President Barack Obama has been raking in the dough, but anti-Obama Super PACs have overpassed his budget with large donations from a few donors.
Fox News reported that the Obama campaign has raised $53 million dollars, far more than the Romney campaign. His campaign is five times the size of Romney’s, with over 500 paid staffers. But when Obama saw the Super PACs building more and more support, and spending millions on negative ads, Fox News said he decided to jump on the bandwagon.
I really wonder what the implications of all this will mean. If I were a large donor and I gave several million dollars to a campaign or a Super PAC, I would expect something in return. This is a really slippery slope here. If every large donor expects something in return, our government will turn into nothing but a bunch of favors being repaid (which is basically what it is already).
Obama’s coverage in the media was 37 percent negative and 13 percent positive, according to the Pew Research Center’s statistics. Romney’s coverage was 35 percent positive and 33 percent negative. Does this have to do with Super PACs launching negative ads about Obama and causing the media to take a more negative/neutral approach and not present him in a positive light?
On Twitter, Romney was mentioned in almost 250,000 posts. About 52 percent were negative and 20 percent were positive. Meanwhile, Obama was mentioned in close to 750,000 posts, and only 12 percent were positive while 50 percent were negative.
Looking at Twitter may be a greater indication of the public’s consensus. Newspapers and television news stations use Twitter all across the country, and followers can interact with posts, rather than watch a story and yell at the T.V. Their comments can be read by millions of people.
I think it’s worthwhile to notice Obama has a significantly larger number of posts. It’s possible this is because he is currently the president, so he is being talked about not only because of his presidential campaign, but also because of his current term.
Twitter will play a large role in this election. Many young people use Twitter as their only source for news, so what they read in short 160 character tweets will become a deciding factor for them. And, Twitter is free! So maybe all this money for negative advertising may not be so necessary after all…