Terms in this set (263)

- the life blood of politics is money: allows you to get the media attention you want, do campaigning
- Mark Hanna was McKinley's political advisor
- McKinley was from Ohio
- he was very patriotic about Ohio
- wealthy
- strong supporter of Garfield, but he wasn't truly responsible for that
- then Mckinley comes along (he was a labor lawyer defending labor laws)... Republican member of congress (governor of Ohio) and Hanna became his booster and almost single-handingly funded the primary campaign
- Hanna went to NY (headquarters for campaign was in Chicago and NY) and became the money guy
- Charles Dawes: wealthy, young, made it big in natural gas, from Chicago (evanston), part of McKinley's team to get Illinois delegates to vote for him, he ran "campaign for education" new standards for printed materials (flyers, posters, newspaper articles sent out to Republican friendly newspapers... materials in 16 different languages to reach minorities)
- Dawes in charge of spending the money given by Hanna
- Hanna went to NY based corporations (started with Rockefeller and said we have to win this election, if we don't we will face economic disaster.. see Bryan's game plan)
- William Jennings Bryan: populist party nominee, got the nomination based on a speech he gave at a convention, called the cross of gold about how the gold standard was killing the working class/agricultural class
- Bryan personally traveled tens of thousands of miles ... ended up being a close election, even with him not having a lot of money (only Democratic publisher to support Bryan was William Randolph Hearst most were big business and supported McKinley)
- Bryan wanted more money in circulation/ available for working class, wanted currency on silver standard because silver was more plentiful .... but if you put more money into the economy you increase inflation
-McKinley paid for his press through the money donated by the big corporations
** system made into a science: money is life blood of politics
- Stevenson hated TV but the scene in one of his ads (set in his living room) was based off the set of Nixon's checkers speech (looked like library)
- showed what television can do, reaching people from their living room
- Nixon was VP running mate of Eisenhower then, made a name for himself as an outspoken opponent of communism (Nixon was the conservative view compared to Eisenhower who could almost swing either way)
- Nixon was new rule as attack dog: talking about how corrupt the Truman administration was (high gov officials in scandal)
- story in Democratic newspaper about a fund that was paying for Nixon's travel, fund was not unethical or secret, but the story treated it as though it was
- New York Hearld Tribune editorial said Nixon should pull his name from the VP ticket
- Eisenhower didn't speak up for him or comment on it
- Republican party said they would pay for time for him to go on the air, assumed he would use that time to say he was stepping off the ticket, same day story on Stevenson having a similar fund broke, Nixon goes on the air with speech and attacks Stevenson and took a little shot at Eisenhower
- He said it would be morally wrong if any of the $18,000 went to his personal use, if he did the contributors favors or if it was done secretly...that normally when charged with something candidates admit to it generally without detail or deny it wholeheartedly... but he would not be doing that
- then after revealing a lot of his personal bank account info (how much he makes, loans he has) he gets to Check speech ...
- after he got nomination... he did get one gift, man heard his kids talking about how they'd love a dog, and then he heard from Union Station in Baltimore that there was a package for him... it was a Cocker Spaniel dog named Checkers. And, he said his kids loved it, so no, he was not going to get rid of it
- after the speech he said send a telegram to Republican party telling them what he should do, stay or get off the ticket
- over ⅔ said stay! only .4% said get off.
- complete opposite from Carter in ability to handle his image
- rallied behind public opinion
- professionally controlled media strategy
- had a team of advisers (David Gergen... adviser for many presidents, now on CNN)
- acted like producers and directors
- keep messages simple, limit reporters access to him and when he appeared in public that he look good
- he had been an actor (knew how to perform the role of president well)
- popular throughout his presidency
- Iran Contra scandal/investigation (1986) was the only time his popularity dipped
- success doesn't necessarily mean all his ideas were good (economic ideas... George H. W. Bush called them Voodoo economics)
- optimism projected
- going public case study (Iyengar)
- had the combination of great camera presence (people liked and trusted him) and he got along with Democrats in Congress
- to be effective it requires issues that are very salient and complex (people are highly aware of the issue but they are dense)
- raising public opinion to his plans (he called every single person in the House and Senate to try to establish a relationship with them)
- he would threaten to go public and often times that was enough
- ex: putting Reagan in front of Berlin Wall saying "Tear down this wall"
- Nancy Reagan was a strong defender of what needed to be done for her husband, every involved as a first lady
- ceremonial occasion presenting example
- teacher in space flight: there were many space shuttles going up... this was a way to get kids involved, had televisions in their classrooms.
- this was the flight that blew up
- Challenger 7 ... "this is truly a national loss"
- mourning 7 heroes "give me a challenge and I will explore it with joy"
- first time they have lost people while in flight, in past explosion on ground
- he addressed the school children: "the future doesn't belong to the faint hearted, it belongs to the brave."
- ex: Earl Warren, chief justice of SC during Brown v. Board of Education (wanted to make sure the decision was unanimous, took a year of negotiation, wanted this opinion so it was very clear what the court intended ... he wanted separate but equal done away with in education)
- cost: no remedy, no where in Brown v. Board of Education does it say how to do away with segregation, so they had to have a second case (Board 1 in 1954 and Board 2 in 1955)
- but in Brown v. Board of Education 2: settled on "all deliberate speed," but it was an oxymoron because deliberation means carefully and cautiously and speed means quickly
- ^^ in part why it had a hard time being implemented (vague wording)
- Courts have no power to enforce decisions (dependent on other branches and citizens)
- federal government did not step in at time of Brown v. Board
- when justices divide closely on an issue like 5-4
- gives a lot of leeway for things to be revisited
- not as good to establish precedence
- ex: Affirmative action and higher education 1979 (Bakke v. Univ. of California - Davis Medical School), he was rejected and filed a lawsuit (white-guy), said this affirmative action was in violation of equal amendment rights of 14th amendment (had the grades to get in)
- no majority opinion (a lot of dissent), but controlling opinion said considering race/ethnicity is okay as long as it is just one part of a much broader spectrum of things to consider (upheld affirmative action)
-^^ this allowed states to sort-of do whatever they want with no majority opinion
Both positive and negative advertisement have been proven to play different roles in regards to candidate evaluation. Positive ads, which usually start at the beginning of a campaign aim at introducing or reintroducing a candidate through reinforcing his or her positive image and qualities.

Negative or attack ads have been studied for their effects on memory and ability to shape attitude towards candidates. Both variables are measured to determine the effectiveness of negative ads, which tend to be well remembered. The limitation of this technique is that it can sometimes be highly counterproductive as ads turn out to harm the attacking candidate.[9]

One other effect of political campaign advertising includes greater attitude polarization among voters. In fact one study conducted by Gina Garramone on the effects of political advertising on the political process shows that "by discerning clear differences between candidates, voters may be more likely to strongly like one candidate while strongly disliking the other."[10] This typically leads to higher levels of confidence within voters choices and can widen the degree of participation in the electoral process.

early deciders benefited from the reinforcing effect of campaign discourse: "political communication served the important purposes of preserving prior decisions instead of initi- ating new decisions. It kept the partisans 'in line' by reassuring them in their vote decision; it reduced defection from the ranks." Moreover, these two works emphasize how campaigns can "activate" preferences. A substantial fraction of voters who began the campaign undecided or unsure came to a vote choice consonant with their predispositions, namely, sociological facts such as occupational status and religious preference.