Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Arguments of Fact
The article I chose is called "Obama Outpaces McCain in Negative Ads". This article is filled with statistics about how many ads each candidates has run for their campaign, and how much money they spent on them. 77% of Obama's ads were negative, and 56% of McCain's were. It also mentions that Obama has put out more ads total and by state. Although the article is stating the facts, it makes you wonder why Obama is spending so much money for all these negative connotations. Should the candidates be spending $66 million dollars on campaigns? It is always controversial when talking about why candidates are campaigning where they are, but this article states statistics that we are able to interpret.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Wow. I find it very interesting that such a large portion of the campaign ads are negative. I don't understand why that is necessary. I also really do not understand why it is necessary to spend SO much money on a campaign; that money could be going to a much more useful cause. In the ideal world, the candidates would both tell their positions on the issues, and the public would choose based on that- not on negative ads or how much money is spent.
I really think that too much money is spent during the campaign that could be used for when a candidate is actually in office. I just keep hearing all these statistics of how much money Obama has spent on aspects of his campaign, yet he plans on spending so much more money when he gets in office.
66 million dollars to get a job that pays a little over $100,000, but I guess as long as its not his money what would they care? I'm really not surprised that Obama's ads are negative, most of what comes out of his mouth is attacking McCain, god forbid he elaborate on his idea of "change."
Post a Comment