With just a few more weeks to go, the every-four-year, mind-numbing marathon known as the United States presidential campaign will (hopefully) reach its conclusion. American presidential election campaigns are much longer than in other countries. Many nations have laws on the books that strictly curtail how long campaigns can be conducted. But in the good old USA, campaigns for the highest office in the land can start as soon as an individual states their intentions to seek the job.
While the cherished freedom of the populous to choose our own leader must always be preserved, the bombardment of continued media ads, mostly consisting of one side bashing the other borders on nauseum. Reports have found that presidential candidates and their allies are spending more than half a billion dollars on television and radio advertising over the final seven weeks of the campaign.
AdImpact, an advertising tracking firm, reports groups backing Kamala Harris have reserved $332 million worth of airtime for TV and radio ads — 63% of the total — while about $194 million is coming from groups backing Donald Trump. There is little wonder that the eyes and ears of Pennsylvanians are longing for a break from the political rhetoric; $133 million in political ads have been targeted by the Keystone state, $77 million for Harris, and $56 million for Trump.
Despite the cash infusion they are receiving, even some media outlets are growing weary of the political noise emanating from their airwaves. One local station has been airing a disclaimer asking for listeners’ understanding, explaining that radio stations are required by federal law to accept paid advertising from candidates free of editing.
While the ads’ frequency is annoying, the nastiness of their content is overwhelming. Each portrays the other side in the worst possible light. It is little wonder such actions have divided our country, leading to political polarization, where more Americans are voting against rather than for candidates in presidential elections.
This behavior, known as negative voting, has been studied intermittently since the 1960s. It provides a rationalization to reduce voters’ discomfort when they have conflicts between the political party they support and their beliefs or ideologies. Following the 2020 election, about one-third of the respondents stated they voted against a presidential candidate.
The term ‘media bias’ is often used. No greater example of this phenomenon could be cited than the media spin exhibited following the Vice-Presidential debate aired earlier this month between party nominees JD Vance and Tim Walz. MSNBC was glowing in its claim that Walz was the winner, while Fox News claimed it was a no-contest Vance win.
In the end, the voters will have the final say, as the Trump haters and Harris doubters will cast it out, but the term “buyer beware” should be considered by all. Over the years, what they say and what they do have often been two different things.
Political historian Joseph Ellis’s research reveals that only two presidents, George Washington and James K. Polk, ran honest campaigns and actually delivered on all their promises. The same research lists the ‘top’ presidents with the most campaign promises unfulfilled. The list includes Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.
During his recent White House term, Donald Trump was tracked as keeping 25% of campaign promises, while Joe Biden’s record stands at 28%. The remaining ‘promises’ by the pair were either compromised, broken, stalled, or not completed.
While Harris has no such documented record, Capitol Hill Reality Check publication offers the following observation.
“There is little to suggest she played a major role in the Biden administration. Her vice presidency has had some mild chaos with turnover and occasional negative media coverage, and she didn’t perform with aplomb on the signature issues she was handed.
“Since replacing Biden at the top of the ticket, a bit of revisionist history has been taking place on both sides. But, for the most part, an objective read of the Harris vice-presidency was she wasn’t given a large role and didn’t do much with the role she was given.”
November 5 will mark an extremely important turn in our nation’s history. Many are not thrilled with the choices on the ballot, and name-calling is coming from both sides. It is too late to determine how we got to this point, but one of these candidates will be the winner.
Do your research and soul-searching and make it a priority to get out and cast your vote. An awful lot is on the line.
