Over the past 30 years, Republicans have had greater success in supporting a presidential candidate during early polls than the Democrats. According to Gallup Polling, Republicans have successfuly supported early favorites in seven of the ten past elections. In contrast, early Deomocratic poll leaders such as Edmond Muskie (1972), George Wallace (1976), Ted Kennedy (1980), Gary Hart (1988) Mario Cuomo (1992) and Joe Lieberman (2004) were all favorites among the Democratic party, yet were not nominated.
Given the previous track record for both parties, this could serve as an indicator for early poll leaders for the upcoming election. Hillary Clinton is an early favorite for the Democratic nomination and since history has a way of repeating itself, could lead to a nomination of Barack Obama or John Edwards who are both providing very strong competition. In this respect, is Rudy Giuliani destined for the GOP's presidential nomination?
While the Republican party's success at getting behind early poll leaders is clearly evident, what in contrast to the Democrats gives them the edge? While luck certainly is a factor, I feel that the general mentality or state of each political party is a crucial factor. The Republican party has increasingly become a more unilateral regime of sorts, while the Democrats continue to struggle internally. It is then easier for a Republican nominee who is "on board" with the the party to achieve success than it is for a Democratic nominee who has virtually no chance of pleasing everyone. This being said, what do you think drives the success or failure of Republican and Democrat support of early poll leaders?...How can this affect "favorites" within the two parties as of now?
Link to article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17342927
Monday, February 26, 2007
Will Al Gore Run for President in 2008?
As many of you may know the 79th Academy Awards was broadcast on ABC last night, Sunday, February 25, 2007. For updates on yesterday evenings events and winners you can click here.
Years before the red carpet was rolled out, former vice president of the United States, Al Gore began his campaign in the fight against global warming. As Gore told David Letterman, he began this campaign in 1976 in front of congress and did not receive strong support for his cause. But this did not stop Gore from continuing his efforts towards change in the way we as humans treat global warming. He even went so far as to create the film, “An Inconvenient Truth," on the effects of global warming. The film won both best documentary feature and best original song. The first question I propose is: With Gore's movie taking home two Academy Awards, How do you think, if at all, this has effected Congress' view on the issue of global warming?
In addition to his film winning awards, he was also given the opportunity to declare the first time in the history of the Oscars they have gone green with Leonardo DiCaprio. Before he took the stage there were rumors that Gore may use this moment to announce his decision to run for President in 2008. At the Oscars, Gore dispelled any rumors floating around of his intentions to run when, in front of a crowd that was on the edge of their seats clapping loudly, he played a joke on all of the viewers instead.
According to Moviefone.com's article, Al Gore takes center stage at Oscars, Gore ushered the following statements:
"Even though I honestly had not planned on doing this, I guess with a billion people watching, it's as good a time as any," a seemingly deadly serious Gore intoned as he pulled a piece of paper from his pocket to read: "So, my fellow Americans, I'm going to take this opportunity right here and now to formally announce ..." Gore was then drowned out by the swell of music from the orchestra pit, and he and DiCaprio walked off stage arm-in-arm to raucous laughter."
Much to the crowd's dismay, Gore used his time with Leonardo DiCaprio to receive praise from both Dicaprio and the audience and to announce that he had no intentions to run for president in 2008. This leads me to my final question: Based on the heartfelt thoughts of DiCaprio and the overbearing applause Gore received from the audience, Do you think Gore will remain committed to not running for President in 2008?
Years before the red carpet was rolled out, former vice president of the United States, Al Gore began his campaign in the fight against global warming. As Gore told David Letterman, he began this campaign in 1976 in front of congress and did not receive strong support for his cause. But this did not stop Gore from continuing his efforts towards change in the way we as humans treat global warming. He even went so far as to create the film, “An Inconvenient Truth," on the effects of global warming. The film won both best documentary feature and best original song. The first question I propose is: With Gore's movie taking home two Academy Awards, How do you think, if at all, this has effected Congress' view on the issue of global warming?
In addition to his film winning awards, he was also given the opportunity to declare the first time in the history of the Oscars they have gone green with Leonardo DiCaprio. Before he took the stage there were rumors that Gore may use this moment to announce his decision to run for President in 2008. At the Oscars, Gore dispelled any rumors floating around of his intentions to run when, in front of a crowd that was on the edge of their seats clapping loudly, he played a joke on all of the viewers instead.
According to Moviefone.com's article, Al Gore takes center stage at Oscars, Gore ushered the following statements:
"Even though I honestly had not planned on doing this, I guess with a billion people watching, it's as good a time as any," a seemingly deadly serious Gore intoned as he pulled a piece of paper from his pocket to read: "So, my fellow Americans, I'm going to take this opportunity right here and now to formally announce ..." Gore was then drowned out by the swell of music from the orchestra pit, and he and DiCaprio walked off stage arm-in-arm to raucous laughter."
Much to the crowd's dismay, Gore used his time with Leonardo DiCaprio to receive praise from both Dicaprio and the audience and to announce that he had no intentions to run for president in 2008. This leads me to my final question: Based on the heartfelt thoughts of DiCaprio and the overbearing applause Gore received from the audience, Do you think Gore will remain committed to not running for President in 2008?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Show me the Money
This past weekend Democratic candidate Tom Vilsack decided to drop out of the 2008 election race and declared that the only reason why he did so was because he wouldn't have the budget to sustain himself during the race. "It's money, and only money, that is the reason we are leaving today," said Tom Vilsack.
With the insane amounts of money that go into a campaign, it begs one to ask the question of whether or not the right people are running for office, or is it just those who can afford to? I know that we live in a country where those with the money have the power, although when I think about it, I also ask myself are these the best people for the job (the presidency), or are they just the ones with the most cash?
Compared other running Democrat, Barack Obama who netted around $1. 3 million in just one fundraising appearence, Tom Vilsack only pulled around $1 million in 2006 alone and ended the year with around $396,000 in his bankroll.
When Bush ran for re-election in 2004 the total cost of his campaign was around $419 million. An executive director for the Center of Responsive Politics, a group which tracks money in politics said that if predicitions hold true, the cost for the republican and democratic nominees will double from what it was last time.
Link to article - http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/23/vilsack.money/index.html
With the insane amounts of money that go into a campaign, it begs one to ask the question of whether or not the right people are running for office, or is it just those who can afford to? I know that we live in a country where those with the money have the power, although when I think about it, I also ask myself are these the best people for the job (the presidency), or are they just the ones with the most cash?
Compared other running Democrat, Barack Obama who netted around $1. 3 million in just one fundraising appearence, Tom Vilsack only pulled around $1 million in 2006 alone and ended the year with around $396,000 in his bankroll.
When Bush ran for re-election in 2004 the total cost of his campaign was around $419 million. An executive director for the Center of Responsive Politics, a group which tracks money in politics said that if predicitions hold true, the cost for the republican and democratic nominees will double from what it was last time.
Link to article - http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/23/vilsack.money/index.html
Monday, February 19, 2007
Should Past Hurt Candidates
Recently, 2008 Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been touring the country since their announcements to run for President. In addition, possible candidate John McCain and his committee have also been participating in a nation wide tour.
During these tours the candidates are just attempting to receive a positive image from voters as they hope to become the next to grab the helm in Whitehouse. All are forced to answer questions that make the public uneasy or have the public questioning their judgments. Hillary has to answer questions on her husband and his effects in office, while Obama must talk about his qualifications in foreign affairs. Both must answer difficult questions and must do so with confidence so that they come out of each tour with a lasting impression in voters’ minds.
While touring, Hillary has been bashed throughout her tour in New Hampshire and have many asking her about her support and vote in favor of the Iraq War, which can be seen in this article or video on CNN.com website. While Obama is smiling ear to ear as he has been opposed of the war from the beginning and is using that as a tactic while campaigning throughout the United States. Probable candidate, John McCain was recently bombarded with questions concerning his vote to prompt a United States invasion of Iraq, seen here in a New York Times video.
This has brewed up some controversy begging me to ask the question, should previous votes from past years have any effect on their campaigns today. Is it fair for the public and media to criticize McCain and Clinton for their votes in favor of the war at a time when Americans were looking to punish anyone for 9/11? At the same time, is it right for Obama to use his stance against the war to create a positive campaign?
Kellan O'Neill
During these tours the candidates are just attempting to receive a positive image from voters as they hope to become the next to grab the helm in Whitehouse. All are forced to answer questions that make the public uneasy or have the public questioning their judgments. Hillary has to answer questions on her husband and his effects in office, while Obama must talk about his qualifications in foreign affairs. Both must answer difficult questions and must do so with confidence so that they come out of each tour with a lasting impression in voters’ minds.
While touring, Hillary has been bashed throughout her tour in New Hampshire and have many asking her about her support and vote in favor of the Iraq War, which can be seen in this article or video on CNN.com website. While Obama is smiling ear to ear as he has been opposed of the war from the beginning and is using that as a tactic while campaigning throughout the United States. Probable candidate, John McCain was recently bombarded with questions concerning his vote to prompt a United States invasion of Iraq, seen here in a New York Times video.
This has brewed up some controversy begging me to ask the question, should previous votes from past years have any effect on their campaigns today. Is it fair for the public and media to criticize McCain and Clinton for their votes in favor of the war at a time when Americans were looking to punish anyone for 9/11? At the same time, is it right for Obama to use his stance against the war to create a positive campaign?
Kellan O'Neill
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Politics and comedy?
How do you all feel about shows like the daily show and the colbert report using a comedic approach to politics. Not being a huge fan of watching the news, I can admit that like most young people, I get the most political knowledge from The daily show. Do you think that shows like this are making people think politics and matters which shape are world are not as important because we can laugh at them, or does it help to reach out to an audience that which otherwise might ignore political matters. After watching even a small dose of news its always clear to me that I need to start being more focused on politics but do news shows who poke fun at politics take away from the importance of politics?
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml
Not real news, fake news stories but very a very funny take on politics http://www.theonion.com/content/politics
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml
Not real news, fake news stories but very a very funny take on politics http://www.theonion.com/content/politics
Monday, February 12, 2007
Australian PM bad mouths Obama
There has been a recent war of words between Senator Barack Obama and the most unlikely of people the Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Mr. Howard recently said that is he were in al Qaeda he would welcome Obama's victory in the upcoming 2008 elections. Obama fired back saying Howard's words were "empty rhetoric." He countered Howards statements by saying if Howard was really tough on terrorism he would 20,000 more troops to Iraq. Currently there are about 1,000 Australian troops in Iraq mostly in non-combat roles. Congressmen from both parties have expressed views in opposition to the Australian Prime Minister's remark.
Obama's has finally formally announced his presidency and I personally find it odd that he is drawing criticism from a foreign head of state so soon after having declared his candidacy. Obama has had little experience in the field of combatting terrorism as a congressman but it does not make him a godsend for al Qaeda as Howard would put it. I personally feel that it really is no other country's business who we as American's nominate and elect for any public office. The Prime Minister is criticizing some one he does not even know and even if Obama is elected I do not see how his election would be detrimental to the United States or Australia.
What is your opinion on the Prime Minister's criticism of Sen. Barack Obama? Do you think a foreign head of state should attack a presidential candidate in an American election?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/12/obama.comment/index.html
Obama's has finally formally announced his presidency and I personally find it odd that he is drawing criticism from a foreign head of state so soon after having declared his candidacy. Obama has had little experience in the field of combatting terrorism as a congressman but it does not make him a godsend for al Qaeda as Howard would put it. I personally feel that it really is no other country's business who we as American's nominate and elect for any public office. The Prime Minister is criticizing some one he does not even know and even if Obama is elected I do not see how his election would be detrimental to the United States or Australia.
What is your opinion on the Prime Minister's criticism of Sen. Barack Obama? Do you think a foreign head of state should attack a presidential candidate in an American election?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/12/obama.comment/index.html
Political Communication at the Grammys...?
Political communication seems to have channeled itself through an unexpected forum. Anyone who watched the 2007 Grammy awards last night knows the Dixie Chicks cleaned up, taking home 5 awards, including the coveted "Album of the Year" and "Song of the Year." The "Song of the Year" award was for their single, "Not Ready to Make Nice," the band's response to backlash from the country music industry and conservative fans for Natalie Maines's criticism of President Bush and the Iraq War. (If you missed that story, or need a reminder- in early 2003 Maines told a London concert audience that the Dixie Chicks were ashamed the President of the U.S. was from Texas, their home state as well). After their criticism, the industry forced Maines to apologize and pretty much kicked the Dixie Chicks out of the genre. Once the biggest selling country band, country radio stations started refusing to play their records and the Country Music Awards wouldn't recognize their music last November.
Upon repeated trips to the stage to accept their awards, the Dixie Chicks acknowledged that they believed their success last night was just as attributable to politics and support for their beliefs as it was to the quality of their music. "I think people are using their freedom of speech with all these awards. We get the message," said Maines.
Finally, the Dixie Chicks' message seemed to ring out as well. It's OK to disapprove of the President and to voice your opinion. To openly disagree is just as patriotic and American as it is to agree. The only problem is, that's not the credo of the Bush Administration or many conservatives who like to have strict control over "the message."
To me, it's interesting that a political debate (the war in Iraq/free speech) could end up at the center (at least in the opinion of Natalie Maines) of the Grammy Awards. I'm sure when people turned on their television sets last night to see who'd get to perform with Justin Timberlake, they weren't expecting to be receivers of political communication...but they were. It just goes to show, that as large a role as the traditional news media plays and as carefully as politicians try to craft their image, often political communication reaches people through pop culture. Actors, comedians and musicians- some of the people with the farthest reaching voices- are shaping the political debate.
What does this mean for American politics as a whole and for individual politicians trying to shape their own media image?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/11/grammy.awards/index.html
-Kim Pedersen
Upon repeated trips to the stage to accept their awards, the Dixie Chicks acknowledged that they believed their success last night was just as attributable to politics and support for their beliefs as it was to the quality of their music. "I think people are using their freedom of speech with all these awards. We get the message," said Maines.
Finally, the Dixie Chicks' message seemed to ring out as well. It's OK to disapprove of the President and to voice your opinion. To openly disagree is just as patriotic and American as it is to agree. The only problem is, that's not the credo of the Bush Administration or many conservatives who like to have strict control over "the message."
To me, it's interesting that a political debate (the war in Iraq/free speech) could end up at the center (at least in the opinion of Natalie Maines) of the Grammy Awards. I'm sure when people turned on their television sets last night to see who'd get to perform with Justin Timberlake, they weren't expecting to be receivers of political communication...but they were. It just goes to show, that as large a role as the traditional news media plays and as carefully as politicians try to craft their image, often political communication reaches people through pop culture. Actors, comedians and musicians- some of the people with the farthest reaching voices- are shaping the political debate.
What does this mean for American politics as a whole and for individual politicians trying to shape their own media image?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/11/grammy.awards/index.html
-Kim Pedersen
Will Obama Go Up in Smoke?
Fox News and Friends recently aired an entire segment where John Gibson said that voters shouldn't vote for Obama because he is a smoker. He had on guests to discuss Obama's "dirty little secret," and if people would vote for a smoker as President. At one point in the segment Fox airs a picture of Obama in front of the White House with two packs of Marlboro cigarettes next to him posing the question "Would You Vote For a Smoker?" The title of this graphic is "Obama Behind Closed Doors." Gibson also invites the fact that since Obama is a smoker and has this "dirty little secret," how much can we really know about him and what else is he hiding? The topic of Obama as a smoker has stirred up some controversy, especially with those who are trying to find holes in Obama's armor.
I also found an article from the Houston Chronicle, of an opinion piece where the author stated that her hopes for Obama as a candidate were crushed after she learned of his smoking, saying in the article that " She would never date a smoker and won't vote for one either."
The Washington Post also ran an article stating that Michelle Obama is appalled by her husbands smoking habit and will only help him run if he quits smoking, perhaps the campaigns attempt at some damage control.
How do you feel about this controversy? Would the fact that a canidate smoked turn you off from voting for them? Are we continuing to stray from the big issues and focusing on all the wrong issues? Do you think that Obama's habit will hurt him politically and force him to "go up in smoke?"
I also found an article from the Houston Chronicle, of an opinion piece where the author stated that her hopes for Obama as a candidate were crushed after she learned of his smoking, saying in the article that " She would never date a smoker and won't vote for one either."
The Washington Post also ran an article stating that Michelle Obama is appalled by her husbands smoking habit and will only help him run if he quits smoking, perhaps the campaigns attempt at some damage control.
How do you feel about this controversy? Would the fact that a canidate smoked turn you off from voting for them? Are we continuing to stray from the big issues and focusing on all the wrong issues? Do you think that Obama's habit will hurt him politically and force him to "go up in smoke?"
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Government Perks
On Thursday white house spokesman Tony Snow released a statement defending House speaker Nancy Pelosi (democrat) who has come under criticism for requesting a large Air Force transport plane to take her back and forth from her home in San Francisco. After the events of 9/11 the Pentagon felt it was important to provide the House speaker (who is second in the line of presidential succession) with a military plane for added security during trips back home. Former speaker Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican started using U.S. Air Force planes for domestic travel to and from his district. Republicans have taken issue with her request for such a large plane. According to Pelosi, the story had been completely fabricated, and she requested the large plane so that she wouldn't have to stop to refuel. How do you feel about her request? Do you think government officials should enjoy such privileges? Do you feel that this is a necessary security issue, or an unnecessary luxury that our tax dollars are paying for?
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/white-house-defends-pelosi-plane-request/20070208065909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/white-house-defends-pelosi-plane-request/20070208065909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Monday, February 5, 2007
Although we are still just under two years from the next Presidential election, there are already a well-known group of people who have made public their decision to run on the 2008 ballot. Leading the pack for the Democratic Party are Senators Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama, who have recieved a great deal of attention from the media and the public. It has become apparent that members from both side of the aisle are realizing that they may have the competative edge when the primaries begin if they start campaigning now. In the absense of the incumbant president running for re-election, the 2008 is starting to look like a close run even in February of 2007. Just this week, former NYC mayor, Rudolph Guliani has made it known that he is ready to through his hat in the race, which futher stirs things up given his popularity among voters both in New York and around the country.
Discuss whether is it important for any candidate interested in running for President in 2008 to be one of the first to declare their candidacy and how a two year span of campaigning can help them or hurt them. Also, try to add what tactics they can use early on to gain voter support and positive recognition. As we discussed in class, once on the campaign trail, they are constantly having their every move followed and scrutinized. Sometimes too much attention may not be the best thing.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/20/hillary.clinton.ap/index.html (Clinton article)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/15/presidential.bids/index.html (McCain aritcle)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/giuliani.2008.ap/index.html (Guliani article)
Discuss whether is it important for any candidate interested in running for President in 2008 to be one of the first to declare their candidacy and how a two year span of campaigning can help them or hurt them. Also, try to add what tactics they can use early on to gain voter support and positive recognition. As we discussed in class, once on the campaign trail, they are constantly having their every move followed and scrutinized. Sometimes too much attention may not be the best thing.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/20/hillary.clinton.ap/index.html (Clinton article)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/15/presidential.bids/index.html (McCain aritcle)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/giuliani.2008.ap/index.html (Guliani article)
Internet: Friend or Foe to Politics
By John Radzinski
Running for president today seems to be more difficult than ever before. Not because of fundraising or anything like that, but because of the advent of the internet, and specifically Youtube.com. Think about the effect youtube had on Howard Dean’s presidential run (http://youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc). He was one of the leading democratic candidates, but then he got fired up… Recently, former Republican Senator of Virginia, Jim Webb, was hit with a media blitz after using the word “macaca” as an ethnic slur (http://youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwI). He ended up losing his seat in the senate in the 2006 gubernatorial elections to his democratic opponent by only 1% of the vote. Surely youtube played a part in that. And most recently Hillary Clinton made her “evil and bad men comment” which was quickly posted on youtube and became a media frenzy for several days (http://youtube.com/watch?v=g3Rf1ZUdUnE).
But, as this article mentions (http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/columnists/chi-0702010441feb02,1,4297825.column?coll=chi-technologyreviews-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true) candidates can find good uses for the Internet. I wonder is the Internet a good thing for candidates or a bad thing?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)