http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-faces-growing-discontent-among-black-voters/2011/09/23/gIQA3vYurK_story.html
This article, by Nia-Malika Henderson, focuses on the growing concern in the Obama camp that black support has slipped dangerously far enough to create a substantial dent in his vote assurance of the African American community.
As the Presidential Election gets closer Obama must try to salvage what is left of the black support and regain what is not. He spoke on Saturday at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation where a highly prioritized issue was that of his American Jobs Act. As emphasized by Representative Maxine Waters, one of the key factors in the diminishing of Obama's black support is black unemployment. The current rate of black unemployment is 15.9% up from 11.5% when he first was elected president, and many of his 2008 supporters feel he has neglected the well-being of the African American community.
The article also points out a phenomenon which three years ago would have been completely unheard of: the raising of the green flag in the black community to publicly critise Obama. Not only has this new freedom been OK-ed but it is also encouraged by Representatives such as Waters. The article describes how she, "Urged the audience to 'unleash' black elected officials from the unwritten rule of not openly criticizing the president," at a CBC Jobs fair in Detroit, but it seems that many never needed the permission to dispute Obama in the first place as polls have been showing that, "Blacks are more likely than before to say that the country is on the wrong track and are less inclined to have favorable views of Obama." Republicans are getting on board too, making an effort to contact politicians like Waters to express their awareness and concern. Depending on how sincere they actually come across, this could pose a threat to the President in next year's election.
Obama isn't giving up hope, however, and his Jobs Act will likely help to ease any of his concerns of losing a signifcant portion of his African American vote. Some African Americans also recognize the fact that the President has had to take care not to "overtly" cater to the black community in order to keep his white supporters from feeling like his policies and intentions are racially driven. Mayor Kasim Reed commented that it is "unfair" for people to expect Obama to focus all his attention on blacks as it could jepordize his chance for the general election. He and Al Sharpton both agree that public critism of Obama by blacks could hurt voter turnout and thus suggest a show of strength and support for Obama instead.
Personally, I think Obama will still win the majority vote of African Americans, perhaps just not by as massive of a landslide.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
'Tis the Season to Let the Claws Out
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/24/perry-casts-romney-as-slick-at-florida-gop-breakfast/?hpt=po_bn1
In an article by CNN reporter Peter Hamby, its quite clear that the election season has begun, but these candidates are far from wishing one another good tidings, in fact I think it's safe to say they will all be on Santa's naughty list this year.
It may be early in the election process but opponents have already begun "dissing" each other. Take Texas Gov. Rick Perry for instance. Last Thursday's Republican presidential debate did not go as well for him as he surely would have hoped,so naturally, in an effort to puff out his shoulders, he took a jab or two at his toughest Republican opponent Mitt Romney calling him, "the slickest candidate" and further, suggesting he lacks authenticity by commenting that American's are looking for an "authentic, principled leader." He also couldn't help but save a jab for Mr. Obama saying, "You've seen what happens when our country chooses leaders who emphasize words over deeds."
Not very nice indeed, but in truth he is no more responsible for the flourishing of this type of behaviour than any of the other candidates now or in past elections. The documentary about Bill Clinton's campaign shows multiple scenes where both Clinton and Bush insult, hurt, and/or make fun of the others' campaign and how important these factors are in running for presidency. Without question, part of the logic here is that it's much easier to make someone else look bad than to make yourself look good to the same effect. But is the bickering between two or more candidates really what matters? Isn't it meant to be about the issues and truly listening to what the candidates have to offer so we can make educated decisions based on our own reactions? Hopefully that is still a substantial enough part of what campaigning is about, but as a country full of reality-tv loving individuals it can't be ignored that we are obsessed with drama and turning every real life situation into a piece of juicy gossip we can get our lips on.
There is no doubt that the 2012 Election will produce some serious verbal battling, both warrented and unwarrented. It is natural and necessary for candidates to see how quick each is on their feet and to point out details that are often hiding somewhere beneath the surface. But lets just hope they keep it a little more classy this time around and avoid becoming Bravo's next Real Presidential Candidates of 2012.
In an article by CNN reporter Peter Hamby, its quite clear that the election season has begun, but these candidates are far from wishing one another good tidings, in fact I think it's safe to say they will all be on Santa's naughty list this year.
It may be early in the election process but opponents have already begun "dissing" each other. Take Texas Gov. Rick Perry for instance. Last Thursday's Republican presidential debate did not go as well for him as he surely would have hoped,so naturally, in an effort to puff out his shoulders, he took a jab or two at his toughest Republican opponent Mitt Romney calling him, "the slickest candidate" and further, suggesting he lacks authenticity by commenting that American's are looking for an "authentic, principled leader." He also couldn't help but save a jab for Mr. Obama saying, "You've seen what happens when our country chooses leaders who emphasize words over deeds."
Not very nice indeed, but in truth he is no more responsible for the flourishing of this type of behaviour than any of the other candidates now or in past elections. The documentary about Bill Clinton's campaign shows multiple scenes where both Clinton and Bush insult, hurt, and/or make fun of the others' campaign and how important these factors are in running for presidency. Without question, part of the logic here is that it's much easier to make someone else look bad than to make yourself look good to the same effect. But is the bickering between two or more candidates really what matters? Isn't it meant to be about the issues and truly listening to what the candidates have to offer so we can make educated decisions based on our own reactions? Hopefully that is still a substantial enough part of what campaigning is about, but as a country full of reality-tv loving individuals it can't be ignored that we are obsessed with drama and turning every real life situation into a piece of juicy gossip we can get our lips on.
There is no doubt that the 2012 Election will produce some serious verbal battling, both warrented and unwarrented. It is natural and necessary for candidates to see how quick each is on their feet and to point out details that are often hiding somewhere beneath the surface. But lets just hope they keep it a little more classy this time around and avoid becoming Bravo's next Real Presidential Candidates of 2012.
Our Country is Based on Democracy, so why isn't our Election System More Democratic?
Guest Meredith Mcgehee discusses the issue of unfair advantages in the Presidential Election process created by money. The cost of televised advertisement accounts for a good portion of the money candidates need to be successful; therefore, by allowing some candidates to access it for free it would help to "even the playing field." She also mentions past elections where each party was given a grant at the last stretch of the election so that their focus could be shifted more towards promoting their message rather than their financial influence.
The Road Blocks to the Whitehouse
In this video we are introduced to some of the obstacles presidential candidates face while trying to raise money for their campaigns. Matching Funds are briefly discussed and their lengthy, all-or-nothing criteria outlined. The difficulty in obtaining this fund can be easily summarized by looking at the 2008 elections where only 8 out of 20 candidates recieved Federal Matching Funds (The Road to the Whitehouse 2012, p. 51). The impact of the law on presidential campaign rules also does little to keep the spending ceiling from rising as it does not effectively take into account the change of times and costs.
Campaign Funding - Predictions for 2012 Higher than Ever
Despite the fact our economy is far from booming, analysts are saying the 2012 elections will set a new bar in campaign funding and expenditures. Legislation has passed once again to promote the accumulation of income for both parties' disposal, and the predictions are out that the Republican party plans on spending $120 million (which is believed to be a gross understatement) as compared to 2008 where they prediction only $50 million (and obviously spent more).
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Electoral college
In this clip of the last presidential election the significance of the Electoral College vote is obvious. The "scorecard" discussed in the clip is a clear indication of how closely these votes are followed and anticipated in our elections.
In this clip some of the problems presented by the Electoral College system are discussed. Many voters do feel like their vote counts for less and even sometimes nothing because the Electoral College system makes it seem like some states are far more important than others and there is no question that candidates spend more time and money in those states.
Here we get some understanding as to the importance of the Electoral College again, the race is not over until we see the results of the Electoral College. It is also historically interesting to understand why the Founders put the Electoral College in to place, clearly because of their own fear stemming from what they left behind in England.
Obama's Support Waning - Even in True Blue States
The 2008 Elections were absolutely some of the most memorable our country will ever see. Though it wasn't a total shoe-in, it's probably pretty safe to say everyone knew deep down Obama was going to take the race. And with a campaign like his that captivated both the minorities and youth more so than anyone in the past it truly was no surprise that he won. For any Democrat to take Florida is a feat in and of itself and Obama did this just a mere three years ago. Today, however, his support system has dwindled significantly and the forecast for a second win is undeniably less favorable. In an article posted by politico.com, Edward-Isaac Dovere describes what he means by "Barack Obama's Blue-State Blues."
To be clear Dovere doesn't believe that there is any real threat of Obama and the Democratic party losing states like New York and California, and I would say most hopeful of Republicans would have to agree on that. Instead his concern is more geared towards the potential loss of support among the groups that gave him the boost he needed in the last election, namely: "the reliably Democratic electorate of liberals, labor, young people, Jews, African-Americans and other key blocs," of 2008. And, unfortunately for Obama, Dovere suggests that this is not a problem the entire Democratic party is experencing, referencing heightened support of Democrat Andrew Cuomo, it seems to be all about the president.
The reasons for this waning support are the same as they are for any president in Obama's current predicament: the voters are not happy because he did not do what he said he would. Certainly it is more involved than that, but essentially everything boils down to voters feeling like they were not given what they were told they would be getting. Every president undoubtedly deals with challenges to his authority, his plans, his visions for a Greater America so naturally those plans and visions do not always turn out the way they were intended to. The concept is not one that is difficult to relate to one's own life where often our goals and intentions are temporarily or completely side-tracked. The election process demands that candidates go from appealing to the extremes of the political spectrum to moving slowly back toward the center once an election has been won. Do voters truly believe that everything their candidate tells them they will do once elected will actually happen? Perhaps the entire system, along with the voters need to get a little more in touch with reality for actual progress to be made within the Country.
To be clear Dovere doesn't believe that there is any real threat of Obama and the Democratic party losing states like New York and California, and I would say most hopeful of Republicans would have to agree on that. Instead his concern is more geared towards the potential loss of support among the groups that gave him the boost he needed in the last election, namely: "the reliably Democratic electorate of liberals, labor, young people, Jews, African-Americans and other key blocs," of 2008. And, unfortunately for Obama, Dovere suggests that this is not a problem the entire Democratic party is experencing, referencing heightened support of Democrat Andrew Cuomo, it seems to be all about the president.
The reasons for this waning support are the same as they are for any president in Obama's current predicament: the voters are not happy because he did not do what he said he would. Certainly it is more involved than that, but essentially everything boils down to voters feeling like they were not given what they were told they would be getting. Every president undoubtedly deals with challenges to his authority, his plans, his visions for a Greater America so naturally those plans and visions do not always turn out the way they were intended to. The concept is not one that is difficult to relate to one's own life where often our goals and intentions are temporarily or completely side-tracked. The election process demands that candidates go from appealing to the extremes of the political spectrum to moving slowly back toward the center once an election has been won. Do voters truly believe that everything their candidate tells them they will do once elected will actually happen? Perhaps the entire system, along with the voters need to get a little more in touch with reality for actual progress to be made within the Country.
Does Presidential Candidate/Underdog Jon M. Huntsman Jr. Actually Stand a Chance in the 2012 Primaries?
In an article posted on the New York Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/19iht-letter19.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=primaries), author Albert R. Hunt points out the many promising attributes of Mr. Hunstman before explaining why he suspects they will ultimately get him nowhere in the 2012 Presidential race.
Although finishing last in the most recent national Republican candidate polls, Huntsman boasts, as Hunt puts it, "a consistently conservative record that eschews fringe views, a proven and scandal-free track record as an executive and respectable national-security credentials." He has experience in foreign relations thanks to his role as ambassador to China, which Huntsman says makes him a better candidate than Romney, and he feels Perry puts himself "out of the mainstream" because of his ultra conservative stance on global warming and evolution.
According to this article, Huntsman is basically putting all of his eggs in one basket labeled: New Hampshire. Because he is a more moderate conservative, Huntsman is hoping that he will win over this key state where "independents can vote in either primary and Democrats can switch registration." From this win he plans to take Florida.
So why is it that the author of this article finds it so implausible that a moderately-conservative, experienced, and "complex" individual like Mr. Huntsman doesn't stand a chance? Well it may just be precisely because many of his "good" qualities will likely do more bad for his campaign. The author mentions how its quite possible that conservatives will steer clear of him because of his position on issues such as evolution and global warming but personally I think the most interesting reasoning the article mentions is where Huntsman and Perry are compared as individuals. Alex Castellanos says of Huntsman, "Jon Huntsman is a complex individual....you speak to him, you get the big picture but not a simple narrative," in constrast to Perry who he describes as having a "simplicity" that works in his favor. This almost sounds as though it could be suggesting that despite the fact that Huntsman could be a better qualified candidate than Perry or some of his other opponents, his message is too complicated for voters to comprehend and appreciate. Perhaps the author is suggesting that American voters are too dumb to think beyond the black and white that they were brought up with. In any case, the author believes that because of this small set-back, Huntsman will not go far because he will be overlooked. I tend to agree with him.
Although finishing last in the most recent national Republican candidate polls, Huntsman boasts, as Hunt puts it, "a consistently conservative record that eschews fringe views, a proven and scandal-free track record as an executive and respectable national-security credentials." He has experience in foreign relations thanks to his role as ambassador to China, which Huntsman says makes him a better candidate than Romney, and he feels Perry puts himself "out of the mainstream" because of his ultra conservative stance on global warming and evolution.
According to this article, Huntsman is basically putting all of his eggs in one basket labeled: New Hampshire. Because he is a more moderate conservative, Huntsman is hoping that he will win over this key state where "independents can vote in either primary and Democrats can switch registration." From this win he plans to take Florida.
So why is it that the author of this article finds it so implausible that a moderately-conservative, experienced, and "complex" individual like Mr. Huntsman doesn't stand a chance? Well it may just be precisely because many of his "good" qualities will likely do more bad for his campaign. The author mentions how its quite possible that conservatives will steer clear of him because of his position on issues such as evolution and global warming but personally I think the most interesting reasoning the article mentions is where Huntsman and Perry are compared as individuals. Alex Castellanos says of Huntsman, "Jon Huntsman is a complex individual....you speak to him, you get the big picture but not a simple narrative," in constrast to Perry who he describes as having a "simplicity" that works in his favor. This almost sounds as though it could be suggesting that despite the fact that Huntsman could be a better qualified candidate than Perry or some of his other opponents, his message is too complicated for voters to comprehend and appreciate. Perhaps the author is suggesting that American voters are too dumb to think beyond the black and white that they were brought up with. In any case, the author believes that because of this small set-back, Huntsman will not go far because he will be overlooked. I tend to agree with him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)