The Debates Don't Really Matter

     The presidential debates do not really matter. The only take away from the debates are the snappy one-liners that go into political ads and give political cartoonists new concepts for their work. The issues remain the same and the debates only allow the candidates to further explain what they plan to do if elected. They don’t necessarily change people opinions about the issues, but they may however reveal something about the candidates personality.

     According to the CNN article “Do U.S. presidential debates matter?” Contributor, Nick Thompson wrote, “While the debates offer Romney and Obama a chance to expand on their views and rebut each other's plans directly, experts say that the vast majority of Americans have already decided who they're voting for along party lines.”

Link:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/politics/presidential-debates-explainer/index.html

     A Popular Science article was written asking Danny Oppenheimer, associate professor of psychology and public policy at Princeton University, and Mike Edwards, founder and contributor to Leftfielder.org. The article “PopSci Q&A: How Much Do Presidential Debates Matter?” 

PopSci asked:

     What really matters to voters in a debate? Is it the issues or the minutiae--the way their hair looks, what they're wearing.

The answer given by Edwards and Oppenheimer: 

     “When it comes to who a person will vote for, there are a number of factors affecting the popular perception of the candidates' likability, competency, and empathy, which voters derive initially from a first impression (which, like any first impression, is largely based on appearance), and then get modified over time throughout the campaigns. By the time of the debates, however, most voters will have already had their first impression of the candidate; they know what the candidates look like and sound like, what party they represent, etc.”

PopSci asked:

     Is it more important for a candidate to be well-versed on issues, or to be a person who presents what they say in the right way (the right soundbites, the right "zingers")?

The answer given by Edwards and Oppenheimer:

     “Being actually knowledgeable about the issues doesn't matter at all, unfortunately. What matters is that they sound like they are knowledgeable about the issues: don't say "um," don't equivocate, don't veer too far from conventional wisdom, don't give complex answers. As for zingers--they can be very effective, if they underscore an opponent's perceived weakness, although one must be careful with them too--zingers frequently backfire and make the person who said them look mean or petty, especially when they are aimed at someone who the audience is predisposed to like.”

Link:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/popsci-qampa-how-much-do-debates-matter

     The real indicator of that will answer the question: “Do the debates really matter?” are the polls. According to political scientist, Thomas Holbrook, “the average change over the last 16 presidential debates is less than 1 percentage point.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/debates-don-t-move-polls-debate-winners-051129396.html

     Although there’s proof that the debates don’t have much effect on the way people vote, Here are the moments that we all remember from the debates.

     President Obama started the debate by saying,“Twenty years ago, I became the luckiest man on earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me.”

Romney returned with, “Congratulations, I’m sure this is the most romantic place you  

could imagine—here with me!”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/03/watch-video-best-moments-from-the-first-presidential-debate.html

     Romney’s jab at Sesame Street gave political cartoonists some great material for a few weeks and even inspired a lot of halloween costumes. “The GOP candidate told moderator and PBS host Jim Lehrer that he wants to slash the federal government's subsidy to the public broadcasting system—but assured: ‘I love Big Bird! I actually like you, too!”’

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/03/watch-video-best-moments-from-the-first-presidential-debate.html

     And it would be impossible to forget Romney’s best debate line, “I had the chance to pull together a Cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men. I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/opinion/cardona-binders-women/index.html

2012 Twitter Award Goes To...Barack Obama

Why Barack Obama you might ask? Let's compare follower numbers between the two candidates for a second. By accessing my Twitter account with a touch of a button, I found that the President has 21.5 million followers, whereas the governor has 1.6 million followers. Sure the President has served 4 years more than the governor, but how on earth does Barack Obama have that many followers!

It began back in July of 2011, Barack Obama was the first ever President to use Twitter! As if that wasn't exciting enough, he answered questions that were tweeted to him. He replied to tweets with the hash tag #AskObama. While on Twitter, the President called himself "BO" and answered questions ranging from jobs, national debt, taxes, and the housing market.

Why Twitter? And what is the importance of a national figure using social media in a campaign? I for one, am one of the many social media obsessed. I use Twitter, Facebook, and Linkedin constantly. My generation includes those who have grown up around social media and continue to advance with it. As a national figure, President Barack Obama set the bar high when it comes to capturing the attention of young adults. One of his strategies in his last campaign was to connect with the young generation who who lacking when it came to the polls. As he uses Twitter and various social media platforms during his campaign, voters and potential voters have the option to stay connected and aware of what each candidate has done, is doing, or will do as President. 

While researching, I found an interesting article from the Washington Post discussing @MentionMachine and thought I'd share. As a Twitter account, @MentionMachine is said to track the Presidential Candidates and follow numbers such as who is up and who is down on Twitter. The article states that the Twitter account "reveals trends and spikes that show where the conversation is and why." It's really an interesting Twitter account to follower if you tweet.

 Long story short, I believe Twitter is very influential for communication between Presidential candidates and young adults. It provides quick and easily accessible information with numerous sources to choose from. And as far as who out tweets who.. Barack Obama wins by a landslide! 

Check these out: @BarackObama & @MittRomney

Who are these people? Oh, Chuck Norris.

      When we look at surrogates, supporters, for any candidate we understand that anyone can be one. The wife, the sons and daughters. Those who are surrogates for Obama are sometimes top celebrities. As I researched the surrogates for Mitt Romney all I could find were governors from other states, congressman, you know, politicians. Aside from Clint Eastwood, I wanted to find out who else supported Romney.

• Celebrity Supporters

I found this site ^^^ about celebrity supporters and was surprised at the amount of people I didn't know about. We don't, well I don't see many celebrities ever in Romney's advertisements so I just assumed those who did support did not want to be on camera(how ironic). Though recently there have been a couple articles about how Romney's surrogates are affecting his race. We find surrogates from both sides quickly apologizing for anything they didn't mean to say and this backlash.

     It was a little easier to find information when we search 'supporters' and not surrogates, so from there, there was an article in the Huffington post about "Republican Hollywood." Where it says "sometimes it is easy to forget that Hollywood does have Republican supporters." So it wasn't surprising when they said "for years, Hollywood has bullied conservative actors and actresses into a corner." So that was a little interesting. But it's hard to find any surrogate that hasn't had a roar from the media.

     CHUCK NORRIS.

 "Chuck Norris recently released an anti-Obama video with his wife Gena on his official YouTube channel. In the video, Chuck and Gena warn of "1,000 years of darkness" if Obama is reelected."
Since many people love Chuck Norris, it's really strange seeing this side of him, if you haven't already. He takes a strong Christian approach, which certainly makes for a targeted audience. I know it caught my attention, but I am a Christian. Had I not been though, and knowing religion, like politics, this could potentially turn some people off. But this works for Romney because one issue has been his religion this election. But it's not about that either.
     This video is anti-Obama, which kind of goes, in my opinion, against the Christian teachings of love thy neighbor. Comments to these sorts of videos can be funny "Chuck said it, you do it." They stress the condition as if we're all going to die, but on a sociological view, they use the "children," as those we have to protect. After watching it, it did make me think of the future, so I would say those that watch it will have an impact.
"Let's unite for God and country, and may God continue to bless the United States of America."

• Republican Hollywood
• Chuck Norris' dire warning for America - 2012

Girl Power: The Influence of Michelle Obama as a Surrogate

As the Presidential Campaign enters its final week, we can be expecting to see a lot more of Ann Romney and Michelle Obama on the trail. The article "Campaign Surrogates Shore up Supportfor Obama, Romney in Final Days"  from the Associated Press discusses the most influential surrogates in this campaign. While big names like Bruce Springsteen and Bill Clinton teamed up to campaign for Obama in Ohio a week ago, I agree with the article that Michelle Obama is the President's most popular surrogate. Michelle is viewed favorably by 69 percent of Americans according to an October poll done by ABC News/Washington Post a statistic in line with the popular former first lady, Laura Bush. With seven days until the election, I expect her appearances only to increase at this point. The article I read correlates nicely with the findings in the reading we did for class "Spouses as Campaign Surrogates...", when the author writes that the candidates and their surrogates’ goals are to “give the presidential campaigns a daily presence in key states even when the men at the top of the ticket (and their running mates) pitch for votes somewhere else.” This indicates that battleground states are the places to be.

I also found it interesting that Michelle seems to making more solo appearances than I would have expected. Just yesterday, Mrs. Obama was flying solo at an Iowa campaign event. Her charisma, relevance to women and African Americans, and strength as a leader makes her a very influential spokesperson for the President, ESPECIALLY now that Obama may be more tied up with disaster relief on the East Coast than his campaign ever planned for. In these final days before the election, Michelle may play a bigger role in the campaign than any wife in election history.

  

http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/when-the-first-lady-talks-do-women-listen--20121024

http://www.ktiv.com/story/19947911/michelle-obama-sioux-city-election

Social Domination

--> 
This year is the first election that I have been able to vote in. This is also the first year that I have not had strong opinions about one of the candidates. With feeling so undecided research had to be done. I felt that a valid way to gain information would be through social media. I choose to follow both of the candidates on twitter but stayed away from Facebook. Along with looking at the candidate’s tweets, I also paid attention to others that I follow tweeting about politics.

I thought social media was for conversation but the candidates do not seem to be using their twitter plat forms to inspire two-way communication. The candidates rarely retweet their followers messages (Pew, Aug. 2012). I think that a way to get people involved is to get people interacting with a message rather than disseminating the information.

This year the candidates are on every form of social media that they can be. In the 2008 election was the first year that social media was used in campaigns because years before that it really did not exist. In 2008 the election on social media was users posting pictures of the election booth and telling their friends who they were voting for and that they should vote too. Now users are having conversations and the candidates are using the social networking cites more than ever.

According to the Pew Research Center one of the candidates uses social media more heavely.

“The Romney campaign averaged 1 tweet per day while the Obama campaign averaged 29 tweets, 17 per day on @BarackObama (the Twitter account associated with his presidency) and 12 on @Obama2012 (the account associated with his campaign). Obama also had about twice as many blog posts on his campaign website than did Romney and more than twice as many YouTube videos.”

This is so interesting to me because social networking is something almost ever college student uses and it is extremely important that candidates take advantage of this. I think it would be interesting if research were done on the impact of the messages that the candidates are sending out. If the same holds true with negative advertisements and negative tweets? I hope this election inspires more content to be researched for future campaigns.

o http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2326/obama-outpaces-romney-on-social-media-election-2012-facebook-twitter-youtube

o http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-11-05/the-vote-a-victory-for-social-media-toobusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

o https://twitter.com/BarackObama

o https://twitter.com/MittRomney

Let's Talk About Bill!

Bill Clinton.


For 20 years now, you only have to say his name to get a conversation going. And in this year's election, it is no different. Since early September at the Democratic Convention in North Carolina, Bill Clinton has been in the nation's public eye as a surrogate and endorsement for President Barack Obama. Has it worked for Obama? In a word, yes. In my opinion, if Clinton wasn't acting as a endorsement for Obama, the Democratic party would be way down in the polls. Clinton started off with a bang, making an incredible 48 minute speech at the DNC in September, showing off his powerfully moving speech skills. That was enough for Obama to ride in on the coat tails on, the day after accepting his nomination. Having Clinton as a spokesperson for Obama from the start of the DNC made it that much easier for the Obama Campaign Party, especially compared to the shaky Republican Convention's start and the awkward appearance from Clint Eastwood with his chair. Hands down, Clinton stole the show. And if Clinton hadn't endorsed Obama at the convention AND Obama bombed the first presidential debate like he did, I think he would be out of the presidential running completely. Now Obama is using Clinton as a surrogate in the wake of hurricane Sandy, going to the battleground key state of Ohio without the president and keeping the campaign running and alive without him. Clinton used jokes and personalized the president in his speech to rev up  the democrats in their race to the polls. And it just might work. With Clinton's great speech making and Romney pulling on the reins of the Republican campaign as well, Obama might have a shot at winning the state of Ohio. To me, it's like a dad passing the torch on to his son, helping him with his senior project or his car. People see Clinton as a remembrance of the past, the great years when we weren't in such an economic crisis. And if the good "father" has faith in his "son", we might keep hope in his "son" too.

To see how Bill Clinton has worked his magic, click here:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-29/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-clinton-bidenbre89t01f-20121029_1_obama-campaign-strategy-obama-and-romney-ohio-woman

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/29/bill_clinton_how_obama_s_best_known_surrogate_can_steal_the_show.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0906/Bill-Clinton-speech-Did-it-clear-way-for-Obama-or-create-a-hurdle-video

Is social media as important as we think?

Obama and Romney are both using Social Media, but one candidate has proven to be much more successful in his efforts. Obama has over 28 million Facebook "likes" compared to Romney's seven million. Obama also has over 20 million Twitter followers, which is a commanding lead over Romney's 1.6 million. The social media aspect is used a lot to inform voters of how the candidates feel on issues and just tell them in general about themselves and their campaign. While there is no relationship found between young voters and social media leading you to vote democratic, there is a link between young voters that use social media voting for the republican candidate. I feel that the younger generation is more of a republican generation and the use of social media is a big move for the candidate to drum up some votes.

The idea of social media is only there to help. I feel as if the idea of social media can not really hinder your efforts to gain support if you stick to the issues that are important. On the other hand, I do think that the use of social media can help you gain votes. the younger generation is stuck to their computers and it is so easy for them to read up on a candidate. Facebook and Twitter allow them to compare and contrast the candidates and eventually decide who they think should run this country.

In past campaigns there has been little social media used because social media just hit the scene during the last election really. I can see how Obama has the lead in Facebook "likes" and Twitter followers because he has been our president for almost four years now, and Romney is just breaking onto the scene. This is partially the reason I think the past president running for reelection will most likely always have the edge in social media because of the four years of support prior to the election.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/22/obamas-big-social-media-edge-will-it-affect-the-election/
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/Social-media-has-key-role-in-12-election-3843166.php
http://docs.rwu.edu/honors_theses/4/

Surrogates Shouldn't Matter

As we have seen from our readings this week surrogates and endorsements are an important part of the political process. However, overall I don’t think candidates gain or lose much from their endorsements, due to the positive and negative aspects, other than the funds they may donate. There are people who have a positive impact on the political sphere like Bill Clinton, whose support for President Obama was recognized as a huge bonus for the Obama campaign. “The passion of President Clinton–his unique perspective and intellect–puts the strengths and accomplishments of the last four years into perspective,” said Christian Hylton, delegate from New York. But then there are the negative endorsements like Eva Longoria who means well but made a mistake which further fueled a ‘war on women’. In the overall scope of things they aren’t the candidates so I don’t think anything they say or do should impact the voter’s decision. If they would like to voice their opinion then feel free but should any one regular citizens opinion really matter? 

http://www.demconvention.com/42nd-president-bill-clinton-delivers-home-run-endorsement-of-president-obama/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/10/19/obama-surrogate-eva-longoria-starts-her-own-war-on-women/

Battleship Debates!

Presidential Debates are, without a doubt, must watch television. Even if a voter already has their mind made up 100% on who they are voting for, they still tune in to watch the debates. Always looking for that one knock-out punch or a candidate tripping over the final hurdle (I can’t help it, I’m a sports guy. They are the other reference I can think of. I apologize in advance if there are more). But do the debates even matter? Does their impact on the voters who aren't 100% really matter? I argue yes.

Like I said, the debates are MUST WATCH TV! Everyone is watching them. Everyone from the millionaires in Beverly Hills to the small town families in Montana watches these debates. For most, the debates are their only source of information about the candidates. They take what they see and hear in the debates and make their decision based solely on that.

"I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS," Romney said. "I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually, [I] like you, too. But I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for.”

"You mention the Navy, for example, and the fact that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. "Well Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets," said the president. "We have these things called aircraft carriers and planes land on them. We have ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines." Obama drove the point home, "It's not a game of Battleship where we're counting ships, it's 'What are our priorities?'"

THESE are the things people remember from debates. The quotes that can knock an opponent out – BOOM! Or trip over the final hurdle – D’OH! (Homer Simpson voice). The debates matter.

And you can laugh at these now…

Will the Debates Affect the Election More Than the Storm?

In this society where the important thing is winning and losing, debates are just small scale of what is to come of the election guaranteeing them a win or loss…or is that what we are made to think? After the first debate when it was evident that Romney won and the polls jumped dramatically for him. However, after the second and third debates, the polls were in a dead heat. According to an article from The Washington Monthly Magazine, political pundits and strategists believe in a notion of “game changers” which are things said or done in a debate that will make an effect on the outcome of the election “A more careful study by political scientist James Stimson finds little evidence of game changers in the presidential campaigns between 1960 and 2000. Stimson writes, ‘There is no case where we can trace a substantial shift to the debates.’”

Later in the article, it says that for most of the voters who watch the debates, their minds are already made up and it doesn't matter what happens in the debate, they are just learning new information. This is the exact same argument Brady made in class a week or two ago. “Instead of the debates affecting who they will vote for, their party loyalty affects who they believe won the debates,” states the article.

It seems to me that debates don’t have any real impact on the outcome of the election. However, in the case of the jump in Romney’s poll numbers after the first debate, I think it was because the debate had an impact on voters. This was the first debate where voters could actually see Romney for what his vision is for the country if he were to become president and after his stellar performance compared to the lack of one from the President, he was seen by undecided as well as Republican voters as someone to rally behind because the President lacked the fervor to stand up for what he wanted to say. I think in that sense, the debates did help to increase the strength of the Republican nominee and party which in turn affected the election in the sense that it is a close race. More than anything, what will affect the election the most is the damage done to 10 states because of Hurricane Sandy. All of the states impacted are leaning or strongly for Obama,  and it will be hard for those places currently underwater or have lots of damage from the storm to be able to go out and vote for the President. This will definitely make for an interesting election.

The Show Must Go On: Political Debates

To me, and probably to much of the voting public, the presidential debates are not largely a matter of what the candidates say, but rather the show they put on while saying it. This year was the first year that I was a witness to the great production that is our nations debate system, and i was not disappointed, with one minor exception. Neither one of the candidates said anything at all to sway my vote, a fact that i found rather odd as i continued through the three debates. 

I fully expected to come out of my debate watching spree with a feeling of enlightenment and the knowledge that i am a completely informed voter, but that just wasn't the case. What i did gain out of watching the debates is the realization that our nation judges not on the basis of what you say, but how and when you say it.  For the most part, we are all looking to be entertained, or in a way, be courted by one of these presidents. Through wit, sense of proper timing, respectable presences, and vocal tone, we judge the candidates. In each debate i found myself trying to figure out why so many Americans watch all three. The candidates were simply repeating themselves over and over with responses that were clearly rehearsed and perfected, and at times, like Mitt Romney's tip-toeing responses in the final debate, completely refused to touch on the main points outlined in the question presented to them. What we are really doing as watchers is looking for instances where the candidates mess up. 

It occurred to me that the real reason for having the debates, other than to attempt to solidify the positions on the many political issues, is to give undecided or previously uninformed voters the chance to figure out who these people are. Even if you have been following the political race up until that point, as an undecided voter, you probably haven't been closely getting to know how the candidates act in a setting that makes them appear presidential. In prior circumstances you hear the candidates, in essence, being cheerleaders for their views and themselves. In a debate format we are able to see their intelligence and quick thinking come into play, and that can have an important affect on undecided voters. 

It is clear to me that for the most part the voting public aren't listening as closely to what the candidates are saying, but instead dissecting the way they hold themselves and making sure that whoever they vote for, they aren't voting for someone who appears stupid. Ultimately, the debates are a glorified beauty pageant where we as citizens are able to see the candidates prance around in their finest forms as they stretch their mental muscles, and when it comes to the interview section i really only care about how charismatic a candidate appears on screen when in the end both candidates are verbally running in circles on a hamster wheel. 

"Every president inherits challenges" said Morgan Freeman

Surrogates and endorsements can either be extremely beneficial to a candidate’s votes, or a negative influence depending on the person. These representatives for the presidential candidate portray an image that in theory should persuade citizens to vote for their specific endorsed candidate. However, an interesting matter is happening in the 2012 election. Surrogates and endorsers are both positively and negatively influencing the vote. Celebrities especially can be a risky form of an endorsement, but they are also the ones that can get the candidate the most recognition.

Several months ago at the Republican National Convention, Clint Eastwood spoke publicly and endorsed Mitt Romney. In theory those who like Clint Eastwood and his films might support Romney as well. However, after this speech at RNC, Romney’s supporters were given something they didn’t expect. Eastwood’s speech became an uncomfortable situation where he talked to an empty chair who was representing Obama. This did not go over well with the general public.

This past week, nearly two months after the rambling empty chair speech, a new advertisment came out with Eastwood speaking more professionally and succinct. He states that Americans need someone who can turn around our country fast, and that the future of our country is at stake. Not only does this commercial utilize persuasion and advertising techniques, it attempts to regain the vote of the Eastwood fans. By using Eastwood as a surrogate again, Romney campaigners were taking a risk because of how poorly it went the first time. Though it is uncertain whether or not this commercial had influenced the polls, it definitely grabbed the audience member’s attention. [Link to Ad: http://youtu.be/klXTb-s7d9A]

Obama has celebrity endorsers as well. The ever popular Morgan Freeman launched a series of advertisements endorsing Obama and his leadership. Freeman states in his commercial that it’s too late to turn back now on four years of accomplishments. Choosing Morgan Freeman to endorse Obama was definitely a good choice to obtain popular votes. Freeman is extremely well liked by a diverse group of people who may consider voting for Obama simply because of this. And let’s admit, who doesn’t smile and listen right away when Morgan’s voice is heard on air? This grabs the viewer's attention and could potentially affect who they vote for. [Link to Ad: http://youtu.be/4nUDg-O93GU]

Obama and Romney both took the challenge when their started campaigning for the election. Celebrities endorsers and surrogates can be both a positive and negative influence on their campaign and definitely influence the popular vote. However, every presidential candidate will continue to obtain these endorsements in any election and do anything for the obtain the support from the American citizens.

Clooney and Obama sitting in a tree.

            In researching the potential effects of the coming election on my future industry (film and television) I stumbled across the article above. If you’re crunched for time I’ll save you some trouble. Basically, through data collected by the Center of Responsive Politics, an organization that tracks and reports monetary contributions to politicians, it has been found that, “Over the last two years, Obama has outraised Romney from what the Center calls the, "TV/Movies/Music" industry, by nearly 5-1, with $4,518,742 in donations to the President and $836,038 to the Romney campaign.” While the article addresses the obvious pattern that celebrities tend to be liberal, it doesn’t pose an answer to why. For as long as I can remember being an artist (actor, musician, filmmaker) came with the stigma of being inherently democratic. This is not a recent observation or one held exclusively by me. For example, back in the 40’s and 50’s when senator McCarthy’s communist witch hunt was in full swing, Hollywood was targeted immensely by the mainly conservative HUAC (House Committee on Un-American Activities) on the grounds that liberal minded Hollywood artists and writers were slowly turning innocent American’s into freedom hating communists overnight.  And it was this farfetched example that led me to a possible explanation for George Clooney’s total man-crush on our president.

Don’t get me wrong, Obama is one healthy looking fellow, but what else makes our favorite stars get all twinkly for him?  I think the answer could be as simple as the social values and lifestyles that hold true with common views of the inhabitants of Hollywood, or California in general. I’m not trying to offend anyone or claim that Hollywood is immoral, just that large urban areas (New York, L.A.) tend to be progressive, therefore more invested in the social liberties that the far left supports and advocates for.  The way I see it, a wealthy celebrity would amass much more money under the wing of the Republican Party’s fiscal policies yet they vote consistently, not just with their wallets, but also with civil rights and social freedom in mind. Please, do NOT mistake this for me saying every movie star is a saint. I’m proposing that, much like other American’s, they feel that before they can vote freely, the social inequalities and intrusions still present in our country must be addressed and cleared. Alas, the day the far right embraces marijuana, homosexuality and all related issues is far from here and until then Obama and the democratic party will continue to enjoy the monetary buffering of the Hollywood elite. 

-Neal Brower

Post 5: Debates.

          Looking at the Presidential debates as from the eyes of the general public, I would say that they do have an impact on the outcome of the debate, especially this year. In the first presidential debate, Romney “won” This dramatically increased his numbers in the polls. So many decided to vote for the Governor based on his performance in the debate and because of what was said. Many lost hope or support for the President based on his poor performance. This changed the course of the current election and will impact the final outcome. I think that many of these people who changed their minds were the undecided voters. Many diehard supporters of either candidate would need way more than a debate to sway them.

            I think it is a bummer that the presidential debates sway so many. The debates in themselves seem like a joke to me. After watching them, I felt no more informed on the issues than I was before. They just seemed to argue, throw insults and use many words without saying anything. Without prior understanding of where the candidates stand, the public would not be more informed after the debates. Thus they are basing their decision to change on external factors rather than where they stand on important issues.

           

How did the debates impact your decision? Did they have any impact?

Blog Prompt #5 - Obama and His #HashTagWar

With "Social Media" websites dominating and at the top of their digital game it's only expected at this point for both candidates of the presidency to take advantage of as many as possible. Despite both Romney and Obama on the power-hungry warpath with these websites it would seem that Obama is the clear winner as of right now. Why? I believe it is because of his charming and witty personality and the fact that undecided voters on the internets are suckers for anybody with a charming and witty personality.

With both candidates it is old news by now that the people of Twitter have branded them both their own names behind a #Hashtag, as a multitude of other people have garnered. According to an article from Bloomberg News, "within 24 hours of President Barack Obama dubbing Republican challenger Mitt Romney's policy shifts as "Romnesia", #Romnesia was trending worldwide on Twitter". The true marvel behind this is certainly how FAST something like this can happen (honestly i'm surprised it didn't happen 24 MINUTES after the fact). It is because of this that Obama is able to get ahead in the race on the World Wide Web because, at this point, those people are almost expecting Obama to chime in with something that can put Romney in his place. That is, by now, what Obama is known for with these debates. Amidst the waves of memes, photos, .gif's, and other modes of jokes in defense of Obama, these #hashtagisms certainly help him propel further into stardom on the web.

Is this working in the long run? Honestly I don't know. Just because somebody sees #Romnesia trending and laughs to themselves doesn't mean that person is going to run out and vote for Obama, but a trending topic doesn't happen because of one person. I guess we'll all find out after the election is over.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-22/obama-winning-social-media-if-no-hashtagwars-really-matter

Welcome

My name is Danielle Leek and I am an Associate Professor in the School of Communications at Grand Valley State University.

This blog is part of an assignment for a course being taught at Grand Valley State University in the Fall 2012 semester. Students taking my COM 495 "Issues in Communication" class have been tasked with talking about politics in public.

It's harder than it sounds.

Research shows that young adults struggle with what Anne Colby, senior scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, calls "political learning." Political learning is what happens when students are politically engaged, which Colby explains "includes community and civic involvement that has a systemic dimension and various forms of engagement with public policy issues, as well as electoral politics at all levels. A key criterion is that political activities are driven by systemic-level goals, a desire to affect the shared values, practices, and policies that shape collective life."

In practice, higher education in America has shied away from real political learning to invest in civic engagement that is detached from learning about institutional politics and policy. Colby and her colleagues surveyed and interviewed undergraduates who confirmed that service-learning and volunteer opportunities, while valuable in their own right, do not empower students with confidence in their knowledge or ability to participate in the American political system.

My own experience and research validates Colby's claims, especially in regards to what I call "political voice." Our political voice is what we use whenever we're involved in communicating about political issues. In terms of electoral politics, a robust political voice is motivated and inspired to converse, deliberate, and learn about candidates, policies, and campaigns through the process of communication.

Yet a variety of factors conspire to prevent students from gaining this experience: increasing resistance to talking about politics in the classroom, the conflation of civic and political learning, and declining support for speech activities, are only a few examples.

But as with all communication praxis, developing a political voice requires practice. And I mean real, boots-on-the-ground, out-loud-and-in-front-of-people, practice.

For the past few weeks, students in this course took the first step in this effort to engage with one another on a private class blog. This site opens space for students to take the next step in their practice. At the end of the course, we'll reflect on lessons learned about strategies for invoking a political voice in the contemporary American public sphere.

Please, join us in this conversation about the 2012 election.