions today undoubtedly have barely any relation to the political party nominating conventions held in the 19th century. There are no more party bosses, battling for platforms, or floor fights. It is debatable that today’s political conventions carry out the same purposes as they did when they were first established, which was to elect the party’s nominee. Today, we have political conventions that are completely scripted and rehearsed, and the nominee is determined before the convention even takes place. This development, due to various factors whether it is technology, party dynamics or the alteration of society; leaves us wondering if the millions of dollars spent on presidential conventions really have an impact on the campaigns and if the conventions have rather become obsolete. Many however, argue for different reasons that conventions indeed strongly remain to be the cornerstone of America’s democratic presidential elections.
ReplyDeleteWhile some, like The NY Times’ Kiki McLean focus on the conventions’ influence on the larger international community argue that the high costs of conventions are worth spending since they are “a crucial element of the democratic process and a powerful demonstration of democracy for the rest of the world to see” others draw attention to what the conventions mean for the Republican and Democratic parties. In my opinion, the main purpose of the political parties today is to reaffirm the parties’ political power and influence while reaffirming their acknowledgement of the party’s nominee.
Such reaffirmation from the political party that the candidate is affiliated with has a very strong legitimizing effect on the nominee. “With the act of confirmation comes added prestige and respect. The person is no longer just a candidate, but the nominee of a political party – something of an American icon.” (Trent et al. 55) This process of legitimization undoubtedly strengthens the nominee’s position in the elections, but he is considered only as strong as the party is, hence the demonstration of power of parties at the conventions via balloons, hats, pins, and everything else that may seem like a waste of money to critics of today’s conventions.
Another way the conventions serve both the parties and their nominees is that they publicly unify the two, in efforts to sway other candidates’ votes onto the nominee. For instance, in the case of this year’s elections this factor was a major purpose of the conventions, as the two nominees are generally disliked by the public. Through the emphasis of the party’s confirmation of the nominee, the voters may be more inclined to now vote for them, not out of direct support of the nominee but out of their loyalty to the political party.
However, apart from the obvious political factors that feed into why we still need political conventions today, the influence of media is really the factor that has kept the conventions not only going but also becoming more popular and expensive. By 1980, the number of reporters, editors, camera operators and broadcasters at the conventions was more than three times the number of delegates (Trent et al. 55), which speaks for how significant these conventions are from the perspective of media.
It is easy to see that the conventions have moved away from being just political, dull and dry and towards being prime-time material, dramatic and drastic. The fact that the 2008 conventions were considered a must-see event and that 120 million Americans watched at least one of the conventions (Trent et. al, 51) tells us that the conventions are not just the cornerstone of America’s democracy but also of the show business that the media upholds.
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteIt can be seen everywhere from the balloons to the TV ratings to how Michelle Goldberg describes Michelle Obama’s speech as a “show stopper” and refers to Biden’s speech as a “performance” that the conventions are not too different from the VMA’s when it comes to how the media covers them. And this doesn’t sounds as crazy when we consider how powerful media coverage can be in stirring up participation of voters. As a 1976 study confirms, TV coverage of the conventions boost voter interest and attention to the campaigns, especially among those who are previously not strong political partisans. (Mackay, 19)
It would not be accurate to say that today’s conventions serve the original purpose that they started out with, or that they have the same political structure as they had in the 1800s. As CNN’s Julian Zelizer puts it, “Long gone are the days when conventions played a central role in shaping a political party.” But this doesn’t mean that the conventions are obsolete, or that the millions of dollars spent on them might as well be wasted on something else. The DNC and RNC’s purposes has shifted towards an area that has more emphasis on media and getting the highest number of TV ratings, but they certainly remain to be a crucial part of the presidential elections.
Works Cited
Delete1. Mackay J. B. “Gadgets, gizmos and the Web 2.0 Election.” In Hendricks, John Allen., and Robert E. Denton. Communicator-in-chief: How Barack Obama Used New Media Technology to Win the White House (pp. 19-35). Lanham: Lexington, 2010. Print.
2. McLean, Kiki. "Political Conventions Are a Tradition With Purpose and Promise." The New York Times. N.p., 26 Aug. 2012. Web.
3. Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
4. Zelizer, Julian. "Why Political Conventions Still Matter." CNN. Cable News Network, 6 Aug. 2012. Web.
In my opinion each political party respectively continues to spend millions of dollars on the conventions after already choosing a candidate as a way to not only frame the rest of the election season but also to let the nominee mingle with other power players in the party. This is evident by many of the speakers that the are chosen to give speeches at the conventions. In previous instances some speakers are a good glimpse in to the future of the party. For instance, at the 2004 DNC then-Illinois state Senator Barack Obama spoke. Fast forward to the 2008 DNC he was announced as the parties’ nominee. In 2008 former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney spoke at the RNC, in 2012 he was announced as the nominee.
ReplyDeleteIt’s also a time for the parties to show off. Particularly when speaking about the amount of money that each party spent. “Although a majority of citizens regularly tell pollsters that they would prefer some other method for nominating presidential candidates, the national party conventions remain as they have since their inception: the bodies that make official presidential and vice presidential nominations for the Republican and Democratic parties (Trent 35).” The conventions are more for the parties and nominees than for the citizens. In a society where money equals power, spending a lot on the on the conventions can show dominance. I think that it’s also at a point in the election where the 2 parties can duke it out to see who can throw the best party so to speak. For instance, this year the DNC had celebrities like Tony Goldwyn (a great pop culture nod to Scandal) and Sally Field, while the RNC brought out the less impressive Antonio Sabato Jr. When it comes to party operations “The purpose is to energize their base supporters to communicate, volunteer, contribute and ultimately get-out-the-vote (GOTV) (Renner 93).” The conventions play to this theory that Renner states. The conventions are a time where political junkies become even deeper involved to create that final push in the race to November and even voters who aren’t very active start to take a deeper interest. The excitement surrounding the conventions fuels this.
When it comes to the media involvement leading up to, during and after the conventions I also believe that the conventions are a great way to gage the interest and engagement levels of the American people. “When television was first used during the 1953 primary campaigns, it contributed to the growth of public interest. Turnout jumped from less than five million primary voters in 1948 to almost thirteen million in 1952 (Trent 35).” Especially with the 24-hour news cycle that has developed in current times having these conventions being broadcasted on many major networks throughout the week undoubtedly drives voter interest. The fact that this election is unprecedented helped to give the conventions momentum, while they were occurring they seemed to be at the center of every conversation.
The conventions are rooted in tradition but they exist to serve many different important and not so important purposes during an election year.
Works Cited
Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
The national nominating conventions of the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are two of the most significant events in the presidential campaigning process. The official nominating process is, for the most part, just a formality. By the time the candidates reach the convention, there is almost always an established presumptive nominee. However, the national parties both put on an incredibly extravagant show for the nomination. I saw this first hand when I attended the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia as an intern with CBSN news. The Fiscal Times put the total cost of the convention at $127 million, with $67.2 million of that coming from donors to the DNC (Shah). At the end of the day, the convention and all the money behind it, isn’t as much about the people sitting inside the arena as it seems. It is primarily about the four days of almost non-stop nationwide media coverage.
ReplyDeleteMedia time is something both of the candidates have been fighting for throughout this election. The New York Times has attributed much of Trumps success to over $2 billion worth of free media coverage he earned himself throughout the primaries (Confessore, Yourish). In the conventions, the parties can put their candidates on a pedestal and do their best to sell them to the rest of the country. There is no denying the facts, the post-convention “bounce” is very real. The Associated Press estimates that the average post-convention polling bounce is 10 points, an extraordinary amount for any candidate (Fram). The national parties are not simply throwing away their money, it is an incredibly valuable asset during a national election. They know that a successful election is a good show, that a good show costs money, and the better the show, the better poll bounce a candidate can expect to receive. The televised coverage of the conventions is the result of thousands of professionals working together to create a show that millions of Americans can watch on the evening news, follow on twitter, and read about for weeks to come. As New York Times columnist Jim Rutenberg writes about the DNC “the acts and speeches were choreographed down to the minute so that not a precious second of prime time would go to waste” (Rutenberg). The biggest goals of both conventions seemed to be unifying the party, and swinging independent voters. The Democrats showed off a variety of notable speakers, and Bernie Sanders’ support of Clinton drove home a message of unity after a heated party primary. The Republicans attempted something similar; but the absence of John Kasich, and Ted Cruz’s refusal to endorse left the status of the GOP’s unity questionable. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that now, over a month later, Clinton appears to have emerged from the post-convention period with a significant lead in the polls (Agiesta).
Works Cited
DeleteAgiesta, Jennifer. "CNN Poll of Polls: Clinton's Lead Cut in Half." CNN. Cable News Network, 2 Sept. 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
Confessore, Nicholas, and Karen Yourish. "$2 Billion Worth of Free Media for Donald Trump." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Mar. 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
Fram, Alan. "Post-convention Bounce Averages 10 Points." Fox News. The Associated Press, 2008. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
Rutenberg, Jim. "Clinton’s Convention Was Made for TV. Trump’s Was Made for Twitter." The New York Times. The New York Times, 28 July 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
The DNC and RNC respectively pour so much money into an already chosen candidate and choose to hold conventions anyway, in order to continue to show tradition and to satisfy the American public [read: American media]. National political conventions are and always have been an integral part of the United States election cycle. The cycles themselves bring out the ability to present the party’s platform to all that will listen; whether that is from a career politician or a simple well-spoken layperson. The author of Political Campaign Communications highlights that, “Although a majority of citizens regularly tell pollsters that they would prefer some other method for nominating presidential candidates, the national party conventions remain as they have since their inception” (Trent, et al. 35). It is such because the American political cycle is beyond set in tradition. It is easily recognizable that this county has had two bodies, the DNC & RNC respectively, choosing the opposing nominees since the 1850’s. In the past, the conventions were used primarily to highlight the nominee’s strengths and weaknesses – giving them a public platform in order to battle out their opposing ideals and allow the American public to make an informed and wise decision of whom they’d like to support. Today, the entire election process/cycle is somewhat of a sham where, “… instrumental or pragmatic communicative functions were once the primary reason for holding party conventions, now the symbolic or ritualistic functions are, in most instance, the chief purpose” (Trent, et al. 35). Matthew Dallek feels as though, “Conventions don’t matter. They are sideshows. Rehearsed and fake, the speeches are all alike, akin to the droning whine coming from the adult characters on Peanuts” (Dallek, Yahoo News). Continuing, saying that any “bonuses” a candidate may retain, will be short lived in an arena she describes as: “the quadrennial, multimillion-dollar, tightly scripted three-ring circuses, substance-lite spectacles rather than places where intraparty differences can be ironed out” (Dallek, Yahoo News). With nominees typically already decided before the events themselves, the conventions are a means to highlight and accentuate the running nominee of a respected party. And, “With the act of confirmation comes added prestige and respect. The person is no longer just a candidate, but the nominee of a political party – something of an American icon” (Trent, et al. 41). At this year’s conventions, the four-night DNC was viewed by an estimated 29.4 million cable-viewers, while the RNC only saw an average of 26.4 million viewers in their four-day span (O’Connell). It is predominantly because of television and social media that this year’s conventions and speeches/debates were so well viewed. “When television was first used during the 1953 primary campaigns, it contributed to the growth of public interest.
ReplyDeleteTurnout jumped from less than five million primary voters in 1948 to almost thirteen million in 1952 (Trent, et al. 35).” This trend began during the 1952 presidential election campaign. One study showed how, "... only about 40 percent of the homes in the U.S. have television sets, but some 53 percent of the population saw TV programs on the campaign" (Trent, et al. 36). Today, almost every home has well-equipped and easy access to campaign and otherwise political information – majority of citizens have it at their fingertips 24/7. Individuals keen to the tricky path of a campaign trail still look to candidate’s acceptance speeches as ways to see how they stack up against the pressure and how they would fair in the White House. Zelizer explains: “ In an era when voters have fewer opportunities to see candidates in person, the acceptance speech has value by providing voters an opportunity to see firsthand how a candidate will perform when faced with this kind of high-stakes challenge” (Zelizer). While the most recent campaigns have been up and running for over a year now, the party conventions still seem to act simply as a “warning shot” to cue in listens to begin considering their candidate options for Commander in Chief.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
DeleteDallek, Matthew. "This Time Words Matter: What to Listen for in Cleveland." Yahoo News, 18 July 2016. Web.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Zelizer, Julian. "Why Political Conventions Still Matter." CNN. Cable News Network, 6 Aug. 2012. Web.
Matthew Dallek, writer of the Yahoo News Article “The time the words matter: What to listen for in Cleveland” opened his article with, “Conventions don’t matter. They are sideshows. Rehearsed and fake, the speeches are all alike, akin to the droning whine coming from the adult characters on Peanuts” (Dallek). Which then raises the question, why do we even still have conventions? Well, there are some obvious modern day reason for political parties to still hold nomination conventions despite the fact that the actual presidential nominee for that party was decided months ago.
ReplyDeleteThe first reason for that is to make the presidential election more akin to a sports event than the important political event that it actually is. When a politician speaks at their convention at some points like the home team had scored a winning goal in the last seconds of a game rather than the forum to bring up and discuss important domestic and global problems like it actually is. The crowd cheered USA like the US soccer team just scored a goal and the Rio Olympics and cheered We Want Bernie like the MVP was about to come out onto the field. This sets the stage to make the presidential election more sport like, it brings in more “fans” for the presidential candidate. This doesn’t swing them any new fans, most likely, but it certainly serves to get existing fans pumped up and exciting to vote whenever that moment comes.
Richard J. Semiatin in the book he edited called Campaigns on The Cutting Edge, brings up another point that explains why these conventions are still held. The book explains, “Even when party leadership changes, the organization still provides a sense of continuity for the voters” (Semiatin 7). Holding these conventions when they are, at best pointless, and at worst a waste of money, is an example of these parties wanting to maintain some sort of continuity. Semiatin also brings up, which ties into the same point, that “longtime rituals in politics are still virtuous” (Semiatin 9). Now, obviously this is not meant virtuous in an economic sense but more in that they garner hope and become a rally point for their party.
This all being said, it could be continuously debated if these two facts along make party conventions worth their expenditures. They may be for the continuity they maintain and the rally point they provide for the already decided voters, or they may be a huge waste of money. Regardless, it’s obvious that they’re still an integral part of the US election process, especially in this election year. With some of the most interesting and unusual presidential candidates in recent history it is important to give them the forum to express their views so that we can better get to know them and really get to know who we may or may not be voting for.
Semiatin, Richard J., ed. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 2016.
Dallek, Matthew. "This Time Words Matter: What to Listen for in Cleveland." Yahoo News, 18 July 2016. Web.
James Sorbara
ReplyDeleteProfessor Lisa Burns
MSS 349
5 September 2016
Political parties shovel millions of dollars into conventions despite their lack of necessity. The presidential nominating process could potentially call for a convention, as it did in 1976 when neither Ronald Reagan nor Gerald Ford were able to secure the necessary amount of delegates to secure nomination (Bamforth). Since then, there have been 10 presidential elections in which every presumptive Republican and Democratic nominee secured nomination before the end of the primary season, yet there have been conventions each year. These conventions, which on the surface seem like a waste of money, are as important as any other aspect of campaigning.
So if not to actually choose a nominee, why waste important campaign money on an elaborate and expensive lineup of speakers in a humungous concert venue? In Political Campaign Communication: Principals and Practices Judith Trent insists that, “the convention stage is an important and distinct period…because of the symbolic functions it provides” (Trent 34). This symbolic function serves a very real purpose for news media corporations that cover the events, events that are often riddled with noteworthy speakers and always highlighted by a speech from the party’s presumptive presidential nominee.
It was not until the inception of television and the 1952 campaigns that primary voter turnout began to skyrocket and previously uninterested individuals began to take a bigger part in the voting process (36). Television had a huge influence on many elections, perhaps most notably in 1960 when Richard Nixon lost a large chunk of the electoral vote to the younger, more charismatic John F. Kennedy (History.com).
The main reason parties choose to spend such incredible amounts of money on their conventions is the publicity that they can bring, publicity that could lead to donations and votes. The 2016 Democratic National Convention featured stars like Katy Perry, America Ferrera and Sara Silverman, none of who are wholly politically oriented, but all of who increased viewership and expanded their message to potentially unreached audiences. Donald Trump was enough star power alone for the 2016 Republican National Convention to draw some major attention, though speeches by Dr. Ben Carson and Melania Trump may have drawn the wrong kind of attention. Regardless of the perceived success or failure of the 2016 conventions both candidates saw spikes in their approval ratings via polling data, making it all worth it in the end.
Liberal pundit Michelle Goldberg from Slate magazine wrote in an article during the Democratic National Convention titled The DNC Has Been a Rousing Success. So Why Am I Terrified?,
“Each day brought news that Trump had overtaken Clinton in at least some polls; on Thursday morning, Nate Silver published a piece at FiveThirtyEight titled, “Election Update: Why Our Model Is Bullish on Trump, for Now.” Silver now gives him a 40 percent chance of winning the election” (Goldberg).
She acknowledges shortly after that Mrs. Clinton would likely have her own spike following the DNC, and she did, but these spikes are enough to assert that the influence of television is the main driving force behind these conventions; influence that for the most part, seems to stem mainly from seeing the candidates rather than hearing them.
Works Cited
Bamforth, Kelli. "A Brief Guide to Brokered Conventions." A Brief Guide to Brokered Conventions. Daily Pnut, 28 Mar. 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign Communication:8th Revised Edition: Principles and Practices. Lanham, MD: ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD, 2015. Print.
History.com Staff. "The Kennedy-Nixon Debates." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2010. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
Goldberg, Michelle. "The DNC Has Been a Rousing Success. So Why Am I Terrified?" Slate. Slate, 28 July 2016. Web. 5 Sept. 2016.
This year’s presidential campaign has been one for the books. It's definitely not just an average race, like we've had so many times in the past. Candidates for the respective parties, I believe continue to spend millions of dollars on the RNC and the DNC as a way to continue to be in the media and connect with other key people to give them a boost. For example, Hilary Clinton had Demi Lovato speak on the DNC. Demi Lovato isn't a political figure but having her speak, Hilary Clinton reached a younger audience. According to the Hollywood reporter, each night of RNC and DNC ratings climbed higher and higher. The conventions bring a growth to public interest in the candidates and the election.
ReplyDeleteThe RNC and DNC also for the candidates to show off their parties in a sense. Each party has a myriad of influential speakers from current president, Barack Obama to Chris Christie, it's a star studded night. When you have people like Barack Obama say, "I stand before you again tonight, after almost two terms as your President, to tell you I am even more optimistic about the future of America", it sparks confidence for viewers to have in Hilary Clinton.
Paying to have the debates also allows for the parties to frame exactly what they want the public to see. It says in Political Campaign Communication, "television covers only those events it decides are important, thereby altering the shape, structure, and activities of the convention" (Trent 37). Essentially, the candidates can glamour up the night and make it look appealing to the voters.
Another reason candidates choose to still spend millions of dollars on the conventions is because it shows the people a sense of unity and togetherness. That all of these people can come together in support of either the Republican or Democratic candidate. Trent says, “The party has a chance to show its unity. Whether the cohesion is more apparent than real, the convention is the time when wounds from the primary campaigns can be addressed and healed” (Trent 41). Again, it’s saying that showing unison within the party is important in keeping the viewers attention.
I personally think that at the end of the day the conventions are still held, and money is still spent on them in vast amounts is to sell their campaign to the viewers. The conventions really draw the voters in and make them truly believe in the candidate. It’s a strategy that I don’t think will change anytime soon.
Works Cited:
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Devin Dywer and Benjamin Siegle July 28, 2016 6:12 AM. “President Obama Tells DNC ‘America is Already Great’ and We Don’t Look to Be Ruled’” Yahoo. 28 July 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
One of the main reasons political parties spend millions of dollars on nominating convention is for the public interest. Being able to physically see the speeches and drama of the conventions gives the viewers a bigger sense of whom they’re voting for and allows them to feel more involved (Trent et al, 35). A huge part of these conventions, especially in the current one, is to get the public to believe in the party’s nominee and unify that party to in a sense heal the wounds from the primary campaign (Trent et al, 40). Conventions are the party’s opportunity to showcase to the country their nominee and kick off the next step in their campaign for presidency.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of showing a unified party has been a major theme dating back to the 1964 Republican Convention all the way to the current conventions. The Democratic Party dropped the ball big time this year on showcasing unity because of another email scandal that revealed the party’s ploy to undermine Bernie Sanders, in full support of Hillary. This scandal had the opposite effect of unifying the party, and lessened Hillary’s chances of gaining Bernie supporters to vote for her, despite his public support of her during his speech (Barrow, 2016). For the Republican Party it seemed like the only thing unifying the party was their dislike towards Clinton.
The conventions also give a different view of the candidates that the public might not see often which could have a positive or negative impact. Donald Trumps children (besides his youngest) all gave speeches that showed a “lighter” side of their father. “Ivanka Trump delivered a passionate, well-received speech on the convention’s final night that extended a hand to women voters by promising that her father would work to close the gender pay gap” (Moody, 2016). The speeches by the Trump children were all positively received and as the CNN article stated might have saved the convention. For those voters on the cusp or are easily swayed, seeing personal accounts can aid in their final decision.
Political parties also continue to hold these nominating conventions to reaffirmed their party views and foreshadow what is to come in the upcoming campaign. The acceptance speech given by the party nominee is a huge moment in the convention; the candidate is put to the test to see how ready they are for upcoming debates and presidency. As a public we use these speeches to “judge the candidates effort and begin to accord the nominee legitimacy” (Trent et al, 171) based off their delivery of the speech. In Hillary’s acceptance speech we truly saw what she will bring as a president. Joe Klein of Times puts it best “She offers two things: an agenda – as apposed to a message- and a demeanor” (Klein, 2016). We also saw Melania Trump struggle to present something unique, giving a sour taste in many viewers’ mouths. The speeches given by other political figures (current president, former running mates etc.) also help unify the party’s vision going into the general election campaign.
Though we already know the nominee going into the conventions, conventions legitimize the nominee as well as unify (or give the appearance) the political party.
Work Cited
DeleteBarrow, Bill. “Do U.S. Political Conventions Still Matter?” PBS. PBS, 18 July 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
Klein, Joe. "What Made Hillary Clinton’s Acceptance Speech Work." Time 29 July 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016
Moody, Chris. “Trump’s Kids Might Have Saved the Convention.” CNN. Cable News Network, 22 July 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Zelizer, Julian. “Why Political Conventions Still Matter.” CNN. Cable News Network, 6 Aug. 2012. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
The existence of the RNC and DNC may appear on the surface to be obsolete, they can be viewed as outdated ritualistic like practices that are simply for grand pageantry. However much of what occurs at these conventions help solidify and refocus the agenda of the larger election. The convention’s importance can be viewed in two ways through a historical lense and more pressing modern one.
ReplyDeleteHistorically the convention was where the party decided the nominee. However do to the rise in the importance placed on primaries and the advent of the television, the nominees were decided well before the convention. What occurred as a result was a shift in the function of the convention. One major function is that “the convention rituals provide an opportunity for the legitimation and reaffirmation of the ‘rightness’ of the American way or dream” (Trent, Friedenberg and Denton Jr. 40). The convention proclaims that the American democratic way has led us to this candidate. Trump decided to say that “I humbly and gratefully accept your nomination,” playing to the strength of the American democratic decision making process. This opening phrase may not appear like the most complex statement, but it plays to the very strong sentiment in the democratic process. Hillary did the same in her opening statement, using the word “we’ve.” This creates a sense of national unity and credence to the American way in respects to the nomination process.
Trent, Friedenberg and Denton Jr. also stress the emphasis on the importance of party unity at the convention. They say, “the convention is the time when the wounds from the primary campaigns can be addressed and healed” (41). Now historically the record has shown that most of the time the wounds do heal and petty differences can be settled to unite behind the single candidate. However there are some hiccups in the history of the convention which demonstrate how party unity isn’t a given. This election in particular demonstrated both party unity and chaos. The DNC had a great moment of party unity when President Obama gave his speech. Not only did Obama deliver a masterful speech to empower the crowd, he also provided Hillary with a great moment of the two hugging on stage. The snapshot of those two embracing provides the nation with a great piece of evidence that there is unity in the Democratic Party. Bernie Sander’s endorsement of Hillary also “healed the wounds” from the intense primaries early this year. Turning our focus to the RNC we see chaos. The chaos could be seen and heard loud and clear when Ted Cruz took the stand. In his speech he stated his failure to endorse trump, and asked the American voter to “choose any candidate on the ballot.” This speech was muffled by the boos and heckling coming from the crowd. This election has provided us with both examples in this area of unity.
The central piece of the convention is the acceptance speech. It is finally the time for the candidates to speak to the public as the official nominee for president. The speech often include a lot of strategies to continue the momentum that candidate has created for themselves. Trent, Friedenberg and Denton Jr. state that more recently attacks on other parties as a whole have been less common in then acceptance speeches, but Trump seemed to ignore this fact. In one of the more entertaining parts of his speech Trump states, “If you want to hear lies and media spins the Democrats are holding their convention next week.” He attacks the party as a whole breaking trends that the authors of our textbook seem to suggest. Both candidates utilized their biographies in there speeches. Hillary took a more historic route in stating, “this is the first time a majority party had nominated a Woman.” Meanwhile Trump said that his background in business gives him an advantage in solving the big business issue in American. “No one knows it better than me”; these were Trump’s words on the matter of big business.
ReplyDeleteThis election has and will continue to provide us with evidence and examples of these concepts that we come to expect from a presidential campaign. We still can see the importance of the convention system, as the unwritten and written rules of politics blend in the grand pageantry of the RNC and DNC.
Work Cited
“Donald Trump RNC Speech Highlights.” YouTube. YouTube, 21 July 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
"Highlights: Hillary Clinton's DNC Speech." YouTube. YouTube, 28 July 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
“Highlights: Barack Obama's DNC speech.” YouTube. YouTube, 27 July 2016. Web. O5 Sept. 2016.
"Ted Cruz Booed, Heckled During Republican Convention Speech For Refusing To Endorse Donald Trump." YouTube. YouTube, 20 July 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
Trent, J. S., Friedenberg, R. V., Denton Jr., R. E. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNominating conventions are national political events that draw widespread attention from voters and the press. Political parties spend millions of dollars on these conventions primarily to unify their party behind the selected nominee and for companies to benefit from advertisements. The conventions occur over the course of four days, which gives both parties an opportunity to address internal conflicts within their party. As the textbook states , “Whether the cohesion is more apparent than real, the convention is the time when wounds from the primary campaigns can be addressed and healed” (Trent et al. 41). It’s vital for parties to appear as unified as possible. At the beginning of her acceptance speech at the DNC, Clinton thanked Sanders and took a moment to try to appeal to the “young people” he inspired through his campaign. She told the audience she has heard the Sanders supporters concerns and believes they all must work together with her in order to invoke change in America. After WikiLeaks published over 20,000 emails from DNC officials, I thought the Democratic Party would do more to try to gain the Sanders supporters trust, but I believe little was done and the problem was avoided. I interviewed some Sanders delegates at the DNC and they said they were frustrated with the DNC’s unfair treatment and found it difficult to support Hillary Clinton.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to resolving party conflicts, conventions are seen as a golden opportunity for advertising. AT&T set up charging stations throughout the Wells Fargo Center in Philadelphia for free. Facebook had a lounge and gave away various promotional items. Instagram had a photobooth and Xfinity provided free WiFi throughout the entire convention. I learned firsthand that the layout of the convention is designed for television viewers rather than the comfort of the delegates. The conventions appeal to millions of viewers and commercial breaks around prime time speeches are extremely valuable. Prime time television during the conventions is filled with “speeches meant to appeal to voters, along with documentary films prepared beforehand to keep viewers interested” (Polsby 123). Trump’s acceptance speech attracted 34.9 million viewers and 33.7 million viewers watched Clinton’s acceptance speech (O’Connell). I believe this is because Trump is a better entertainer and people were curious to see if he would say outrageous things.
Another reason why lots of money is put into these conventions is because the location of the convention can have long-lasting effects on voters. This year, both parties held their conventions in swing states with the Republicans meeting in Ohio and the Democrats meeting in Pennsylvania. Parties like to bring their publicity and business to states where the governor is a friendly member of the party (Polsby 118). This was the case with the Democrats, as Pennsylvania governor Tom Wolf attended and spoke at the DNC. However, Ohio governor John Kasich did not even attend the RNC. This plays into appealing to voters within certain demographics and parties attempting to achieve unity.
Conventions are important because they provide legitimation for the party’s nominees (Trent et al. 40). The most critical part of the convention is the candidate accepting and becoming the nominee of their party. Their acceptance speeches allow them to provide the public a glimpse of what their rhetorical agenda will look like for the remainder of the election (Trent et al. 42). Poll results after the conventions are also important. Polls conducted after the RNC and DNC concluded showed that Clinton gained the post-convention bounce. Nominating conventions are important because they allow voters to learn more about the parties, their platforms and the candidates themselves.
Works Cited
DeleteO'Connell, Michael. "TV Ratings: Hillary Clinton's DNC Speech Falls Just Shy of Trump's With 33 Million Viewers." The Hollywood Reporter. N.p., 29 July 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
Polsby, Nelson W., Aaron B. Wildavsky, Steven E. Schier, and David A. Hopkins. Presidential Elections: Strategies and Structures of American Politics. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Print.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Print.
For years the American public has relied heavily on the televised conventions of the RNC and the DNC. Viewers used the conventions as a way to become more informed about the possible candidates running for president. This was the nation's opportunity to take a more in depth look at the Republican and Democratic parties. Candidates used the conventions as a platform to broadcast their beliefs, thoughts and ideas for the future of the United States. However, the last time the American people were actually unsure about who would win a nomination was at the 1976 RNC, between California Governor Ronald Reagan and President Gerald Ford. Its been 40 years and 10 elections since we’ve had a contested convention, but now it seems that every four years we know who is going to win the nomination, so why do parties spend millions of dollars nominating a candidate when we know its already been decided? It’s all about keeping with tradition. The conventions of presidential nominees have been going on for hundreds of years, and sewn into the political fabric of America. However with the ever-changing progression of social media it seems as though the conventions have become more of a spectacle rather than a necessary tool used by Americans. According to Matthew Dallek from Yahoo news, “ conventions don’t matter. They are sideshows. Rehearsed and fake” (Dallek,Yahoo News). With 24-hour news networks and social media, it’s hard for the public not to be constantly updated with a new story about a candidate. “Where instrumental or pragmatic communicative functions were once the primary reason for holding part conventions, now the symbolic or ritualistic functions are, in most instances the chief purpose” (Trent). We are continuously informed, with the news right at our fingertips, so voters don’t have to wait until the conventions to hear about a candidate’s stance. Republican candidate Donald Trump uses twitter, a lot. He takes advantage of social media, using it as a perpetual platform to get his messages out to his followers without having to wait till the conventions. Another reason for conventions, it brings in immense amounts of ratings. In the most recent conventions, viewers didn’t watch because they wanted to be informed on policies they watched because it was a like a bad movie, no one could or wanted to look away. The public loves entertainment so they look forward to the conventions as an opportunity to watch the two most hated candidates in American history go after one another. In the most recent elections, there has been an extreme increase in the amount of endorsements and appearances made by celebrities and public figures. The DNC has spent serious amounts of money on appearances from celebrities like Meryl Streep, Lena Dunham, Eva Longoria and singers like Alicia keys, Demi Lovato and Katy Perry. The high profiled celebrities at the DNC were used as a marketing strategy, to gain easy votes from undecided or uneducated voters, who don’t necessarily pay attention to politics but loves to see their favorite singer endorsing a nominee. The voters will feel more inclined to vote the same way. Although conventions are apart of the election process, its seems that over time it will become less necessary and more of a show.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign
Communication, 8th edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield ,2015
Dallek, Matthew. “This Time Words Matter: What To Listen for in Cleveland.” Yahoo
News, 18 July 2016c. Web
The four step process that Trent mentions on page 35, includes the convention stage and the tradition it has in the elections we hold. Traditionally, the topics discussed and opinions expressed reflect those that are embodied by either the RNC or the DNC. The mini clips that are produced as a result of the nominating conventions could be that one clip to someone that brings them on board with a party, or makes them re-think their voting choice. The television networks cover “Only those events it decides are important, thereby altering the shape, structure, and activities of the convention” (Trent 37). These conventions give parties a chance to let their candidate shine.
ReplyDeleteSometimes people need encouragement to tune to the television again. We live in a time where visual stimulation is everywhere, and voters might not turn to the television as their first source to satisfy their craving for information. Not saying that the conventions completely turn voters to pro-television, but they certainly help. “By 1976, when electorate interest in that year’s presidential contest was studied, it was discovered that television coverage of the conventions boosted voter interest and attention to the campaign.” (Trent 36) Although the year isn’t 1976, we have evolved to using different methodologies to attracting viewers. Michelle Goldberg writes in a Slate op-ed the following, “There have been soaring, electrifying speeches (at the DNC). Michelle Obama was show-stopping. Joe Biden’s performance was charming, folksy and combative, the distilled essence of everything Democrats love about him.” (Goldberg) Where else would we be able to showcase the support of two of the figures most associated with Democracy in today’s society, other than a nominating convention that holds the parties name and the word “national” in it to signify its importance?
Support from what Goldberg calls “star power” was also prevalent at this year’s DNC, with Alicia Keys and Lenny Kravitz performing. With these names making an appearance, it was clear that both conventions jumped at the chance to bring in figures not regularly associated with politics, to make the convention that has a label making it seem to only be for those “hard pressed politicians,” back to Earth. Not all things, however, can be brought back to Earth (Trump’s Tweets). These conventions provide a place for a candidate, like Donald Trump, to elaborate on the Tweets that Dallek writes in regards to. “The uniquely tendentious nature of Donald Trump’s candidacy, as well as his unprecedented use of Tweets and rally speeches to power his rise, makes this convention more significant than others have been in recent years.” (Dallek)
“Media representatives outnumbered delegates by four and five to one at the Republican and Democratic conventions (1980),” writes Trent. With the expansion of media in today’s society, that coverage has skyrocketed and taken on new forms. We need to give the media something to feed on, and these culmination conventions provide just that.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, JR. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham, Maryland. Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.
DeleteDallek, Matthew. "This Time Words Matter: What to Listen for in Cleveland." Yahoo News, 18 July 2016. Web.
If this year’s election has shown us anything, it’s that it’s not one of our country’s more “traditional” elections for certain. In my opinion, and especially for this year’s elections, these political conventions have definitely evolved from their original purpose of simply just nominating a candidate. While these type of conventions are traditional for our presidential elections, they’ve become more focused on advertising those running and getting endorsements for them. These conventions are noted as providing “symbolic functions” due to the historical context of it in the history of our elections. (Trent 34) But millions are spent on putting on these “shows” in order for each party’s nominee to look the best to the large amount of media coverage and reach out to the public as a solidified candidate. These conventions are two of the biggest media events of the year and of the election process as a whole. Even these two specific candidates have been drawing more media attention than past candidates of recent years without the conventions. Trump alone has received close to $2 million alone in free media attention. (Calderone) With all of the media focus on these two events and the many undecided T.V viewers at home, it makes sense for these two parties to want to put on an exciting and smart program and try to make their candidate look the best. Clinton even had numerous popular celebrities at the DNC in promoting herself such as Paul Simon and Katy Perry in order to create more viewership for her event and a better name to some undecided voters.(Rutenberg) This type of celebrity endorsement as well as endorsements from numerous political powers on such a widely viewed event helps to paint a different image of one’s candidate and help to hopefully gain viewers and supporters.
ReplyDeleteWith the large amount of media attention drawn to these events, what is really comes down to is that these conventions are just very large advertisements for the candidates and their respective parties. As Jim Rutenberg of the NY Times notes, “a convention has the potential to be the ultimate ad, a four-night primetime infomercial.” With these conventions, they aim to not only solidify themselves as candidates among their already established supporters, but to also reach out to new ones. Again, while these conventions have most definitely evolved over time, they still maintain the main overall factor of nominating a candidate and with that comes the very significant closing speech from the nominee. It’s this closing speech that actually gives the candidate the stage and the microphone. It gives them a chance to personally promote themselves in any manner they’d like whether that be their strategies, ideals, or use that time to even attack their opponent as we saw in Donald Trump’s RNC Convention speech. At this year’s conventions, an estimated 33.3 million viewers watched the closing day of the DNC while around 34.9 million viewers watched the final day of the RNC (Patten). Either way, it’s this speech that allows us to really see a candidate's legitimacy before the election really starts moving.
So while these so much money is sank into these conventions for promotional reasons with the large amount of media coverage, they’re a chance for the parties to present their final nominee to the public and for that candidate to speak directly to those viewers. With the election so close, it only makes sense that these nominees would want to reach as many undecided voters as possible.
Works Cited
DeleteCalderone, Michael. “Donald Trump Has Received Nearly $2 Billion In Free Media Attention.” The Huffington Post. 03 March. 2016. Web.
Rutenberg, Jim. “Clinton’s Convention Was Made for T.V. Trump’s Was Made For Twitter.” The New York Times. 27 Jul. 2016. Web.
Patten, Dominic. “Donald Trump and RNC Top Hillary Clinton and Final Night of DNC in Viewers.” Deadline. 29 Jul. 2016. Web.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Spending millions on a national convention is a way each respected political party brings attraction to the public eye. Many view it as a misuse of valuable money that could be used in better campaign planning. The convention is a very strategic way to gain a larger voting base. Bringing non-political celebrities up on stage as both candidates did with Clinton using Demi Lovato and Trump using Duck Dynasty star Willie Robertson. This also provides a better opportunity to bring unity and strength to each political candidate as well as their party. "Whether the cohesion is more apparent than real, the convention is the time when wounds from the primary campaigns can be addressed and healed" (Trent, Friedenberg and Denton Jr. 41). Unity has been a backbone for parties since 1964. This year voters have seen it crumble. Donald Trump has created chaos amongst the GOP. “ I just don’t see how I get to Donald Trump anymore, " stated Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger, a former Air Force pilot and Iraq war veteran (Holland and Stephenson). Trump also found himself in lack of support from Senator John Mccain. However, Donald Trump wasn’t the only candidate who is still trying to unify their party. Hillary Clinton ruined her chance at gaining Bernie Sanders’ voters because of her latest email scandal despite having Bernie Sanders announce his support on national TV. It seems as though the convention this year has differed from those of the past. Another change we see in the parties planning is how much they spent on each of their respected National conventions. The DNC spent a total of $67.2 million making this the most expensive Democratic convention in terms of private fundraising. The RNC spent a total of $127 million (TheFiscalTimes). The money is spent for good use as we see Trump and the RNC’s main focus is to reunify the GOP and create a better relationship with them. Having a good relationship with the GOP can help solidify Donald Trump’s chances at becoming the next president. The DNC committee spends more than half of its budget for the convention on staff. More than a quarter of the host committee’s budget goes toward reserving Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Arena (thefiscaltimes). As we see the process of the convention is not to spend millions of dollars on just a celebration. The use of that money to bring stars on stage is to cover the candidates view point and structural foundation as a campaign and provide legitimation for the parties nominees. The convention, if done properly, allows you to set out a narrative and that narrative is something that voters can relate to, said Robert Shrum, the veteran Democratic consultant who has advised Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, and John Kerry at conventions over the years. The convention does often seem to spend a lot of money, but if put to good use, it can change the way viewers see each candidate.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
DeleteTrent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Berman, Russel. "What Actually Happens at the U.s Presidential Conventions?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 10 July 2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.
Holland, Steve, and Emily Stephenson. "Fury at Top of Republican Party over Trump Snub of House Speaker." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 03 Aug. 2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.
By Emily Shah, The Fiscal Times. "How Much Will the Democratic National Convention Cost?" The Fiscal Times. 27 July 2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.
The continuation of these expensive and elaborate nominating conventions seems to solidify the belief that it is all for the benefit of the people. However, when taking a step back, and by looking into the overzealous expenses, it becomes clear that this process turns into more of a popularity contest. While these conventions are very important to the future of the parties’ campaigns, they also seem to become more and more recognizable as time goes on. Given current technology and our readily available access to television and the Internet, candidates become recognizable extremely quickly. When it comes to the DNC and RNC, there is another factor to consider. Trent, et al discuses how the “conventions provides legitimation for the party’s nominees…the person is no longer just a candidate, but the nominee of a political party—something of an American icon” (Trent, et al 41). Furthermore, when looking at the conventions from this perspective they soon become something more than a place where people discuss their campaign and plans for the future. These conventions become the arena where nominees can demonstrate their “American icon” status. As a result, the RNC and DNC show their political and celebrity prowess alike by asking prominent figures to stand beside them as they espouse party unity as well as campaign themes and issues (Trent, et al 42).
ReplyDeleteIn the case of Trump, Glenn Thrush mentions the key takeaways from his convention speech. One point in particular is quite striking. Thrush mentions Ivanka Trump’s appeal in that “the nominee’s poised, elegant and socially liberal daughter delivered a convincing case for her dad as a tolerant, nonpartisan leader” (Thrush). Similarly, Ray Boyd discusses Chelsea Clinton’s speech in a comparable manner as she “took the stage with the task of humanizing her mother” (Boyd). These past two conventions highlight that they are more than just a celebration. Both parties play what they have to their advantage, they use real examples to aid people in seeing these nominees as real people. While these seem like easier moves (and hopefully less expensive moves), in the grand scheme of the conventions, they are small parts to a much larger whole. Thus, the money spent is driven again by appeal. Nominees’ children and family will always appeal if they are poised and put together. However, there is also no denying the appeal of recognizable songs, figures, and extravagant displays. All of these ploys are meant to excite the public while also losing a bit of why the conventions are there in the first place, to discuss the important issues that the country is facing. Just like many other competition- type shows, this too becomes a popularity contest. Matthew Dallek of Yahoo puts these sentiments together, quite poignantly, when he says, “conventions don’t matter. They are sideshows. Rehearsed and fake, the speeches are all alike, akin to the droning whine coming from the adult characters on Peanuts” (Dallek). And yet we still watch them play out despite our frustration with the process and outpouring of money. As consumers and U.S. citizens we watch these “quadrennial, multimillion dollar, tightly scripted three-ring circuses, substance-lite spectacles rather than places where intraparty differences can be ironed out” and still discuss our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs after countless election cycles (Dallek).
Works Cited:
Boyd, Ray. "Chelsea Clinton Delivers A Speech For Mom, Introducing Hillary Clinton At DNC." CBS Philly. N.p., 28 July 2016. Web. 04 Sept. 2016.
Dallek, Matthew. "This Time Words Matter: What to Listen for in Cleveland." Yahoo News, 18 July 2016. Web.
Thrush, Glenn. "5 Takeaways from Donald Trump's Convention Speech." Politico 22 July 2016. Web.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
In my opinion, political parties continue to spend millions of dollars on nominating conventions when the candidate has already been decided because they need to turn out the vote. Even though the candidate has been selected, the fight doesn’t just stop there. “ Conventions are important because they provide legitimation for the party’s nominees (Trent et al. 40). The nominees have to show the people what makes them and their ideas worthy for being the next leader of the free world. How will they do this? Through the media, advertisements, and strategic communication. When television was introduced in 1952 with the primaries “ Turnout jumped from less than five million primary voters in 1948 to almost thirteen million in 1952 ( Trent et al. 39). It just kept increasing from there. According to Fortune, 34.9 million people tuned in to watch Donald Trump speak and 33.3 million people for Hillary. The televised and streamed event broadcasts to millions of viewers spreading the presidential nominees words. Now the DNC and RNC act as a political junkies Grammy’s or Oscar event. AKA, having celebrities speak on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the democrats, this drew in countless more people than before because of the star power backing Hillary. This was used as a marketing strategy. If you think about it this way if you are a young voter and undecided and your role model, favorite actress, or icon back a president, one will just follow suit. At the DNC numerous celebrities spoke like Meryl Streep, Eva Longoria, Chloe Grace Moretz, Alicia Keys, and countless others. Demi Lavato spoke about her mental illness and how she encourages all politicians to support better health care and support for everyone. Then she endorsed Hillary by saying Hillary will fight to ensure that all people living with mental illness get the help they need. Not only is Demi Lavoto influential to adults and teens with her music she also reaches a younger demographic through her Disney Channel stint( CSPAN). Her words were powerful and left a lasting impression on many people that day.
ReplyDeleteAnother person who is bold, wise, and tells the facts straightforward is Donald Trump. Many do not follow the presidential election in its entirety so spending money on the conventions means blasting the presidential hopefuls message through the media to the people so they know what their platform and policies are. Trump is not only a great public speaker, being upfront with the people saying there will be no lies at the RNC (Crisdecuba), but also an effective player on Twitter. “The uniquely tendentious nature of Donald Trump’s candidacy, as well as his unprecedented use of Tweets and rally speeches to power his rise, makes this convention more significant than others have been in recent years” (Dallek). Nominating Conventions are important because it gives you a glimpse on why others support the candidates, what the candidate’s plans are, and who the candidate is personally.
Works Cited:
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Print.
CSPAN. "Demi Lovato FULL REMARKS & Performance at Democratic National Convention (C-SPAN)." YouTube. YouTube, 25 July 2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.
Huddleston, Jr. Tom. "More People Watched Donald Trump’s RNC Speech Than Hillary Clinton’s." Fortune More People Watched Donald Trumps RNC Speech Than Hillary Clintons Comments. N.p., 28 July 2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.
Dellek, Matthew. "This Time the Words Matter: What to Listen for in Cleveland." This Time the Words Matter: What to Listen for in Cleveland. N.p., 18 July 2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.
Crisdecuba. "Donald Trump RNC Speech HIGHLIGHTS." YouTube. YouTube, 21 July 2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.
Political campaigning has now been extended to the hands of political parties. They help determine and shape potential nominees in the future. It also helps legitimize the candidate they nominate to represent their party. Political parties can use financial help bolster their candidate to the public through their conventions. Using the media to their advantage to offer a visionary experience of their party’s platform to the public can be advantageous or detrimental to the party during the general election. Even though the nominees are determined prior to the convention, it becomes a formal introduction of the nominee and his or her platform for the public to keep in mind nearing the general election.
ReplyDeleteBoth the RNC and the DNC have used billions of dollars since 2004 to push forth both seats in Congress and for their presidential nominees. Political parties spend more during presidential campaigns because there’s a larger population to reach and it’s the most impactful. Televised conventions that appeal to the public during primetime hours will cost a lot of money. Additionally, the use of social media networks has come to impact the presidential elections, especially this year. For a political platform to reach an audience not likely to watch the conventions like younger voters around the ages of 18-24 can take a lot of effort. By pushing for social media campaigns encouraging people to watch the convention or watch highlights of a keynote speech keeps voters aware of a party’s platform without having to force them to sit through the whole convention.
National Party committees used to never be involved with the election in this manner before 1952. When the first televised convention was aired in 1952, it really changed how the public viewed political campaigns. People were more attuned to the political process through the national convention and as a result there was a lager turn out in 1952 compared to 1948 (Trent et. al. 35). In 1972, there was a shift in convention procedures due to the McGovern-Fraser commission. It restructured how conventions and primary election’s function. It further shifted the determination of who became the presidential nominee from the party to the voters. This led to party committees to restructure their conventions to legitimize their party nominee and strategize how to present the party as a whole with their party nominee towards from the convention to the general election.
What voters may not know is how much that the democratic and republican national committees go through during election seasons. There are some people that may presume that the only thing the committees really perform their job is during the national convention. While that’s the opposite, there are other jobs that the party committees do while not in presidential election season. One of those jobs is that committees can help in strategizing in winning house or senate seats during mid-year elections. In 2007, the Republican National Committee created a program called the Republicans’ Young Guns, which helped gauge how well the republican contenders are against democratic incumbents in the house and senate. The program required enrolled candidates to re-strategize their campaign, online communication and fundraising. The candidate that achieves the highest level (Young Gun) will proceed to get funding from the Republic National Congressional Committee. (Semaitan, 100). This program was really effective in 2010 when republicans gained 63 seats and 6 senate house seats. (New York Times). This shows that there’s more to it for national committees than just the national convention.
(Continued) This year’s RNC and DNC had two unique opportunities to capitalize on. The republican national committee has a nominee who is free of political history and uses twitter to his advantage for his campaign. While the democratic national committee has their first female nominated for the race to the White House. The republican committee ran on the platform of restructuring America to be the greatest nation it was prior to the Democrats entering in 2008. There seemed to be a lot of sentiment over the fear of where the country would go in the future in terms of security, economy and social policy. While the Democrats tried to offer a sense of opportunity and hope, similar to the Obama campaign. This was mainly in rebuttal of the republican national conventions platform. Offering a new perspective with the first female party nominee, Hilary Clinton. Offering her success as First lady, Senator and Secretary of State as a sense of optimism for the country to keep moving the country forward. In order to build a platform like this to the country is not easy game and it will involve millions of dollars to make sure the public sees what the party wants them to see and digest.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2016.
Print.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign
Communication:8th Revised Edition: Principles and Practices. Lanham, MD:
ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD, 2015. Print.
Zeleny, Jeff. "G.O.P. Captures House, but Not Senate." The New York Times. The New
York Times, 02 Nov. 2010. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.
This year’s presidential election is unlike any other; its unique ways have shocked the American people throughout the entire process. With rival candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the outcome of the election is going to be interesting, to say the least. This year’s convention was unlike the others and aimed to entertain the public, while glamorize the candidates. With the use of balloons, special effects, and particular speakers, the conventions were a fortune. From a public relations perspective, political conventions enhance ones’ image and are glamorizing for the candidates. Although each candidate has already been picked, political parties continue to spend a ridiculous amount of money on advertising. The candidates want to either enhance their image, or tarnish their opponent’s image. For instance, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton spend more time and money attacking each other than they do discussing the questions of the American people and particular issues the world is facing. Each candidate has spent a myriad of time and money digging up dirt on one another, in hopes to sway the public’s opinion. It has become a popularity contest, and they believe that the candidate who has the most elaborate and expensive campaign will win.
ReplyDeleteAt the Republican National Convention, what particularly stood out to me was Donald Trump’s elaborate entrance, which of course, was widely criticized. He came out to the infamous song, “We are the Champions,” by Queen. Flashy lights appeared and his shadow was shown. It was an intimidating entrance that I believe Trump’s motive was to signify his power and prove to be stronger than Clinton. He wanted to portray himself to the American people as a strong and in a way, an intimidating leader. After his entrance, one of the first words he said was, “we are going to win so big thank you very much” (The Guardian). If Trump really thought that he was going to “win so big,” then he would not be spending as much money to enhance his image and attempt to pull in more voters. It is all about glamorizing his image and competing against “crooked Hillary.” The Republican Party is not solid and has been fragmented and split since the primaries. Without strong and dedicated supporters, it will fail, which is a fear of many. With strong advertising and rallies, there will be no supporters, which is why Trump is striving to make up for his campaign through spending money on advertising.
Compared to the past elections, campaigns today are centered around the individual voters, especially due to the rise in technology (Semiatin 4). Various forms of technology are used to reach the public and encourage the American people to vote. Television is one of the most popular forms of advertising, as well as the use of the Internet, which is also the least expensive form of advertising (Trent, Friedenberg and Denton, 7). In addition, forms of advertising, television, and radio allow the candidate to showcase their personality and specific brand, which is all made possible because of money. Without money, what would they do? I believe that the more money each candidate spends, he or she believes it will increase their chance of showcasing their personal image and brand, allowing them to win the entire election. In regards to the current election, Clinton and Trump are competing in ways that have never occurred before. Today, people do not vote like they used to.
Works Cited:
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th edition. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016. Print.
Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2016. Print.
“Donald Trump Makes Grand Entrance at Republican National Convention – Video.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 19 July 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.
Both the Republican and Democratic National Committees continue to spend vast amounts of money on their respective party’s National Convention. The conventions hold distinct symbolic or ritualistic purposes (Trent 50) which are aimed to engage and excite the viewer to ultimately support the candidate who has been nominated. There are a number of factors which have made these conventions so significant in the nominating process.
ReplyDeleteSince its inception, television has been a staple in American society. Many people spend hours a day watching television for entertainment purposes. People may tune in for reality shows, sporting events, to receive world and local news, etc. Each of these types of shows must be entertaining for the viewer or else it would be hard to retain viewership and interest. The Republican and Democratic Conventions are no different. When television was first utilized for political purposes in 1952, public interest grew and subsequently voter turnout did as well (Trent 51). During the 1980 Democratic Convention, the New York Times reported that there were 3,381 delegates present and roughly 11,500 reporters (Trent 51). The public has consistently engaged with and been influenced by the media and the seemingly large number of reporters is mandatory to cover such grandiose events.
Fast forward to the 2016 conventions. Donald Trump’s RNC entrance and the flare around his presence were important. He had a WWE-style entrance with smoke on the stage and his shadow prominent in the background. The stage surrounding him was lit up gold and the letters “TRUMP” were featured in large print behind him. Why couldn’t Trump have just made a policy-specific speech to reach supporters and garner undecided voters? This is because the American people are compelled by the entertainment aspect of politics. Donald Trump knows how to entertain and the entire Republican Convention served to do just that.
Similar to the Republican Convention, the Democratic Convention had moments that were intended to entertain viewers and spur certain kinds of reactions. For example, when Hillary Clinton was introduced on the big screen, there was a virtual graphic of a “glass ceiling” breaking. There is certainly symbolism there, but the primary point was to add flare to the convention and entertain viewers. Once Hillary’s acceptance speech was over, there were seemingly a million balloons that fell from the ceiling. Hillary and Bill Clinton’s reactions were priceless. Were these balloons necessary? Likely not, but they were colorful, entertaining, and “American”.
A lot of what we saw at this year’s conventions served to entertain the viewers and draw reactions. The Republicans brought in mothers of Benghazi victims to make a case against Hillary. The Democrats brought in the Khan family and illegal immigrants to make a case for empathy for Muslims and illegal immigrants in our country. MSNBC rolled their eyes at Republicans’ exploitation of the victims of Benghazi’s parents. Fox News grilled the Democrats for showing peaceful minority Americans. All kinds of print and viewing news outlets had field days with their coverage of the conventions.
Ultimately, the Republican and Democratic National Committees continue to spend large sums of money on the conventions because they are aware of their importance in the electing process. Conventions are solely made-for-TV events. Committees spend a lot to hold the conventions, news outlets spend a lot to coverage the conventions. This is a symbiotic relationship in which the nominees receive attention and the news outlets receive viewership or readership. The American political process is dominated by media and the Committees are certainly aware of this due to their continued spending on conventions.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, JR. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham, Maryland. Rowman & Littlefield, 2016.
Delete“Donald Trump Entrance at GOP Convention (C-SPAN)”. Youtube. Youtube, 18 July 2016. Web. 05 September 2016.
“Bill Clinton Plays With Balloons at the DNC”. Youtube. Youtube, 29 July 2016. Web. 05 September 2016.
“Another Weird Night In Cleveland At The RNC | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC”. Youtube. Youtube, 21 July 2016. Web. 05 September 2016
“Gingrich: DNC speeches don't reflect reality for Americans”. Youtube. Youtube, 28 July 2016. Web. 05 September 2016
In the decades of political conventions in the United States, there have been tremendous changes. Once the essential time to truly decide a party’s candidate, it is now more of a dog and pony show. It is a way for the nominated candidate and the party to flex in order to show off famous celebrities allegiant to them. As well as inspiring, but vague speeches from dozens of people that usually ends with confetti and shrieking cheers from thousands of spectators as if they were watching the Beatles perform live. The main purpose of the conventions is really to establish the party’s platform. Political parties spend over a hundred million dollars on the conventions each year because of the massive media coverage that comes with the convention every year. This year at the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump’s wife Melania Trump, was criticized greatly for plagiarizing First Lady Michelle Obama’s speech from a previous Democratic National Convention. The coverage continued for days and the Trump campaign eventually responded to the criticism by saying that it was because Melania really revered Michelle Obama that her speech was similar. This is certainly not the kind of coverage that the RNC wanted this year, but because there is so much media coverage over the course of the convention, they want to invest as much money as they can.
ReplyDeleteEvery year, the percentage of registered independents in the United States increases due to a lack of allegiance to either major party. At the time of the last presidential election, there were 36 percent independents in the U.S. In 1964 it was only 24 percent and that number is only increasing. With the independent vote being such a major factor in every election, the conventions are a way to get as many undecided independent voters to support that party’s candidate. Even if independent voters are not particularly interested in watching the conventions, if they own a T.V it can be pretty hard to avoid. Both conventions are on all night for a total of two weeks. They are on almost every news network, particularly the 24 hour news networks. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, PBS and more. Both parties spend million each year because they know there are going to be millions of eyes watching every night. The DNC had an advantage this year in the ratings because of the historical significance. Hillary Clinton is the first woman in American history to be nominated by a major party for president. Even though she is not known as a good speaker, she did not have to give a memorable and inspirational speech. The historical significance of the first woman accepting the nomination was enough to get people to watch. During Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech at the DNC, there were 33.7 million people watching.
Work Cited
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
O'Connell, Michael. "Hillary Clinton's DNC Speech Falls Just Shy of Trump's With 33 Million Viewers." The Hollywood Reporter 29 July 2016. Web.
Abcarian, Robin. "Why is it so hard for the Trump campaign to admit that Melania cribbed Michelle Obama's words?" Los Angeles Times 18 July 2016. Web.
Klein, Joe. "What Made Hillary Clinton’s Acceptance Speech Work." Time 29 July 2016. Web.
The 2016 election is one for the books. Recently it seems as if money is the sole foundation of forming a sturdy campaign. According to a chart on The Economist, the 2016 presidential election; including the parties, candidates, and outside groups will spend at least $5 billion on this race. That amount of money is more than double the cost and amount of the 2012 presidential campaign. Super PACs (presidential action committees) have played a tremendous role in relaying the message to viewers and citizens of America (economist). Although the candidates acquire the money for their campaigns in different terms, such as Bernie Sanders relying on more small donations for his campaign and the Republican party have received most of their money in larger amounts mostly associated with super PACs. During the Republican National Convention and The Democratic National Convention, each parties candidate had representatives and supporters speak on their behalf. Although at the end of each convention, both candidates accepted their nominations, money continuously began pouring in from the influence of the speakers at their conventions. The influence that the conventions have on the average citizen is tremendous. The flashy props, intimidating stage, and many other factors represent a wealthy candidate, which doesn’t always factor well with the average middle class family. In one of our books, Political Communication, it mentions that “ The core of each campaign, is communication”. (Trent, 8) Communication through advertisements and media serve as the “area between the goals and aspirations of the candidate and the behavior of the electorate, just as it serves as the bridge between the dreams and hopes of the voters and the actions of the candidate” (Trent, 8)
ReplyDeleteA New York Times writer, Adam Nagourney, mentions 10 takeaways from both the democratic and republican conventions. The one takeaway I find most interesting is his mention of “party support matters”. During Hillary Clinton’s convention, she had most of her party in support of her, to the point of so many elected Democrats volunteering to support and speak on her behalf, the campaign could not accommodate them all (Nagourney). The overall support from the democratic party resonated within the voters. It was evident that the democratic party had their act together. More support from a party means more party leaders who are willing to help raise money, and get their voices heard so people will go vote. On the other side Donald Trump had an obvious difficult time finding people and elected officials to speak on his behalf. This obvious poor support from his party is evident within voters, especially myself. Bringing supporters outside of politics works in the parties favor.
(Continued) The DNC had notable figures such as Demi Lovato, mentioning her battle with mental illness, and even the not so notable figures such as Karla Ortiz, a U.S citizen born in Las Vegas, spoke about her fears of her parents being deported. That was a brilliant strategic plan from the democratic campaign. Spending money on notable figures and the common man will boost support and acknowledgment form the common voter. But, this could backfire, like it did for the Republican campaign. During the RNC, Donald Trump’s campaign had Senator Ted Cruz speak for what they hoped on Trump’s behalf. Cruz strongly defended his stance on not supporting and endorsing Trump, a stunt that provoked many ill cheers and boo’s. Cruz stated, “I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father”. (CNN) This type of “endorsement” although was not in Trump’s favor, had so many people talking about it on social media, that it basically worked in Trump’s favor. A tactic used by Trump, the more ridiculous things he says or tweets, the more people talk about him and the topic. Brilliant, in my opinion. Another one of our books, “Campaign on the Cutting Edge”, mentions that the new political campaign demonstrates the importance of contact, communications and feedback with voters (Semiatin, 4)
ReplyDeleteWith all the flashy lights, loud music, and plethora of balloons, sometimes people seem to forget the sole reason of political conventions; for candidates to define themselves and their parties to the general public. Now it seems as if conventions are to express how much money each party has acquired and will continue to accept. Although the candidates have already been nominated to run for office, they must continue to raise money through strategic communication, advertising and strong, influential methods of getting the attention of the average voter. Candidates continue to spend millions of dollars on media advertisements to reach the demographics that they hope to win over for this upcoming election.
Work Cited
ReplyDelete"The 2016 Presidential Money Race." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 07 Mar. 2016. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.
Collinson, Stephen. "Cruz Stands by Refusal to Endorse Trump." CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th edition. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016. Print.
Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2016. Print.
Money has become a pressing and hot topic during this heated election season, particularly the ways in which candidates have collected and used their donations or personal funds. As the Washington Post’s “Money Raised as if July 31st” tracker page points out, the Clinton campaign has raised $692.7 million, while the Trump campaign has raised $346.3 million. However, this campaign season has been entirely about the polar opposites of the candidates; how far to the left and right can either of them reach? It is clear that both the RNC and DNC are spending tons of money in order to set a polarized agenda with the mass voting population. The media, however, complicates the process. According to Political Campaign Communication, by Judith S. Trent, media sources act as a “’gatekeeper’ and thereby prevent a follower from even being exposed to part of the information.” (Trent, Political Campaign Communication, 94) Because of this process, it makes it extremely difficult for politicians to set any sort of agenda of their own, as the media comes in with their own. According to Political Campaign Communication, the agenda-setting hypothesis “the editor (of a media source) may believe he is only printing what the people want to read, but he is thereby putting a claim on their attention, powerfully determining what they will be thinking about, and talking about, until the next wave laps their shore.” (Trent, Political Campaign Communication, 102) For example, in the article, “What Made Hillary Clinton’s Acceptance Speech Work,” by Joe Klein of Time Magazine, Klein even highlights the fact that Clinton “offers two things: an agenda – as opposed to a message – and a demeanor,” exactly as the agenda theory points out. Furthermore, as the article “TV Ratings: Hillary Clinton’s DNC Speech Falls Just shy of Trump’s with 33 Million Viewers” by Michael O’Connell of the Hollywood Reporter points out, “CNN topped every night of DNC coverage, while Fox News outpaced the pack in RNC ratings.” (O’Connell, Hollywood Reporter) Both Fox News and CNN are commonly known for applying the “gatekeeper” theory; Fox generally leans more conservatively, while CNN leans more towards the viewpoints of liberal populations. Because of this tendency for media platforms to carry an agenda of their own, politicians and the DNC/RNC must go out of their way to promote their own agenda, as the media can become so skewed. The way that the media outlets highlight and analyze each campaign and their speeches could influence the ways in which viewers digest the speeches and agendas of the candidates, as the general public isn’t always breaking down every little detail of the speeches themselves.
ReplyDeleteSources:
O'Connell, Michael. "TV Ratings: Hillary Clinton's DNC Speech Falls Just Shy of Trump's With 33
Million Viewers." The Hollywood Reporter,29 July 2016, Zergnet, www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/
tv-ratings-hillary-clintons-dnc-915706.
Klein, Joe. "What Made Hillary Clinton’s Acceptance Speech Work." Time, Time Inc., 29 July 2016,
time.com/4430456/hillary-clinton-dnc-speech/.
"Campaign 2016: Money Raised As Of July 31st." The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/
politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/. Accessed 6 Sept. 2016.
Trent, Judith, S, et al. Principles and Practices. 8th ed., New York, Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.
James Conway
ReplyDeleteThis election will be the first time I am able to cast my vote for a Presidential candidate and as excited as I am, growing up I never would have expected that my first Presidential election would be as divisive and unique as this year’s. Yet that being said, as crazy as this election has seemed, it has continued to follow the recent trend in modern Presidential elections with a major emphasis on television coverage. Nowhere has this trend been more noticeable than during the weeks of the two major party’s conventions. What was previously an instrumental way for the public to become introduced to potential nominees, is now an expensive, “symbolic-ritualistic” (Trent, 39) event where the nominee has been determined and is used for four main reasons. The first reason political parties still spend millions on conventions is for legitimization purposes. Essentially, these conventions “serve to renew our faith that U.S. citizens share not only a glorious tradition but a grand and proud future” (Trent, 39). In addition, all the balloons, patriotic music and speeches by past party heroes are for Americans to feel reinsured not just about the candidate of their party but of the democratic process that led to that candidate taking the stage at their own convention. People from both major parties sometimes need to be reminded just how fortunate we are to have an electoral process where the general public is so involved as it not only makes them feel better about their candidate, but as their nation as a whole. Unifying the party is another major purpose of political conventions and that togetherness is worth far more than the millions spent on decorations. Just this year, within the Democratic party, there was serious tension between Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders over the fact that the DNC seemed ready to award Clinton the nomination far earlier than Sanders wanted to concede. Now, although Sanders has begun campaigning for Clinton, his die-hard supporters are still finding it tough to make the switch. Regardless of the party, it is a major disadvantage to be divided as it shows weakness and unpreparedness. These modern conventions are a major tool for Presidential nominees as they quite literally get to decide what issues are discussed, what speakers are televised and what theme is used. If one party has its speakers all focus on similar issues and positive characteristics of the nominee, it looks far better than just having speakers go on stage and ramble, yell or bash the other candidate. This is why the final purpose served by conventions is to introduce the candidate’s campaign themes and issue. (Trent, 42) By giving the audience potential solutions to a wide array of issues reenforces that this candidate is the right person for the job. By having multiple speakers offer their support for the candidate, the party is able to ensure that the voters made the right decision and selected not just the right candidate, but the ONLY worthy candidate of leading our nation. So are the days of the classic conventions, where the nominee is selected, over? Yes, but to think that means they no longer serve a purpose is ludicrous. In his article for CNN titled, “Why Political Conventions still matter”, Julian Zelizer summarizes why these conventions remain so vital:
“Conventions also still matter because they serve as a focusing event for a nation that doesn't like politics and is normally too busy multitasking to pay attention to what goes on in Washington.” (Zelizer, 2)
Conventions not only serve the four core purposes discussed earlier in my paper, but they temporarily reignite the political spark that is dying in so many Americans. These conventions are no longer just instrumental to the candidate’s success but also to our own population’s interest in participating in politics. In the end, it is now quite clear why political parties continue to spend so much on conventions even in this era, and honestly, I cannot imagine it slowing down anytime soon.
Sources:
Delete- Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th edition. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016. Print.
- Zelizer, Julian. "Why Political Conventions Still Matter." CNN. Cable News Network, 6 Aug. 2012. Web. 04 Sept. 2016.
Historically, the main purpose of political conventions was to nominate a party’s candidate for president. However, with the rise of the presidential primaries, US citizens have already known for months who the nominee will be by the time the convention happens (Grabianowski). In a way, this can make the conventions seem somewhat useless – why throw a flashy event to pick nominees when everyone already knows who will be chosen at the end? While the millions of dollars spent on nominating conventions in this day and age can definitely seem absurd to some, the conventions still do play important roles in the political process.
ReplyDeleteOne of the more important roles that the conventions play in this day and age is a means to provide the nominee with the audience and setting for an acceptance speech (Disalvo). The acceptance speech, in a way, can almost be thought of as the “grand finale” to a four-day television pageant that allows the nominees to audition for the role as president (Berman). Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant for Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, and John Kerry, believes that the acceptance speech is “the only unmediated communication that a candidate can have with the voters, and allows the candidate to set out a narrative that voters can relate too” (Berman). Essentially, what Shrum is saying is that the acceptance speech serves as one of the best ways to communicate directly with voters and strengthen the nominee-voter relationship. This is important because it demonstrates the significance of the acceptance speech, which can be used to justify why we have national conventions. Without the conventions, nominees would miss the opportunity to form a more intimate connection with voters that can be done by delivering an acceptance speech. The need for this intimate connection is even supported by Trent, who says that during the convention, the party has “a chance to show its unity” and is able to address and heal the wounds from the primary campaigns (Trent 34).
Another reason why we have conventions is to distinguish what the nominees’ platforms are and what their party’s platforms are. Given the radical nature of the nominees’ stances, the need to do this is arguably more important in the 2016 election than ever before. For instance, the Republican Party is hoping to use their platform as a way to put some distance between them and Donald Trump, who has deviated greatly from conservative policy positions (Disalvo). The reason why it’s important for the Republican Party to do this is because the views of one member of the party doesn’t (and shouldn’t) represent the views of the entire party. While we may know that not every Republican Party member is interested in building a wall between America and Mexico, the convention allows the party to have an official, public say on their stances as a whole that they may of not have had if there were no convention. The same could be said about the Democratic Party as well – we know that not every member of the Democratic Party want’s free college education like Bernie Sanders does or wants strict gun laws like Hilary Clinton. As with the Republican Party, the convention would allow the Democratic Party to address their stances as a whole in relation to Hillary Clinton. By being able to give their platform, each party has the opportunity to draw the line between what the party stands for and what their nominee stands for, and that provides reason to fund the convention. (Disalvo).
Works Cited
Burman, Russell. "What Actually Happens at the U.S. Presidential Conventions?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, n.d. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.
Disalvo, Daniel, and James Ceaser. "Do Party Platforms Still Matter?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, n.d. Web. 06 Sept. 2016.
Grabianowski, ed “How Political Conventions Work" 29 June 2004. HowStuffWorks.com. 6 September 2016
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
The RNC and DNC both spend millions of dollars at nominating conventions not because their candidates have yet to be nominated at this stage in the presidential election, but because doing so is a key tactic in getting a party’s candidate elected. The conventions mark a shift from the primary elections to the actual presidential election. This could be likened to when the NFL or any other professional sports league moves on to the postseason; the stakes are raised and the end is within sight. Even though a team may already be in playoffs they do not start competing at the highest of levels until the playoffs come around, and the championship is in sight. The same can be said for political campaigns as they shift towards the national stage at convention season. This shift in stakes requires a campaign that introduces the candidate to the voter as somebody that they feel have their best interests at heart, and who can be trusted over the opposition. To do this nominees reintroduce themselves on the national level with their acceptance address at the convention. While giving their speech they attempt to “satisfy four closely related purposes,” (Trent, et al. 171). that make up most acceptance addresses. The first purpose that should be fulfilled by a candidate’s speech would be the candidate’s public assuming of the role as party leader. By doing this the candidate is made a more legitimate candidate within the court of public opinion as they now have the entire party behind them and their positions. This may seem unnecessary as the candidate likely already earned the role of party leader weeks before the national convention, such is the case for both Trump and Clinton this election, but without the fulfillment of this ritual the candidate would appear to be less legitimate than their counterpart. The other goals of an acceptance address make it clear that the speech is just another part of a calculated campaign to make the candidate seem more appealing. The candidate is supposed to “generate a strong positive response from the immediate audience,” “unify the party”, and “serve as a strong persuasive message,” (Trent, et al. 171). It is vital that a candidate justifies their nomination during this address so that the very second that the race for the Whitehouse becomes a two-person race the candidate does not lose a step. To ensure that this does not happen candidates will essentially go down a list of six checkpoints making sure to hit their mark on each one as they paint themselves as what they perceive as a great candidate. The list includes “simplified partisan statements, laments about the present and celebrations about the future, stress on the crucial nature of this election, calls for unity, uses of biography,” and “uses of biography to go negative,” (Trent, et al. 173). By using this checklist candidates attempt to present a campaign that is strong, well supported, and more invested in the American people than their rival’s are. Donald Trump’s speech at the RNC this year attempts to do just this as he tells the world how the situation surrounding this election is worse than any other proceeding on, and he would go on to give a solution to the awful situation. “The only solution, according to Trump, was Trump.”(Romano, Yahoo News). If a candidate were to not take advantage of the conventions to reintroduce their campaign and self to American voters while the presidential race reaches its final steps would leave that candidate far behind as they would seem outside the norm of American politics.
ReplyDeleteRomano, Andrew. Where Does the GOP Go After Its Ugliest Convention Since 1964? Yahoo News. Yahoo. 22 July 2016. Web. 5 September 2016
Trent, Judith S. et al. Political Campaign Communication: Principles & Practices. 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Political conventions seem to be quite meaningless when the candidate has already been decided. The Democratic National Conventions (DNC) and the Republic National Conventions (RNC) are highly watched and the debates and knock-drag-out campaigning leading up to the primaries draw a ton of media coverage. It makes you wonder if the media takes on the primaries to allow itself to raise its ratings and viewership of the network.
ReplyDeleteWith all that media coverage why wouldn’t the parties put on the best primary race possible to draw attention to their party. A Yahoo news article about the RNC’s clear disagreement during convention wrote, “When Cruz urged listeners to ‘vote your conscience,’ thousands of delegates booed and turned their backs, choosing instead to face Trump, who had materialized on the other side of the Quicken Loans Arena in silent, seething protest. ‘Vote for Trump! Vote for Trump!’ they shouted. ‘Go home, Ted!’” (Romano). Why wouldn’t someone tune in to watch Ted Cruz outwardly oppose Trump as the candidate? It’s a simple strategy that the media covers what’s wrong not what’s right… that’s what news is. Parties continue to spend millions of dollars for media coverage. If people are watching their listening, they can push issues or agendas with that attention.
The same is true for the DNC, Bill Clinton delivered the man’s version of a first lady speech. It’s new, it’s different, it’s controversial. People will tune in to watch this. New York Magazine wrote an article about Former President Clinton speaking at the convention. They article states, “Bill was reportedly working on his speech right up to the last minute, and the possibility that it could be a two-hour recap of his 1990s triumphs, or that he might get distracted by anti-Hillary hecklers in the audience, was all too real” (Traister). But the speech wasn’t about how great Bill was, people love Bill. It’s about her. The article continued on saying, “he can screw up and screw around and people still just love him. But there is the heart of the challenge: This convention is not about the fact that, even against its better judgment, America still loves Bill. It is about trying to persuade America to love Hillary…. It was a risk — a big risk” (Traister). Another way to gain media coverage. Politics itself isn’t a “sexy” thing, but the people involved and their gossip is. Voting, writing, and lobbying isn’t what the media loves, they love the disagreement, the secrets, and the scandals. They love the people in politics. The road to the RNC and the DNC highlight those people. Yes there’s a lot of coverage of issues but why has this current race gotten so much coverage and attention, more than decades past? Because the people running are a prior TV star and a former first lady, whose marriage scandal was arguably the political scandal of the century.
The conventions put these people in the spotlight. They allow a microscope to lie on the person you’ve heard about in the news for months. Yahoo News posted an article about the RNC and what to expect. The article started with:
Conventions don’t matter. They are sideshows. Rehearsed and fake, the speeches are all alike, akin to the droning whine coming from the adult characters on Peanuts. And candidates’ convention “bounces” tend to be short-lived. That, at least, is what some political analysts have said about the quadrennial, multimillion-dollar, tightly scripted three-ring circuses, substance-lite spectacles rather than places where intraparty differences can be ironed out (Dallek).
Part of this may be correct – if not all of it. The conventions may be sold as a platform to talk about the issues but isn’t it really a platform for attention? The one with the most attention wins.
DeleteDallek, Matthew. "This Time Words Matter: What to Listen for in Cleveland." Yahoo News, 18 July 2016. Web.
Romano, Andrew. "Where Does the GOP Go After Its Ugliest Convention Since 1964?" Yahoo News 22 July 2016. Web.
Traister, Rebecca. "Bill Clinton Pulls Off a Presidential First: A First Lady Speech Delivered by a Man." New York Magazine 27 July 2016. Web.
After much time and money put into placing a candidate from each party on a pedestal of representation for their party, it doesn’t just stop from there, it actually increases even more. Once the Democratic and Republican parties have their nominee for presidency, they amp up their campaigns to vigorously push their contender to the top. The conventions hold a certain reputation when it comes to expenditures and money flow. Wherever the convention is held, it is a costly investment for the city themselves to host such an event. In the past, however, spending such great amounts of money for a presidential convention has paid itself off bringing an increase to that city’s economy (Andrew Lisa, GoBankingRates).
ReplyDeleteBeginning of the 1970s was the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (PECF). It was allowing the intake of money from taxpayers to pay for the presidential elections. It wasn’t until the 113th Congress that eliminated the PECF for funding convention operations (Garrett, Reese, Congressional Research Service). When broken down into numbers, the net worth of Hillary Clinton comes out to be around $45 million. With her husband as former president, and her position as Secretary of State, Clinton is no stranger to the game of politics. Donald Trump’s net worth, on the other hand, is around $4.5 billion. He is a strong businessman who owns several products with his name plastered over it. He also is not shy in the real estate department. The two have completely different backgrounds from each other, but they are using those backgrounds as the basis of their campaigns.
The reasoning for spending even more on nominated candidates is the last stretch before the presidential vote. Campaign managers and their team rely on money to spend on the necessities for an overwhelming win over the other party. Money has always been at the tips of the fingers of each candidate in any race and most commonly the one with the most money to spend ends up winning. They get their message out more frequently, and they show up in media most often. This impacts the final vote and usually benefits that candidate.
Works Cited
Garrett, R. Sam, and Sawn Reese. "Rewiring Politics: Presidential Nominating Conventions in the Media Age." Choice Reviews Online 44.12 (2007): n. pag. 4 May 2016. Web. 6 Sept. 2016.
Lisa, Andrew. "Which Costs More, the Democratic or Republican National Convention?" GO Banking Rates. N.p., 15 July 2015. Web. 6 Sept. 2016.
Political conventions have grown to be exemplary multimillion-dollar events overs the past years as television and media has grown and become a major role in political races. The conventions, along with all their frill and fluff, may seem unnecessary, especially since the candidates have already been chosen. However, they still play a large roll in the campaign process as well as the process voters go through when choosing which candidate they want as the president of our nation. On the surface, the conventions may seem like a waste of time, money and resources. “Conventions don’t matter. They are sideshows. Rehearsed and fake, the speeches are all alike, akin to the droning whine coming from the adult characters on Peanuts,” (Dallek, yahoo.com). However, when looked at in more depth, their importance is certain, especially when it came to this years Conventions.
ReplyDeleteWith both parties, there is no unanimous support for the candidate. Trump was not the ideal choice for the GOP, along with some republican voters as well. He also faces large amounts of hatred from many people for various reasons. This being said, the RNC Convention was very important for not only Trump, but voters as well. “…Trump’s conevention…is an illustration of why words matter in presidential campaigns. Language is power,” (Dallek, yahoo.com). The convention was so important because Trump had to try to prove to critics and reassure supporters why he was the right fit. Now, if he achieved that goal is the real question.
You may say to yourself, “Well yes the speeches are important, but why all the frill, why have 5 gazillion balloons fall from the ceiling?” Personally I think its all for show and for good reason. Because so many viewers tune into the RNC and DNC debates and they are so very long, there has to be things to hold their attention and things to hype it all up to maybe get the viewers that wouldn’t normally tune in. Having the décor and balloons and the various speakers is a way to get people to their televion sets and keep them there for the duration.
All the money spent is for good reason. Could the RNC and DNC learn to budget a little and scale some things down, yes, but the importance of the conventions is there. Voters want to hear what the candidates have to say. After all they have already been chosen, so there really isn’t any other choice than the two its come down to, this year Clinton and Trump. I think that this year was so important because many people feel that neither candidate is a good choice and may rather not vote. I feel this reason definitely backs up the excessive money that was spent this year.
Works Cited
DeleteDallek, Matthew. "This Time Words Matter: What to Listen for in Cleveland." Yahoo News, 18 July 2016. Web.