Electoral Spending

            This article was about the spending in the past overall election, including the senate races, the representative races, and the presidential race.  Overall, the spending reached $4.2 billion, with Romney and his campaign spending $1 billion and Obama spending only one tenth less than that.  Other main points included the fact that most spending was used to produce negative ads, and that the general trend was that the more a candidate spent, the better they did in the election.  Ethos was used in order to establish credibility throughout the article; the CNN reporter constantly referenced the reliable Center for Responsive Politics.  This article was written only a week after the election, so it is possible that these estimates will change.

            In writing this article, the author used the statistics and facts from the election in order to show that money is becoming an overwhelmingly accurate predictor for the outcome of an election.  Concentrating on Romney having the first $1 billion campaign, the article notes that this may be the new bench mark for candidates to reach in order to be elected.  This article relies on the enthymeme that’s major premise is that elections should be based on facts, not on propaganda and advertisements.  Intended for the American people, the article intends to educate voting-eligible citizens on the big business of politics, hopefully making them a little bit more aware of how their decisions are influenced.  Because of the intelligent use of logos, the article is very effective.

Link to Article