Politicians using the Internet as a means of campaigning
If there was one specific thing that was proved during the 2008 US election, it was the impact the internet had on winning the race for Barak Obama. The internet came into its own during that time, and Obama was savvy enough to squeeze the maximum out of its resources to gain the upper hand to his advantage. Unlike in the past when election campaigns were mostly conducted through the print media, television and door to door canvassing, today, it’s the internet that most people turn to, and especially since the youth of today seems to be logged on to the net 24/7, internet has become the “new television” making it possible for a candidate to reach a much larger audience than ever before.
Campaigning for contributions was started in 2004 by the then Democratic nominee , who, although unsuccessful in his bid, was able to show the huge potential of this tool in carrying out a campaign that could have a more immediate impact on the voter than say television or the newspapers. This was amply proved by the unparallel success met by Obama and his team of lobbyists who carried out an unrelenting campaign by requesting for donations through the use of emails only. His opponent however could not even come close to the unprecedented success Obama had in raising a massive 150 million dollars as a result of his campaign carried out only online.
Obama was clever enough to realize the unbridled power of the internet and did not stop at collecting donations. He went as far as using social networking sites, message boards, forums and blogging to leverage people to his site which generated a massive amount of traffic and thousands of responses. For the first time in many years, the support of the younger generation was very visible during this campaign proving the power of the internet in the modern world. The negative side however is that it is also possible for anyone to spread lies and false rumors through emails. In spite of this, it is obvious that the internet can be used as a successful means of campaigning for elections and will be a force to be reckoned with in future elections.
How effective are smear campaigns carried out by politicians during elections?
Respecting each others personal lives seems to be far away from the minds of candidates and their backers in today’s elections. Although it’s vital for each candidate to bring up issues on which the opponent is weak, it does not mean he or she has to be attacked on a very low personal level which could be counter productive in the long term. When one candidate gets the ball rolling by attacking his opponent racially or about his family, it might be very difficult for the other to remain silent or civil in the face of such attacks, its best however to refrain from throwing mud and show the people that he’s of a better caliber than his opponent.
Respecting each other is of utmost importance in a campaign. A candidate who keeps on throwing mud at his opponent could begin to lose favor even with his die hard supporters while building sympathy for the one who is being attacked. The longer the campaign is, the more heated it becomes and the print media has a lot to answer for. They unfortunately prefer to sensationalize certain smear campaigns simply to build up their newspaper circulation and the public who love to devour such stories has the power to turn the tide by giving credence to a story that never actually happened. So why do candidates resort to this type of low down tactics? Fear of losing is the main reason and when things are not going their way they will stoop to anything including character assassination.
Although smear campaigns are acceptable to a certain degree, it’s only when things go beyond decency that they can back fire. People are not stupid these days as to not wonder why one candidate is bent on attacking his or her opponent on issues that have nothing to do with his being a congressman, senator or even President. There are certain issues that can win or lose an election and these could include a hidden record of bribery and corruption, a failed military career or even a whiff of a sex scandal. A candidate however, who is charismatic, and can speak well and convince his audience about his suitability has a better chance of winning even in spite of any smear campaign carried out against him