California Election Analysis - Research Paper Example

The databases of California were consistently and constantly updated throughout the entire election cycle. It not only settled on the next United State’s president, but it also resulted in a supermajority for California’s state Democrats, thanks to Obama emerging victorious. New rules of elections and districts that were redrawn opened the likelihood of a Democrats supermajority in California, in a state that, even before elections, had Democratic majorities and a Democratic governor in both state legislatures.

A good number people had and still have an intuitive reaction to a single party taking control of everything. Bob Huff, the Minority Leader of the state Senate said that a supermajority would not be a good thing. The media coverage was a bit biased to one candidate. Mitt Romney’s media overage was particularly negative in the final election days. A final gush of positive media coverage drove President Obama in the final two weeks of the race to the presidency, whereas Mitt Romney’s coverage remained, not only negative, but also narrowed down in volume.

This was probably for the reason that news outlets transferred their attention to the recent Superstorm Sandy, in accordance with a new study. The Pew Research Center's Excellence in Journalism Project, which is based in Washington, established that the positive coverage on Obama, which was estimated at 29%, outnumbered his negative coverage, which was estimated at 19%, by 10 points in the final week before voting. On the 6th of November, a survey of 59 news channels established that Romney got significantly more negative opinion and coverage, both in the period dating back to the nominating conferences, and at the conclusion of the campaign, commencing in late August.

I feel like final surge of Obama’s positive press decidedly connected to his immense showing in most polls. There were a lot of amplified positive coverage and impressions of the President Obama that started with surveys that trended in his direction. These conclusions were arrived at by measuring statements value in radio stores, television, Internet and newspaper (www.latimes.com). When it comes to ads, the impact on preferences of vote looked harsh and gloomy for Mitt Romney. Negative ads had a greater impact on Mitt Romney, than it had on president Obama.

President Obama’s ads drove down Romney’s support and drove up support for the president. It, however, did not move swing voters. Many were marginal voters who did not even turn up on day of Election. On the front of “likely voter”, Romney was consistently winning the war of ads. Both the Obama and Romney ads augmented enthusiasm among possible Romney voters, but not for those of Obama.  Romney’s ads had impacts on marginal, decisive voters, and this raised the probability of voters who said they had a preference on him turning out to vote.

Obama’s campaign had run its ads over 68,000 times, with just about 80% of them attacking Romney. They were loose with facts and at the same time negative. An example is this ad by Obama, when he said that Romney had never stood up to China. Obama claimed that all Romney had ever done was to send them American’s jobs. This was opposed by many as not being true. Many argued that Romney’s previous Bain Capital Company may have invested in firms with businesses and operations in China. Most importantly, there was no