The campaign manager, Jenny O’Connor, called you into her office today. Apparently an anonymous tipster told someone on the campaign staff that Jesse Jones was having an affair and had fathered a child out of wedlock. Someone on the staff followed up on the tip and has uncovered evidence lending support to this allegation. Jenny believes a negative ad depicting Jesse Jones as a corrupt father and politician would be enough to get Cindy elected. Although Cindy has publicly stated she will not run negative ads in her campaign, Jenny has asked you to take a day to think about running one on Jesse Jones. Jenny has also asked you not to discuss this matter with Cindy. What will you do?
This analysis will involve my decision if to run a negative ad on Jesse Jones. This is even though Jesse does not want a negative ad to be run. In addition to this, the ad needs to be executed without her knowledge. Jesse has been involved in many scandals, and Cindy feels that it is the right time to make changes. It is essential to overthrow those who do not consider the welfare of citizens to achieve democracy (Schattschneider & Adamany, 1975). However, her journey to free the citizens from this leadership is filled by some challenges.
Statement of the problem
The problem is that Cindy is not able to counter the negative ads by Jesse who she seeks to overthrow. Jesse ads state that he is a pillar of family values while Cindy is a single mother of two. Additionally, they indicate that she is unable to form or maintain a cohesive family unit. The ads also focus on Cindy’s views of unrestricted abortions which imply that electing Cindy will lead to the murder of 2,000 people every year in the district. The ads conclude that Cindy cannot straighten out the House of Representatives because she cannot get her own house in order. The ads have been effective, and Cindy’s campaign has lost momentum, and she is likely to miss the race if she does not counter these ads.
Causes of the problem
The problem is as a result of Cindy’s decision to run against Jesse. She decided to run against him because in the House banking scandal he wrote 150 bad checks. Additionally, he voted not to disclose the names of the people that were involved. He also voted to give himself a huge rise in payment at the taxpayers’ expense.
Further, he is unconcerned with the debt crisis, and the national press for funding has criticized him for funding questionable projects in his district. This is at the expense of more worthy projects in other places in the nation. Jesse has also worked behind the scenes to prevent the equal rights amendment from being passed.
The decision is quality. This is the standard of something compared against others of a similar kind (Belton & Stewart, 2002). Therefore, I will consider what Jesse may offer and what Cindy can. If Jesse proves to be a lousy leader compared to Cindy, I will run the ad.
There are two possible solutions in this scenario. The first involves considering Cindy’s decision not to run a negative ad. The second solution is running a negative ad on Jesse Jones to expose his evils to promote democracy.
The best solution will be running a negative ad on Jesse Jones to expose his evils. This will promote democracy. Democracy is important because it gives full governance to the majority of the citizens (Schumpeter, 2010).
Belton, V., & Stewart, T. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Springer Science & Business Media.
Best, R. D., & Kneip, J. (2010). Library school programs and the successful training of academic librarians to meet promotion and tenure requirements in the academy. College & Research Libraries, 71(2), 97-114.
Greco, S., Figueira, J., & Ehrgott, M. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis. New York: Springer.
Schattschneider, E. E., & Adamany, D. (1975). The semi-sovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America (p. 60). Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (2010). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. Routledge.
Woods, D. R. (2006). A case for revisiting tenure requirements. Thought & Action, 135-142.