When asked which states are contributing to the election this year, an individual would probably answer with all fifty states. Some people, though, have a charismatic personality and would probably be answering with one word: Ohio.
Now that the 2012 presidential election is winding down, Ohio is getting a lot of attenetion because it's a battleground state. President Obama and Governor Romney are focusing more on the swing state in hopes of finally getting that Electoral vote. From my perspective, Ohio will be an extremely close call. After watching AC 360 on CNN, John King actually helped me better understand the position of Ohio. I learned the state is actually 50% Obama right now and only 46% Romney. And the Ohio independents rank with Obama at 49% and Romney and 46%. Well, it's looking good for Obama right now. BUT, there are other states still undecided and even though Ohio is a crucial win, a candidate can still win without it. If Romney gets Florida and Virginia that puts him at 254, keeping in mind the Virginia turnout still holds up well while they are under seige of Hurricane Sandy. Romney would just need to win Nevada and Wisconsin, but the state famous for its cheeseheads can go hand in hand with Ohio making it a difficult win if the Republican candidate can not grasp the state. He would still have a chance if, instead of Wisonsin, the Governor won New Hampshire. Romney would essentially have to win the rest of the states to make up for the loss of Ohio and, from my view, it looks highly unlikely. I think once Ohio is decided, it will be a good determination of the 2012 winner.
Being as serious as this election is right now, I chose to watch The Daily Show on October 25th to witness some humor on the end of the elction. Jon Stewart opened his show on Thursday by announcing that "The election is taking place twelve days from now, in the great state of Ohio." He went on the question if any other states were voting this year. After watching the Anderson Cooper's Ac 360 and doing a little research on my own, I thought Stewart's comment was pretty funny. I believe Ohio is important as much as any other individual keeping up with the campaign, but so much focus is going into Ohio. There is so much, for lack of a better word, tenseness now that we're 8 days away from the election, that jokes like Stewart's need to keep appearing. I watch The Daily Show to keep up with politics and news but also as an entertainmant aspect, and it seems to me that Jon Stewart is doing his job correctly.
In closing, a question popped in my head while watching The Daily Show and keeping CNN in mind. Which comes first, politics/news or entertainment?
Monday, October 29, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Awkward Family Photo
It kind of looks like he's impersonating Howard Dean's YEEHAW! face.
and if Ann had red hair, well....
Monday, October 22, 2012
e-campaigning
In 2012, candidates have an advantage in campaigning that they did not utilize before the 1990's. That advantage is e-campaigning on the internet. Politicians can use YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, blogging sights, websites, and even internet commercials to get their campaign to the millions of people on the internet. Even though e-campaigning has many advantages, there are plenty of challenges to face too.
Independent videos can be either a challenge or advantage depending on how the video is viewed. If the video is informational or has a positive view for the politician or party it could be a great way to link to numerous people. Sharing videos like this would be fast and would reach out to more people. I think these videos are a great way to spread positive information because people much rather watch a video on the YouTube than read an article on a informative website. Unfortunately, if the video is negative or a joke about the candidate, it still can spread really fast and to a large population. Even though it is terrible to tear down a politician this way, I think it is pretty smart. Using videos does spread to many individuals and some can be influenced how they feel about a politicians pretty easily, so even though it may cause damage it is, to me, a genius way to ruin a campaign. Independent videos are created by everyday citizens, so they're not monitored by campaign managers or whoever else. These videos are mostly put out onto sights like YouTube to express opinions which means that could be a huge challenge for candidates. Videos like "Crush on Obama" and "Mitt Romney Style" are examples of independents and how they play into the characteristics and criticisms of the candidates.
Also, "Gotcha" videos are a challenge for candidates when it comes to e-campaigning. These videos can cause big damage to a candidate's campaign. It shows a person, usually a politician, caught off guard or saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. I do not think it is ethical to post these and attempt to damage a politician reputation but these candidates should be aware of what they are saying at all times. Clearly, they are going to be in the public eye, especially presidential candidates, and for them to slip up and say something that may seem shady or contradictory to their precious statements is entirely their own fault. The most recent example is Romney's 47% speech and has given him an extremely hard time attempting to gain more independents' votes. Gotcha videos can have everlasting damage to a campaign. They tend to stick around or possibly show a person's "true colors".
Social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter, also play both sides of the e-campaigning spectrum. Facebook pages and Twitter accounts are a great way to get the views of candidates out there. They help by socializing with more people, announcing events, and giving the politician a more personal/friendly image. The problem with social networks being a part of e-campaigning is that there can be parody accounts or hate pages. On Facebook there is an "Impeach Obama" page that has over 35 thousand likes. Pages like this give the President a bad reputation. Politicians have to work harder to prove these pages wrong and overpower the ideas represented.To me, parodies can be humorous and I get as much entertainment from them as any one else. Politicians should be smart enough to work around them or prove them wrong.
Independent videos can be either a challenge or advantage depending on how the video is viewed. If the video is informational or has a positive view for the politician or party it could be a great way to link to numerous people. Sharing videos like this would be fast and would reach out to more people. I think these videos are a great way to spread positive information because people much rather watch a video on the YouTube than read an article on a informative website. Unfortunately, if the video is negative or a joke about the candidate, it still can spread really fast and to a large population. Even though it is terrible to tear down a politician this way, I think it is pretty smart. Using videos does spread to many individuals and some can be influenced how they feel about a politicians pretty easily, so even though it may cause damage it is, to me, a genius way to ruin a campaign. Independent videos are created by everyday citizens, so they're not monitored by campaign managers or whoever else. These videos are mostly put out onto sights like YouTube to express opinions which means that could be a huge challenge for candidates. Videos like "Crush on Obama" and "Mitt Romney Style" are examples of independents and how they play into the characteristics and criticisms of the candidates.
Also, "Gotcha" videos are a challenge for candidates when it comes to e-campaigning. These videos can cause big damage to a candidate's campaign. It shows a person, usually a politician, caught off guard or saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. I do not think it is ethical to post these and attempt to damage a politician reputation but these candidates should be aware of what they are saying at all times. Clearly, they are going to be in the public eye, especially presidential candidates, and for them to slip up and say something that may seem shady or contradictory to their precious statements is entirely their own fault. The most recent example is Romney's 47% speech and has given him an extremely hard time attempting to gain more independents' votes. Gotcha videos can have everlasting damage to a campaign. They tend to stick around or possibly show a person's "true colors".
Social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter, also play both sides of the e-campaigning spectrum. Facebook pages and Twitter accounts are a great way to get the views of candidates out there. They help by socializing with more people, announcing events, and giving the politician a more personal/friendly image. The problem with social networks being a part of e-campaigning is that there can be parody accounts or hate pages. On Facebook there is an "Impeach Obama" page that has over 35 thousand likes. Pages like this give the President a bad reputation. Politicians have to work harder to prove these pages wrong and overpower the ideas represented.To me, parodies can be humorous and I get as much entertainment from them as any one else. Politicians should be smart enough to work around them or prove them wrong.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Females, Politics, Stereotypes, and Tina Fey
Ever since the last presidential primaries in 2008, women have been making a bigger appearance in politics. With that appearance has come stereotypes and jokes.
The stereotypes, identified by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, include seductress or sex object, mother, pet, or iron maiden. These terms are leading the women in politics to lose credibility and to be made a joke of. What I think these women should do instead of leaving themselves trail behind just because of their sex, is embrace the stereotype. Stereotypes are not necessarily a good thing, but if a candidate was to possibly embrace the fact that she is a motherly type it may work in her favor. For instance, on the issue of abortion, the candidate may be pro-life and could show how understanding she is to the subject. Instead of being a negative, her maternal side could show the relationship between her and her child and show women the positives of being a mother. The criticism is that the candidate might look weak, but they could turn that view around to show that mothers are extremely strong and prove their strength.
Embracing the idea of being a sex object might not be as easy. But a candidate could twist this view of herself. Instead of being seen as a sex object due to speaking with femininity, she could use how she speaks to show the importance of women's opinions and how much of an impact women would have on politics.
The "pet" idea is just being a mascot in some way. As a candidate you somewhat have to be a mascot, announcing why they should pick you, why you should win the "game"!
As for the iron maiden, it could be the major disadvantage for a female candidate because it loses all the feminine" aspects that a woman has. When thinking of iron maiden I tend to think of the "We Can Do It!" worker morale poster during WW2. On the poster, there is a female busting out her bicep muscles. It was reused to promote feminism in the 1980s. If this poster was such a success for feminism, the compassionate and maternal image of feminism, I think being an iron maiden could very easily be used as an advantage to show how powerful the female candidate can be.
The unfortunate truth of the iron maiden and mother stereotype is the double standard which is difficult to over come. But I think that double standard exists because people are afraid of women who have power and are not just compassionate.
On NBC's Saturday Night Live, they tend to bring up many present political issues and make a joke out of it. In 2008, they of course chose to pick on Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Tina Fey was Sarah Palin and Amy Poehler impersonated Hilary Clinton. During their most famous debate together on the show, they touched upon the key stereotypes and issues the real candidate were facing during the 2008 campaign. Tina Fey addressed the sexism issues of being called pretty and having her face put onto half naked bodies. Amy Poehler asked for people to stop addressing her kankles. Both were examples of the sex object stereotype happening throughout the campaign.
Even though Saturday Night Live may not be a reliable source for politics, it is truly a great example of the sexism dealt with in politics.
The stereotypes, identified by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, include seductress or sex object, mother, pet, or iron maiden. These terms are leading the women in politics to lose credibility and to be made a joke of. What I think these women should do instead of leaving themselves trail behind just because of their sex, is embrace the stereotype. Stereotypes are not necessarily a good thing, but if a candidate was to possibly embrace the fact that she is a motherly type it may work in her favor. For instance, on the issue of abortion, the candidate may be pro-life and could show how understanding she is to the subject. Instead of being a negative, her maternal side could show the relationship between her and her child and show women the positives of being a mother. The criticism is that the candidate might look weak, but they could turn that view around to show that mothers are extremely strong and prove their strength.
Embracing the idea of being a sex object might not be as easy. But a candidate could twist this view of herself. Instead of being seen as a sex object due to speaking with femininity, she could use how she speaks to show the importance of women's opinions and how much of an impact women would have on politics.
The "pet" idea is just being a mascot in some way. As a candidate you somewhat have to be a mascot, announcing why they should pick you, why you should win the "game"!
As for the iron maiden, it could be the major disadvantage for a female candidate because it loses all the feminine" aspects that a woman has. When thinking of iron maiden I tend to think of the "We Can Do It!" worker morale poster during WW2. On the poster, there is a female busting out her bicep muscles. It was reused to promote feminism in the 1980s. If this poster was such a success for feminism, the compassionate and maternal image of feminism, I think being an iron maiden could very easily be used as an advantage to show how powerful the female candidate can be.
The unfortunate truth of the iron maiden and mother stereotype is the double standard which is difficult to over come. But I think that double standard exists because people are afraid of women who have power and are not just compassionate.
On NBC's Saturday Night Live, they tend to bring up many present political issues and make a joke out of it. In 2008, they of course chose to pick on Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Tina Fey was Sarah Palin and Amy Poehler impersonated Hilary Clinton. During their most famous debate together on the show, they touched upon the key stereotypes and issues the real candidate were facing during the 2008 campaign. Tina Fey addressed the sexism issues of being called pretty and having her face put onto half naked bodies. Amy Poehler asked for people to stop addressing her kankles. Both were examples of the sex object stereotype happening throughout the campaign.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Communications Go Surfacing
Communications is involved in EVERY stage of a political campaign. It is how candidates, voters and the media become involved in the campaign process.
The first political campaign stage is surfacing. Communication throughout this stage is crucial. Candidates have to speak to multiple publics, build political organizations, and fundraise to keep their campaign going all with the help of communicating. There are two communication functions, caliber and politcal rituals, that help indicate whether a candidate is a good choice for office.
There are five instrumental functions in the surfacing stage. The first is learning about the goals and political programs of a candidate. They also would speak about their intitial stance stance on a major issue. Communication is vital due to the fact that voters and whoever else would have no idea about that candidate. This instrumental function relates to the second with communicating. The second deals with developing voter expectations, both personally and administratively, and without learning about that candidate through communication the people would have no idea who to side with.
Communication is highly important in the development of determining main campaign issues, the third instrumental function. Main issue start and evolve all throughout cities, states, and the nation and without communication, those issues would not be well known or focused upon. It takes a whole country to communicate to have the candidates focus on issues, which is how they also recieve their fan base.
Selecting serious contenders, the fourth instrumental function, would not be possible without communication. Selecting serious contenders heavily relies on the media, which is the largest form of communication in the nation. The media determins how each candidate is viewed and broadcasts it through news, television, or the internet. These are all forms of communication. This also ties in with the fifth and final instrumental function, establishing candidate-media relationships. A relationship in itself relies on communication, without it the relationship would fail. The relationship between media and candidates is vital in larger races. Without that bond of communication between the two, the candidate would most likely not recieve attention and would fail in the campaign. The media would also lose attention from viewers and would fall behind in ratings. With the relationship between candidates and media AND the nation of people watchhing, communications proves to be a vital function in political campaigns.
The first political campaign stage is surfacing. Communication throughout this stage is crucial. Candidates have to speak to multiple publics, build political organizations, and fundraise to keep their campaign going all with the help of communicating. There are two communication functions, caliber and politcal rituals, that help indicate whether a candidate is a good choice for office.
There are five instrumental functions in the surfacing stage. The first is learning about the goals and political programs of a candidate. They also would speak about their intitial stance stance on a major issue. Communication is vital due to the fact that voters and whoever else would have no idea about that candidate. This instrumental function relates to the second with communicating. The second deals with developing voter expectations, both personally and administratively, and without learning about that candidate through communication the people would have no idea who to side with.
Communication is highly important in the development of determining main campaign issues, the third instrumental function. Main issue start and evolve all throughout cities, states, and the nation and without communication, those issues would not be well known or focused upon. It takes a whole country to communicate to have the candidates focus on issues, which is how they also recieve their fan base.
Selecting serious contenders, the fourth instrumental function, would not be possible without communication. Selecting serious contenders heavily relies on the media, which is the largest form of communication in the nation. The media determins how each candidate is viewed and broadcasts it through news, television, or the internet. These are all forms of communication. This also ties in with the fifth and final instrumental function, establishing candidate-media relationships. A relationship in itself relies on communication, without it the relationship would fail. The relationship between media and candidates is vital in larger races. Without that bond of communication between the two, the candidate would most likely not recieve attention and would fail in the campaign. The media would also lose attention from viewers and would fall behind in ratings. With the relationship between candidates and media AND the nation of people watchhing, communications proves to be a vital function in political campaigns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)