From Apathy to Influence

College students and younger voters are playing a huge part in this election. Everyday on the news I see interviews with college students and what they think about the candidates and the issues. In the past, these younger voters have often been overlooked in politics and viewed by many as naïve, apathetic, or fickle. While these characteristics can certainly be applied to some young voters, it cannot be argued that they have been uninvolved in this year’s presidential election.

According to a Time Magazine survey conducted in late January, 18-29 year olds are paying attention to politics now more than ever. In 2000, only 13% of this demographic responded that they were paying attention to presidential campaigns. In 2004 the percentage jumped to 42%, and in 2008 a staggering 74% of 18-29 year olds are reportedly following the presidential campaigns. Another survey in a recent Rasmussen Report indicated that 49% of these voters were “passionate and deeply committed to a particular candidate.” These young voters have clearly stepped up to play a pivotal role in selecting the next president.

There is one aspect of this election that has struck a chord for so many young voters and it boils down to one word: Change. Both parties have incorporated the idea of change into their campaigns. The reason for this is that the state of America is in a place right now that is clearly in need of changing. The voter apathy of the past derived from many individuals feeling that even if they did vote, it would just result in more of the same. The choices were often between a large list of incumbent politicians that in many ways were all very similar. People knew that their day-to-day lives probably wouldn’t change all that drastically if they voted for choice A or choice B. This year’s election is different; there are a number of issues that affect every citizen, and that can’t be easily ignored. America is involved in a war, the economy is declining, the healthcare and education systems need reform, there is an illegal immigration problem, and there is a constant threat of terrorism. These are issues that young people are involved with as much as any other American. There are 18-29 year olds who have friends in Iraq, there are 18-29 year olds that have lost their jobs, and there are 18-29 year olds struggling to pay for college. Their age does not exclude them from being involved in these issues. Young people have rallied behind candidates, turned out in huge numbers to vote, and made their voices heard. The voting demographic that has long been overlooked will end up deciding this election.

Highschool popularity contest?

There are clearly some very passionate Hillary supporters out there, and this is definitely one of the funniest videos I’ve ever seen. There are a lot of videos like this dancing around YouTube, most notably for Hillary and Obama. They really demonstrate how excited voters are for these candidates. It is good to see so many people contrast the typical apathy that accompanies many elections of the past, but at the same time these types of videos illustrate how much of a popularity contest this race has become.

It is very reminiscent of a class election in high school. Students vote for whoever they think is the funniest or most popular, and in many ways these high school elections are pretty meaningless. This presidential election clearly isn’t meaningless, but some aspects of it certainly are. These campaigns have been marked by talk show appearances, celebrity endorsements, and silly YouTube videos. As entertaining as all these things are, I think they hurt the process more than help it. Let’s just hope that voters don’t really see this as one big high school class election.

A Grand Gesture

One aspect of this election that has always frustrated me is the enormous amounts of money that pour out of these campaigns. I am hesitant to even comment on it because I know that there is no changing it. But I decided to anyway.

Each candidate’s campaign pulls in millions and millions of dollars a month. This money gets spent on typical campaign items like fliers, signs, bumper stickers, etc; but a lot of it gets dumped into funding for commercials and various media outlets. I can only imagine how much the Obama campaign paid for a super bowl ad. I started to do some research to estimate just how much money has been spent in this election from all of the Republican and Democratic campaigns, but I quickly decided I didn’t want to know.

I’m well aware that this spending it not going to change. To be competitive in these races you have to fork over the cash. That’s just the way the game is played. Just for the sake of argument, though, I was thinking about how novel it would be if a candidate raised the same amount of money for his or her campaign but decided to use it elsewhere. For candidates who stress the importance of accessible healthcare and the alleviation of poverty, what a grand gesture it would be to give millions of dollars of campaign money towards one of those causes. What if Hillary decided to give thirty-million dollars one month to struggling hospitals, or if McCain decided to forfeit his campaign funds and direct them towards providing better care for our troops? What if a candidate decided not to play this game, and not waste such enormous amounts of money on TV ads? I think that would be such a bold gesture, that it may even warrant more attention than those who have a million TV ads. That candidate would have my vote.

Remember John McCain?

I think a lot of people may have trouble remembering that this election isn’t just between Hillary and Obama. It will eventually come down to a Democrat and a Republican fighting for the White House. The problem right now is that we have two Democrats fighting for the White House, and a Republican waiting in the background for them to finish things up. I doubt that he is too bitter about this, though, because the longer they fight it out, the better his chances for victory in November become.

If Obama becomes the nominee, he will have to quickly begin to persuade Hillary’s supporters to accept him or he won’t have a chance this fall. The same goes for Hillary if she becomes the nominee. McCain has had to do the same thing in the Republican field. He has been trying to gain the acceptance of voters who previously favored any number of the other Republican contenders for the presidency we’ve seen this year. Since he has emerged as the nominee, however, he has an abundance of time to suck-up to everybody before the Democrats have even figured out who their candidate is. Whoever eventually becomes the Democratic nominee will have to find out if they still have enough suck-up time before November to beat McCain.

A new Huckabee?

The Pennsylvania primary today could be the deciding factor for whether or not Hillary Clinton will stay in the race. This is the biggest primary left before the Democratic convention, and Clinton will have to have a big win in order to have a good reason to continue campaigning. Based on Obama’s current lead in delegates and in the popular vote, she will have to win by a strong margin in order to close the gap. Most polls show her currently leading by anywhere from 7 to 9 percentage points over Obama. The question is: Will that provide enough of a win to justify her staying in the race?

It is looking like she will still be dragging behind by tomorrow, and it appears less and less likely that she will be able to catch up. It seems possible that we may have another Huckabee situation. It is doubtful that she will just give up, and I could see her hanging in there waiting on a miracle against all mathematical probability. If this happens she could really hurt the Democratic Party in the long run. But, as we’ve seen throughout this race, it is often hard to predict what will happen next.

A nice dessert, not the meal

I am a big fan of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. I think they are both very clever shows that do a great job of poking fun at the absurdity of today’s politics. I do grow a little concerned at times, though, when I talk to people who obtain all of their news from these two shows. I watch both of these programs after I’ve had an overload of too much CNN, FOX news, and The New York Times; and they serve as a nice dessert to the usually indigestible meal of daily news reports. But as indigestible as the news often is, it has to be obtained from the most credible sources available. Neither The Daily Show nor The Colbert Report claim to be credible news sources, their primary function is entertainment. For this reason it is dangerous to rely on them too heavily for current events.

Both these programs have grown a lot in popularity lately, and have proven to be very influential politically. They’ve both hosted the current presidential candidates and an abundance of politically influential guests. This is beneficial in providing a lighter look at noteworthy figures in a humorous setting. It is detrimental, however, if people are completely basing their voting decisions on what Jon Stewart says in a comedy show. For most people this is common sense, but sometimes it still needs to be said.

Who cares?

Hillary Clinton takes a shot of whiskey. Thank you once again CNN for some compelling news coverage. It's articles like this that once again prove that the media will report on anything and everything related to this election whether or not its actually newsworthy. I've started to view this election as my guilty pleasure. I used to just want to be informed and follow an important time in our nation's history, but now I find myself watching ridiculous videos like this on YouTube and hating myself for it.

Presidential Elections: Breaking people down into ridiculous demographics

One characteristic of Presidential campaigns involves breaking the nation down to specific demographics to figure out where different chunks of voters will most likely swing in the voting booth. McCain could be said to resonate with military voters, Obama with African-Americans, Clinton with women, and so on. Polls and statistics are helpful and they give news reporters something to talk about, but during this election it has become absolutely ridiculous how many absurd demographics people are being broken down into.

A recent CNN post demonstrates this point very well. A survey was conducted to determine how drinking preferences relate to voting preferences. The post says,

"Beer drinkers appear more likely to vote for Sen. John McCain in November, while those who enjoy wine say they’re more likely to vote Democratic in the fall. Among registered voters who prefer beer to wine, McCain has a 53 percent-46 percent edge over Sen. Hillary Clinton while McCain winds up in a virtual tie with Sen. Barack Obama among beer drinkers."

I think it is safe to say the media has run out of political topics to discuss. Who in the world cares whether voters prefer wine or beer? Is McCain going to start doing keg stands during his speeches? Articles like this accomplish absolutely nothing, and there are a lot of them. I’m sick of it. I’m ready for this election to be over.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/18/the-beer-v-wine-vote/

Obama and college students

This has been an important election for college students across the nation. These younger voters have been casting their votes in the primaries and making a big impact on candidate victories. The one candidate that has benefited the most from this increased college voter base has to be Barack Obama. As a college student, and a supporter of Obama, I have a few points to address in regard to this voting trend.

Any news coverage I’ve seen regarding college-aged voters who support Obama, almost makes me want to cringe. Many articles that I’ve read in recent months tend to paint these voters as naive and uninformed, and I think that is because many of them are. Obama has the ability to inspire and bring hope to people, and I firmly believe this is a strong attribute. His speeches are powerful, and have proven to unite people together and feel that they are a part of something important. But inspiration alone is not enough.

Inspiring speeches are the icing on the cake, but not the substance of a campaign. Because of his amiable nature and hopeful rhetoric, Obama has become something of an abstract idea that voters can mold into whatever form they want to in their minds. Half of the voters I’ve heard interviewed about Obama act like they don’t even know where he stands on a single issue, but simply like the way he acts or sounds. For this reason I’m torn. I’m glad that people are supporting the same candidate that I am, but I’m disappointed that they don’t take the time to really find out who they’re voting for.

This may seem like an inappropriate blog entry to write about the candidate I’m supporting, but I’m just trying to make a point. Regardless of how you feel about Obama, research candidates before you vote for them. You don’t have to become a political junkie, but at least look at the issues. Don’t vote for Huckabee because he knows Chuck Norris, or Hillary because she’s a woman, or McCain because he’s a war hero, and certainly not Obama simply because he can write a good speech. Vote for them because of what they stand for and how they will lead the nation. Everything else comes after that.

The Political Nutcase

“There is a tragic flaw in our precious constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: only nutcases want to be president.” -Kurt Vonnegut

Presidential candidates are a breed of their own. As much as they try to relate to the general public, it is clear that they have a different drive than the typical American. They all may not necessarily be complete nutcases, but Vonnegut hits an interesting point in the quote. When someone decides to run for President, they are also making a decision to take part in the game that goes with it. This game involves a “do whatever it takes” mentality that must always be a leading guide in decision making. An important question emerges from this and begs asking: What motivates these people to play this game, and to seek leadership over the entire country?

I would like to think that these candidates are running solely because they want to make America a better place, but this is not the complete reality. By the mere suggestion that each candidate proclaims, that they are the person to lead the nation, there is revealed a drive that hints at an inner-motivation.

Time magazine recently published an article by Michael Kinsley entitled, “Why They Really Run”. The article makes a suggestion as to the real motivation behind these campaigns.

“Ladies and gentlemen, they are running because they are ambitious. No, really, they are. You probably suspected as much…But the purest form of ambition is political ambition, because it represents a desire to rule over other people.”

I’m not so cynical to assume that none of these candidates care at all about the country, I believe they do. But, since there is a quest for power in competition with a responsibility to America there will always be an internal struggle. The scale between these two motivators may vary from candidate to candidate, but the struggle is there.

Because political ambition is a leading motivator, important qualities like humility and selflessness will not be any candidate’s defining attribute. The drive to rule must come first, and it must be stronger than any other candidate’s drive in order to win. For this reason, the U. S. could never elect a president who was motivated to help others more than himself/herself. Truly respectable people, who contain admirable traits wouldn’t last a second in the campaign we’ve seen over the last year. Imagine a Mother Teresa or even a Jesus Christ trying to run for President today. It’s hard to imagine a truly respectable individual duking it out and bickering over so many trivial matters in a quest for power fueled by a driving ambition. Besides, whose side would Jesus run on anyway?

Good Luck America

The 2008 battle for the white house has proven to be both frustrating and entertaining. There are a pile of candidates struggling to represent something that America desperately needs, contained in a word that people are sick of hearing: Change. Who is the best person to bring about this ambiguous idea of change? Over the next few months my eyes will be reluctantly glued to the news, watching every debate, listening to every stupid squabble, and ideally hearing something about the issues.