The Fierce Nature of Presidential Race 2016 in U.S. Broadcast Media

The Presidential Race in the United Stated is ongoing long before the official Election Day in November 8, 2016. Both Republican and Democrat candidates are striving for electoral support in any means including frequent appearance in broadcast media and creation of negative political advertisements towards their opponents. The use of broadcast media during elections and political campaigns has traditional presence in U.S. politics. Reason for this fierce method of political communication can be considered the encouragement of strong competitiveness among candidates as part of democratic legitimacy and the early advent of broadcast technologies into the American social life.

Use of Negative Ads in Broadcast Media during U.S. Presidential Race 2016

Broadcast media is basic channel of communication between U.S. policy-makers and voters and the Presidential Race 2016 proves it. Long before the national Election Day in November 8, 2016 the general Republican and Democrat parties and their candidates have started intensive debates concerning their national objectives[1]. By emphasizing on public appearances on public events shown on TV and ads the present leaders in the person of the Republicans Donald Trump (31%), Ted Cruz (22%) and Marco Rubio (19%) and the Democrats Hillary Clinton (44%) and Bernie Sanders (42%)[2] go on striving for growing electoral support. This task seems so arduous that even the creation of negative campaigns against the same party candidates which is the case of Sanders and Clinton[3] appears as successful plan.

The use of negative ads does not remain one party-based strategy. After the voting in Iowa, Trump has accused Cruz for illegally stealing the elections and calling for a do-over[4]. The need of mediated visibility requires creation of scandals and dramatic turns in broadcasting campaigns in order the point of interaction with the audience to be maintained[5]. Since the general effect of broadcasting campaigns tends to make the elections more passive experience, the main goal of negative ads is to convey identical message to all voters with the purpose to weaken the influence of the candidate or the party over its traditional electorate and group loyalties. In the case of U.S. presidential race, where the elections in states with strongest national vote[6] in comparison the rest of the union are still forthcoming the introduction of negative ads appears just on time.

The selection of national head of state represents significant part of the American history. After the declaration of independence from the monarchical tradition of Great Britain in 1776 and the election of George Washington as the first U.S. leader, the presidential elections and campaigns have become an intensive contest with extended effect on the public field[7]. After the appearance of broadcast technologies and the rise of radio in 1920s, followed by rapid spread of television and broadcast advertisement during the 1950s, the campaigns have been used by politicians to increase their electoral support. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the TV news programs, shows and commercial sets have enabled the U.S. political parties to introduce the so-called candidate-centered politics into their performance[8].

Elections and political campaigns in democratic states

Both elections and political campaigns have strong impact on the democratic development in modern states. The field of electoral studies has been settled on equally central position in Europe and the United States since the 1920s[9]. Despite the differences in their national and governmental mechanisms, the two Western regions have demonstrated common academic willingness to understand the role and effect of the political actors and governmental representatives regarding their discourse with the public sphere. Besides, the examination of electoral studies and political communication remains essential part of the contemporary scholar analysis, especially in the present times of intensive global debates and institutional practices, since it attempts to measure and compare the level of democratic effectiveness in the states.

Initially, governmental systems in modern states represent a unity of decision-making processes that provides opportunity for each individual to express freely its political preference based on diverse type of electoral principles including selectivity, legitimacy and juridical reliability of the committed choice and fair competitiveness among the participants[10]. For instance, in most European countries such as Sweden and Denmark the institutional representatives express their national competences through a parliamentary governmental system that provides right to the majority party to nominate the chief executive or the Prime minister among the members of the Parliament[11]. This structural organization has not been implemented into the U.S. democracy due to symbolic recognition of presidential system as one of a greater value[12].

In this regard, the stability of each party system and supportive voting behavior has become dependent on the already existing national governmental systems. As all political actors, e.g. political parties, official representatives and candidates seek to accomplish considerable results on the elections the campaigns have become the fiercest field for political performance in which the public becomes a witness of spectacular persuasive discourse among the opponents concerning the leading perspectives, preferences and motives for supporting their electoral cause.

It is not the U.S. politics but the world

The advent of mediated communication and broadcast technologies has opened an opportunity for the global creation of intensive and less controllable information realm in which various independent media agencies have become visible. In this new communication field, both political parties and institutional representatives, including the American ones, have been hardened to remain recognizable among the public as well as to keep control over their own images. Thus, the candidate-centered politics and negative ads during U.S. presidential elections demonstrate a form of democratic adaption towards the contemporary media and communication standards.

[1] “2016 presidential election timeline”, Aol, Jan 2016, <http://www.aol.com/article/us-presidential-race/election-debate-timeline/> (06.02.2016)

[2] “Polling Center”, Politico, Feb 2016, <http://www.politico.com/polls/#.VrTnkvmLTIV> (06.02.2016)

[3]“Fight between Clinton and sanders growing more intense”, CNN, Feb 2016, <http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/05/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-fight-johns-dnt-lead.cnn> (06.02.2016)

[4]Gass, N. “Trump accuses Cruz of ‘fraud’, calls for new Iowa elections”, Politico, Feb 2016, <http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/trump-cruz-stole-iowa-tweet-deleted-218674> (06.02.2016)

[5] Thompson, B. J. (2005), “The New Visibility”, in Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 22(6), pp. 31-51

[6] Lampen, C. “Swing States: States That Can Decide the 2016 Presidential Election”, Policy.Mic, Dec 2015, <http://mic.com/articles/131278/swing-states-states-that-can-decide-the-2016-presidential-election#.hknWB46D0> (06.02.2016)

[7]History.com, (2010), “Presidential Elections”, A+E Networks, <http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/presidential-elections> (04.02.2016)

[8] Brox, J. B. and Shaw, R. D in Katz, S. R. and Crotty, J. W., (2006), Handbook of Party Politics, London: SAGE Publications, p. 146

[9] Thomassen, J. (1994), “Introduction: The intellectuall history of election studies”, in European Journal of Political Research 25, pp. 239 -245

[10] Bache, I. and Flinders, M. (2004), Multi-Level Governance, Oxford: Oxford Publications, p. 68

[11] Medvic, S., et al. (2016), A United States Election Primer, New York: Routledge, p.9

[12] Barry, K. D., et al. (2004), About America: How the United States is Governed?, Virginia: Braddock Communication America Inc., p. 7

#politics #conflict