Unemployment. This will play a big role in the upcoming election between President Obama and the GOP nominee and their attempts to decrease the number.
The National Deficit. As the number climbs, the candidates will need to develop creative ways to combat the problem.
Entitlement Programs. As the deficit climbs, and entitlement programs grow, worries about new money to refresh the program will move to the forefront of the agenda.
The Economy. Small businesses and attempt to rejuvenate the economy will be a huge factor in the outcome of the election.
Reputation. Past decisions and voting records will come into the limelight as people decide who is telling the truth and who isn’t. It could turn into negative politics.
The GOP Candidate. The chosen one will stop being attacked by the Republican Party and a more united front will begin to show.
Money. A huge factor in the outcome of the upcoming election will be the money contributed to the candidates. Obama has already raised more than $86 million; more than all of the GOP candidates combined.
Europe. All eyes will be on Europe and how it digs itself out of its financial woes. It matters because many people are comparing California and New York to Europe and say that they will fail just as Europe has if we don’t fix the spending there.
The Stock Market. As a nation invested in Capitalism, the results of the market will impact daily decisions.
The Media. The media has the power to provide information and ensure fair information is disseminated; they have the power to do good or to do bad with this power.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Election Coverage
Herman Cain’s ad found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhm-22Q0PuM is crazy. I understand the point he is trying to make in that he appeals to the common man and that he is here to save the “rights” of Americans (even those who want to smoke). He attempts to appear like he is going to fight government regulations and bureaucracy by limiting government involvement in the personal lives and choices of American citizens. The problem with this ad is that he makes a dangerous point. He is blowing smoke in the face of traditional government (no pun intended), but one person does not have the power to implement these types of changes in government. The American government is set up as a series of checks and balances to ensure one person does not have all of the power. Herman Cain’s ad is trying to prove that he can change how the system works. Not only, is Mr. Cain’s ad deceiving in what he will be able to accomplish in Washington, but the smoking in the ad undermines public health. Many people fought the battle of the elimination of smoking in public places because smoking poses many health risks. Second hand smoke kills and by making it okay for people to smoke he is infringing on the rights of those people who don’t want to breathe second hand smoke. His ad is saying that smokers have a right to smoke, because it is their choice, but what about people living with smokers, who choose not to smoke, but are still subjected to the consequences? I find the ad hypocritical in that he fights for one “choice,” simply because government has banned it, but not the other. I agree with Todd Essig of Forbes magazine. Mr. Essig is quoted as saying:
“Stated most bluntly, posting this ad reflects an irresponsible disregard for the health of the people Cain aims to represent. Whether his campaign knew better and disregarded that knowledge or remained willfully ignorant of the public health consequences of the power they already wield, this ad should help disqualify him for the office he seeks. Because even if you agree that we need to dismantle a "nanny-state," replacing it with a "neglect/abuse-state" would be even worse.”
After the emergence of Super PACs that followed recent court cases, political donors are nearly free to give as they choose, with their decision guided mainly by how they want to direct their money.
How it’s done:
• A Super PAC can accept unlimited donations to spend on ads for or against specific candidates. For example, a billionaire could give $10 million to the House Majority PAC, a Super PAC organized to elect Congressional Democrats and run by a former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Official. The billionaires name would remain undisclosed.
• The PAC is not required to disclose the amount if it is under $200.
• Candidates can give $2,500 per election to an individual candidate.
• Donors can give unlimited amounts to Non-Profit Organizations, and keep their name confidential.
Do endorsements help?
According to an article in the New York Times: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/political-newspaper-endorsements-history-and-outcome/ a majority of newspaper endorsements used to favor Republican Presidential Candidates. Over the past three decades, the endorsement scales have tipped, and are more balanced. The article notes that newspaper endorsements, do not guarantee endorsements from electoral college voters. The point is that endorsements don’t matter. For example in the 2004 Presidential Election 213 Democratic endorsements were given to candidates, while only 205 Republican endorsements were given, yet a Republican Candidate won the election. As time prevails, newspaper endorsements will mean less and less as more and more people have access to the internet and get their news from different sources.
Political Polls:
Friday, November 4, 2011
National '12 General Election
Barack Obama 48%
Herman Cain 46%
National '12 General Election
Barack Obama 49%
Rick Perry 45%
National '12 General Election
Barack Obama 47%
Mitt Romney 47%
National GOP Primary
Mitt Romney 24%
Herman Cain 23%
Rick Perry 13%
Newt Gingrich 12%
Undecided 9%
Ron Paul 8%
None of the above 5%
Michele Bachmann 4%
Jon Huntsman 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Do these polls mean anything in the upcoming election? Before reading the book Game Change by John Heilemann & Mark Halperin, I used to think the polls mattered. After reading that book many of the candidates believed they were leading in the polls, but when voting occurred the polls were off. I try not to put too much merit into these polls because the outcome of the polls depends on the way questions were asked or written or what the demographic of the people asked the question looked like. It’s very easy to manipulate the data and make it appear one way or the other, so these early polling numbers don’t matter. The polls do not necessarily represent the voters, since anyone can answer these questions. A lot of them are given on-line and there is little accountability as to who is actually voting. Election day votes of the electoral colleges are what matter! The 2004 and the 2008 elections proved the popular vote is not what counts…presidential candidates need the electoral votes!
“Stated most bluntly, posting this ad reflects an irresponsible disregard for the health of the people Cain aims to represent. Whether his campaign knew better and disregarded that knowledge or remained willfully ignorant of the public health consequences of the power they already wield, this ad should help disqualify him for the office he seeks. Because even if you agree that we need to dismantle a "nanny-state," replacing it with a "neglect/abuse-state" would be even worse.”
After the emergence of Super PACs that followed recent court cases, political donors are nearly free to give as they choose, with their decision guided mainly by how they want to direct their money.
How it’s done:
• A Super PAC can accept unlimited donations to spend on ads for or against specific candidates. For example, a billionaire could give $10 million to the House Majority PAC, a Super PAC organized to elect Congressional Democrats and run by a former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Official. The billionaires name would remain undisclosed.
• The PAC is not required to disclose the amount if it is under $200.
• Candidates can give $2,500 per election to an individual candidate.
• Donors can give unlimited amounts to Non-Profit Organizations, and keep their name confidential.
Do endorsements help?
According to an article in the New York Times: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/political-newspaper-endorsements-history-and-outcome/ a majority of newspaper endorsements used to favor Republican Presidential Candidates. Over the past three decades, the endorsement scales have tipped, and are more balanced. The article notes that newspaper endorsements, do not guarantee endorsements from electoral college voters. The point is that endorsements don’t matter. For example in the 2004 Presidential Election 213 Democratic endorsements were given to candidates, while only 205 Republican endorsements were given, yet a Republican Candidate won the election. As time prevails, newspaper endorsements will mean less and less as more and more people have access to the internet and get their news from different sources.
Political Polls:
Friday, November 4, 2011
National '12 General Election
Barack Obama 48%
Herman Cain 46%
National '12 General Election
Barack Obama 49%
Rick Perry 45%
National '12 General Election
Barack Obama 47%
Mitt Romney 47%
National GOP Primary
Mitt Romney 24%
Herman Cain 23%
Rick Perry 13%
Newt Gingrich 12%
Undecided 9%
Ron Paul 8%
None of the above 5%
Michele Bachmann 4%
Jon Huntsman 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Do these polls mean anything in the upcoming election? Before reading the book Game Change by John Heilemann & Mark Halperin, I used to think the polls mattered. After reading that book many of the candidates believed they were leading in the polls, but when voting occurred the polls were off. I try not to put too much merit into these polls because the outcome of the polls depends on the way questions were asked or written or what the demographic of the people asked the question looked like. It’s very easy to manipulate the data and make it appear one way or the other, so these early polling numbers don’t matter. The polls do not necessarily represent the voters, since anyone can answer these questions. A lot of them are given on-line and there is little accountability as to who is actually voting. Election day votes of the electoral colleges are what matter! The 2004 and the 2008 elections proved the popular vote is not what counts…presidential candidates need the electoral votes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)