The Digital is Poltical

It is undisputed that social media played a large role in shaping the narrative of the 2012 Presidential Election. It is also established that women play a large role in social media.

It is impossible to ignore this intersection of facts. If social media is a driving force in 21st century elections and women are the driving force behind social media, is it safe to assume that women have an increasingly important role in online political discourse and therefore the narrative?

While this question has yet to be answered (let alone posed) by any researcher or political journalist, it still lingers as an interesting theme I encountered during the course of the election.

The early interest in this idea can be traced back to an article by Alex Johnson of NBC News which mentioned that more politically-charged comments about the First Presidential Debate were made by women than they were men, with no real reason as to why.

This prompted me to take a closer look at the relationship between women and social media in the context of this past presidential election.

I have compiled a profile of the impact social media had on the 2012 Election, both in the narrative and the outcome. I have also outlined the research surrounding social media demographics, which more often than not identify women as playing a dominant role in the online industry.

I would like to cross-reference the intersection of social media and politics with the intersection of women and politics. The resulting article is an examination of women’s use of social media as a political tool during this past election cycle.

With more women on the campaign trail and the everyday woman sitting behind her computer screen blogging/Tweeting/Facebooking about the election, it begs the question, “Are women increasingly influencing the media narrative of Presidential Elections and politics in general? And if so, do they play an important role in the shaping of present and future public opinion?”

The "Socialization" of Politics

Looking back at the long, campaign commercial-filled months leading up to Election Day 2012, it is safe to say that just as many events occurred in the physical world of politics as they did in the digital world.

Since the last Presidential Election in 2008, the multiplying supply of social media sites coupled with the proliferation of smartphones has inspired a surge of political activities on social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and even Pinterest.

The campaigns and social media users alike capitalized on the opportunity to use these sites as a platform upon which to produce and share political information that if "trending" would often be picked by mainstream media, and therefore mainstream America.

As political events unfolded live, many Internet users took to Twitter or some other social media site to document the events as they occurred in real-time on the T.V. screen.

The Presidential Debates offered much of the material used for Internet memes that seemed to go viral faster than you can say “Big Bird.”

Gaffes and campaign missteps were picked up instantly by social media sites, who’s users “tweeted” and posted about events incessantly. As gaffes turned into “hash-tags” and campaign photos went viral, it was easy for Internet-using Americans to engage in the political conversation that was unfolding online daily.

The Internet’s instant accessibility to information paired with social media’s ability to make a post go viral allowed the voters of this election cycle to have a voice in a political conversation that goes beyond the kitchen table.

A recent study conducted by Pew Research Center found that 60% of American adults use social networking sites and 66% of those users- 39% of all American adults- have engaged in some kind of civic or political activity through social media.

Aaron Smith, a senior research scientist on the project, stated in an email to a PBS reporter, "People like talking about politics, and [social media] is another venue for them to share their excitement, interest, and passion... about something that they think is important."

The study found that 34% of social media users posted their own thoughts on political or social issues during the election. Another 35% have used their social media accounts as platforms to encourage others to vote.

An even smaller population is those who participated in "duel-screening" during the Presidential Debates. The study found that 1 in 10 of those who viewed the debate live were simultaneously following the event on both the television and a computer or mobile device.

This type of duel-media multitasking allows for the real-time unfolding of events on social media sites, which is resposible for the explosive memes that came from soundbites taken from the Debates.

Without a live Twitter feed, the "binders full of women" or "Big Bird" gaffes might have never gained as much traction with the mainstream media and therefore would not have been part of the Election 2012 narrative, which seems hard to imagine.

This lends itself to the importance of social media during this past election and elections to come. It also highlights the influence of those using it as a political tool for conversation.

"A small number of really engaged people can in many instances, at least from the point of an election campaign, be more powerful than a large number of people who are either passively engaged or are only marginally interested," Smith noted.

 #Women2012

According to Pew Research Center’s recent study examining social media users, the likeliness of women to use social media has been on the rise since 2009 — with no signs of slowing.

The study reports that as of August 2012, 75% of female Internet consumers were active users of social networking sites, compared with 63% of men. Women also are more rigorous users of social media, with more than half of female internet users accessing social networking sites every day (54%) while only 42% of male users do the same.

The best example of women’s dominance in the social media world can definitely be seen on Pinterest, where women make up 72% of the user base.

The campaigns in this election, specifically the Obama camp, picked up on this trend and created their own Pinterest accounts. With the "women vote" as such a key demographic for victory in this election, it is safe to assume that the campaigns hoped to target women with this kind of social media activity.

While Pinterest may boast the most female users, it is definitely not the only site with more women creating accounts than men. Twitter is close behind with women controlling sixty-two percent of its accounts, and each month 40 million more women visit the site than men.

Women also make up over half (58%) of the people with active Facebook accounts and are responsible for much of the daily traffic to the sight.

Basically, women have found their place in the Internet, and that place resides in social media websites. Whatever the reason, women seem to like the connectivity that these sites offer and continue to use them for various reasons.

Of the topics women read and comment about online, "entertainment", "food", and "health/wellness" fill the top tier of women’s online conversation. Also on this list, is "politics and news", with 22% of women engaging in this type of dialog while using social media.

The NBC article referenced earlier, which commented on women's engagement in online political dicourse during the First Presidential Debate, best exemplifies the influence and pressence of women on social media during the election.

Of the 11.1 million tweets generated by the Debate, 55% of them were made by women while 45% were made by men- a difference of 1,110,000 tweets.

This could be due to the fact that women make up more of the Twitter accounts than men.

It also could be partly because increased self-awareness of women and the importance of their vote to the outcome of the election.

Either way, women have exhibited an increasing amount of influence on the political conversation, more so in the 2012 election than ever before, shaping both the outcome and the narrative of the election.

With more and more young women filling the ranks of political journalists on the campaign trail, women have also played a role in the narrative told by traditional media during this election.

According to a Politico article by Ginger Gibson, "While the senior ranks of the political media are still largely dominated by men, young women—typically younger than 30 —now do a large share of the grunt work necessary to make campaign coverage hum during the 24-hour, seven-day-a-week news cycle."

As campaign corespondents for the major news networks, these "embeds" are the ones who ride the candidates' buses all over the country from one event to the next, "recording every word out of the candidates' mouth — good or gaffe — and filing endless stories about incremental developments."

And this is all done by freshmen journalists in the hopes that it will jump-start their career and lead to a bigger and better job within the news network.

“This was about ‘boys on the bus,’ this was the path — whether it was TV network or print publication — this was the path to a big career,” Amy Walter, the political director of ABC News, told POLITICO.

She continued, “Now you have a generation of women who are coming out and know what they want — and they’re going to go get it, they’re not going to ask for somebody to give them what they want.”

This past election season, ABC had more women campaign corespondents than men, as did Fox News and CBS. CNN and NBC had as many female embeds on the trail as they had men.

The growing presence of female corespondents on the trail was evident in 2008 Presidential Election as well.

“I do notice that there are a lot of women, but there were a lot of female embeds last time, too,” said Shushannah Walshe, who was a 2008 embed and is now a staffed ABC political reporter.

While this trend seems to be the new norm on the trail, Walter notes that the people at the top of the business still reflect the old status quo.

“The high ranks are still dominated by men,” Walter says, “and by white men, mostly.”

“As to the bigger point of what it all means, I think that’s what we’re going to have to see — and it’s a very important question,” Walter said. “These women who are out on the trail now, what is their next job? How many of these women are we going to see five, 10 years from now doing those big jobs, sitting as a correspondent or having their byline on the front page of the paper?”

“That is going to be a very big test for all of this: how successful will it be in actually populating a farm team of really talented women into the high political ranks.”

With more and more filling the ranks of young reporters, it seems reasonable to assume that in a few years from now, women will be holding more of the higher positions in the industry.

During this past election, women were the majority of the political corespondents on the campaign trail, basically acting as the gatekeepers to much of the information reported on by mainstream media.

Although at the bottom of the food chain, these women were responsible for many of the news articles that shaped the traditional media narrative of this election cycle.

Coupled with women's role in shaping the new media narrative that formed via social media sites, it seems that young females have left a considerable mark on the recording of the 2012 Presidential Election.

The considerable impact that the media, social and traditional, had on this past election is a testament to the increasing amount of influence and power women have on both the dialog and outcome of presidential elections.

The "Girls on the Bus" and the girls online have a lot to say, and the world seems to be listening.

This almost elusive amplification of women's voices can be described as the narrative within the narrative of this election.

And as Susan King, Dean of the UNC School of Journalism and Mass Communication, always says, "It's about the narrative. It's always about the human story."

Demographic to watch:
"Soccer Mom" 2.0: Rise of the Dot Moms
http://socialmediasun.com/dot-moms-2012-election/

Sources and related links:

Social Media’s role in Election 2012

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/The-Social-Side-of-the-Internet.aspx

**http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Political-engagement/Additional-Analysis/Social-Media-and-Political-Engagement.aspx#footnote1

**http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/11/one-in-ten-dual-screened-the-presidential-debate/

**http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2012/10/social-media-a-hotbed-of-political-debate-engagement---for-the-good303.html

**http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-kanalley/politics-social-media-age_b_1989858.html

****http://pewinternet.org/Infographics/2012/Digital-Politics.aspx

**http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/global/social-media-report-2012-social-media-comes-of-age/

**http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/11/05/2012-the-first-digital-election/

*http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/social-media-by-gender-women-pinterest-men-reddit-infographic_n_1613812.html

**http://www.prdaily.com/Main/Articles/The_3_biggest_social_media_takeaways_from_Election_13113.aspx#

http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Social-Vote-2012.aspx

http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/March/Pew-Internet-Social-Networking-full-detail.aspx

****http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/08/technology/campaign-social-media.html

Women’s involvement in Election 2012

Girls on the bus: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71389.html

http://pewresearch.org/topics/election'12/

http://www.womenlegislators.org/women-legislator-facts.php

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/11/the_power_of_a_woman_with_a_me.html

Women’s involvement through social media

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2012/11/13/social_media_pivotal_in_2012_election.htm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/03/27/hey-girl-barack-obama-pinterest-womens-vote-campaign-2012/

infographic: http://mizwhiz.com/wp-content/uploads/ft-women-in-social-media2.png

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/women-in-politics-break-records-2012-election_n_2088954.html

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/07/4-ways-women-won-the-election/

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

The Republican Dichotomy

Even with President Obama's reelection confirmed and the the 2012 presidential campaigns concluded, there is still much to be done on Capitol Hill in the coming year. The White House is expected to refocus its energy on improving the economy and ultimately fulfilling a successful second term.

On the other hand, the Republican Party is also expected to undergo some major changes over the next few years. After suffering two tough losses for both the presidency and control of the Senate, the GOP underwent much criticism from pundits and party representatives alike. These critics pointed to the strong influence of the far-right Tea Party on the GOP in this election that drove voters away, especially the female and Hispanic voters.

In a recent interview on NBC's "State of the Union", former Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said that the Republican Party's poor performance concerning the Hispanic vote largely impacted the outcome of the election.

"The Hispanics I know were scared of the Republican Party," he said on the NBC show Sunday.

He explained, "I think it has to do with our incredibly ridiculous primary process where we force people to say outrageous things."

Gutierrez worked on Governor Romney's campaign leading his Hispanic Steering Committee. Gutierrez, obviously a Republican himself, asserts that there is a disease plaguing the GOP. A disease that he believes was created by the far-right of the party.

"I think the disease is the fact that the far right of the party controls the primary process," Gutierrez explained.

Other GOP supporters and liberal pundits alike can agree that the GOP faces a serious "branding problem" after the crushing blow this election season brought the party and its far right counter-part known as the Tea Party.

Even prominent Tea Party leader, Amy Kremer, acknowledged this year's election results as a huge wake up call for both Republicans and conservatives.

Kremer said in a recent interview, "There is plenty of blame to go around, but at the end of the day, the Republican Party has a branding issue."

Kremer drew upon diverse Republican voices to explain how the GOP must begin to tackle this problem and essentially re-brand itself to the American public.

Many believe that immigration reform is an issue the GOP must adjust its position on in order to appeal to the large and ever-growing Hispanic vote.

Upon reading countless articles about the unsteady fate of the GOP, one can distinguish a dichotomy between the commentary of the more moderate, just right-of-center Republicans and the extreme, far-right Tea Party, both of which think the other is to blame for the election day defeat.

Some pundits predict that in order for the Republican Party to emerge from the ashes of this election, it must ditch the extreme ideals of the Tea Party as to appeal to a wider demographic of Americans.

The Tea Party on the other hand, point the finger at more centered party members callings them too "moderate." Jenny Beth Martin, like many other Tea Party reps, considers the moderates in the party responsible for championing a losing candidate.

"What we got was a weak moderate candidate, handpicked by the Beltway elites and country-club establishment wing of the Republican Party," Martin charged in a statement written on the night of the election by a far-right group called the Tea Party Patriots.

"The presidential loss is unequivocally on them. While it may take longer to restore America's principals with President [Barack] Obama back in office, we are not going away."

Martin goes on to call Mitt Romney the "handicapped candidate" of the Republican Party's elite. She asserts that the Tea Party is America's last chance to recover from this election's "catastrophic loss" and that it is "the last best hope America has to restore [its] founding principles."

While the line between the GOP and the Tea Party seemed blurred during the heat of election campaigning, the dichotomy between these two political groups cannot be more clear after the election.

The question is, will the party moderates and minority leaders rise up in this time of great uncertainty? Or will Tea Party extremists continue to ride the wave that got them to this level of power in the first place? Is that momentum still present for them to tap into? And if not, what happens to the 21st Century Tea Party and the conservatism movement?

It seems apparent that the political system, much like the state of the nation, is likely to undergo some drastic changes in the next few years leading up to 2016. The economy needs a repairman much like the GOP needs a makeover.

The fate of the Republican Party depends on a successful, or at least cohesive re-branding of the party and its ideals. It is undeniable that a split party is useless against an opposition with a united front. The GOP must realize this and act quickly in order to simultaneously secure and cultivate a positive face with the American people.


SOURCES:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83636.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/11/gutierrez-hispanics-scared-of-gop-149224.html
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/11/07/20121107latino-votes-key-obamas-win.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-poll-latino-vote-obama-20121105,0,5182025.story
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/hispanic-polls/hispanic-polls

Sandy and Her Impact

With nearly 20,000 flights canceled, 8.5 million homes and businesses without power, and over 100 lives taken in 10 states, the destruction left by Hurricane Sandy is definitely sinking in with the American people. The damages caused by Sandy is estimated at a gut wrenching $50 billion, making it the second most expensive storm in U.S. history, behind Hurricane Katrina.

At the height of the storm, Sandy reached 1,000 miles across, producing waves as high as 40 feet. Sandy continues to displace tens of thousands of people along the East Coast, primarily in the New York and New Jersey area.

With the storm rampaging up the East Coast just one week before November 6th, Hurricane Sandy has left in its wake more than physical damages to this country. Many pundits are saying that the super-storm has in many ways directly impacted both campaigns and ultimately the 2012 presidential election.

Sandy put a hold on campaign activities as both sides were forced to cancel events. For obvious reasons, the storm was on the forefront of states' agendas, causing polling locations to be moved and early voting to be suspended in the places most affected.

An event has tragic and attention-grabbing as Sandy had both the public and the news media focused on the natural disaster and distracted from the election. With politics ignored by the media so close to the election, it begs the question of how exactly will the hurricane impact the outcome of the election?

Natural disasters have always put pressure on the federal government to respond quickly and efficiently to the chaos and destruction that it leaves behind. Some say the response by the Obama administration could tip the polls either way.

In his recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Michael Tanner reported on the response of the federal government and FEMA to the storm:

"The government's initial response to Hurricane Sandy has received widespread praise. In particular, officials in the hardest hit areas have noted that FEMA has done a much better job than in previous disasters at pre-positioning equipment and supplies. However, it is far too early to give final grades. Already questions are being raised about whether federal assistance is being directed to the most needy areas first."

This generally positive feedback to the job done by FEMA could reflect well on the Obama administration as citizens are reminded that he is still the Commander in Chief and that he is capable of performing as such. 

In a recent interview with Karl Reve, a Republican strategist, said that the storm has presented "advantages and a minor disadvantage" for the president and a "subtle disadvantage to Romney."

Reve, who served as the deputy White House chief of staff for the Bush administration, said, “Obama has temporarily been a bipartisan figure this week. He has been the comforter-in-chief and that helps,” Rove said. The slight disadvantage for Obama, Rove said, “is that people in Eastern coastal communities are going to be preoccupied by issues of getting food to eat and having a roof over their heads; some of them won’t be thinking as much about the election.”

Ultimately, we will not be able to asses the real impact of Sandy on the election until the votes are counted and a verdict is reached. 


Infographic by Tim Wallace and Jaweed Kaleem.



INFO GRAPHIC: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/hurricane-sandy-vs-katrina-infographic_n_2072432.html?ref=topbar

INFO GRAPHIC #2: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/30/nyregion/hurricane-sandys-aftermath.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/04/haley-barbour-hurricane-sandy-broke-romneys-momentum/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/02/hurricane-sandy-helped-obama-politically-karl-rove-says/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/superstorm-sandy-recovery-weather_n_2072063.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204846304578090873245350506.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/ed-gillespie-fema-sandy_n_2072280.html

Serving Those Who Served

While many are highlighting the importance of women's issues in this election, issues concerning veterans should be just as important to the American people. The thousands of courageous men and women who risk there lives everyday protecting this country deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and honored immensely for their service once they return home.

Unfortunately, the United States has a history riddled with instances of government failures in providing services and aid to veterans who need it most. Although the 1994 GI Bill was a much-need step in the right direction and provided government aid to hundreds of thousands of veterans returning from World War II, this country still faces the challenge of helping present-day soldiers returning from combat in the Middle East.

Currently, America remains a nation at war which means an entirely new generation of veterans who will be returning home. With the drastic improvement in emergency medical care, more and more wounded soldiers are surviving once fatal wounds, further increasing the number of veteran who will need government assistance when they return home. 

As Huffington Post writer Joseph Graziano points out in his recent article, "The Mystifying Misperception," this "plight of the American veteran is not a new ticket item in electoral politics."

He writes, "Our political leaders have been called to step up and honor the promises made to our veterans for over ten years now. And the notion that the American veteran deserves better can -- and by now should -- be a bipartisan issue around which both sides of the aisle rally to action."

The fact that there is a stark difference in the way each party handles veterans is considered ridiculous by some because both parties can agree that veterans should be honored and rewarded for their service. The idea that these young men and women can be sent to war by the same government who denies them adequate aid when they return is deplorable. And that is arguably what the Republican party supports based on their past and current actions.

Graziano's piece describes the 'mystifying misperception' that is the enduring connection between veterans and the Republican party. This misperception, Graziano says, is the assumption that the traditionally pro-war party will be more inclined to serve those who served this country once they return home from the war they endorsed. 

The article makes it clear that neither party has done enough to meet the needs of veterans and their families. However, it does point out the trend of the Republican party to support war while doing little to aid the individuals who are fighting it.

Despite this trend, veterans have been and continue to be more ardent supporters of the Republican party. According to a recent Politico poll, Governor Romney has a comfortable 20 point lead over President Obama in the veteran vote.

When examining the partisan divide on the treatment of ex-service men and women, Graziano argues "one needs only examine the past two presidential administrations to highlight the stark differences" between the parties.

During the Bush administration there were almost as many homeless veterans than there were backlogs in disability claims. On any given day during his presidency, there were about 300,000 homeless veterans in this country and about 400,000 backlogs, and no solutions were offered to fix these issues, "only excuses," Graziano wrote.

"Veterans were left wondering if the Bush administration was just waiting for them to die," Graziano states.

Basically, the article outlines how the Republican Bush administration had no real plan for the estimated 700,000 veterans who would eventually enter the Dept. of Veteran Affairs (VA). Budget cuts proved more important than aiding the hundreds of thousands of men and women loyal to protecting this country as the "VA itself was structured to deny rather than facilitate compensation" under Bush.

Graziano starkly contrasts this handling of veteran programs with a more "passionate problem-solving" Obama administration. Under Obama, the new VA budget has allowed 266,000 veterans who had lost their VA benefits under the Bush administration to re-enroll.

General Shinseki, Secretary of VA, recently praised President Obama in his speech at the Democratic National Convention:

 "Since President Obama took office, nearly 800,000 veterans gained access to VA healthcare. There's been a historic expansion of treatment for PTSD and traumatic brain injury. President Obama has expanded job training to prepare vets for the jobs of the future. And we're on track to end veterans' homelessness by 2015. No president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has done more for veterans."

It is important, however, to note that the main differences between each parties' commitment to our veterans are evident even outside the last two presidential administrations. Instead, these differences were most recently on display during last month's Senate vote on the Veterans Job Corps Act of 2012.

Graziano argued, "This Act should not have been a controversial issue that divided our Senate along party lines. The Veterans Job Corps Act proposed spending $1 billion over 5 years to help put veterans back to work by offering our veterans jobs servicing federal lands and bridges, while helping other veterans secure positions as police officers and fire fighters. Unfortunately, Senate Republicans placed their hatred of Obama in front of their duty to serve our veterans. The bill fell two votes short of passing when 40 Republicans voted to kill the bill, claiming that it was too expensive."

While each party shares similar sentiments regarding the importance of veteran aid after service, it is evident that the Republican party is less successful with following through with these ideals.

Regardless of which party does what, Graziano rightly labels American as "a forward looking nation prone to forget its past, especially when that past is burdensome" and points out that "Since the American Revolution, we have consistently failed to adequately care for our disabled veterans."

Hopefully, Democrats and Republicans will one day put aside their differences and "reach across the isle" to come to a solution to the myriad of issues faced by veterans when transitioning from military life to civilian life. 



RESOURCES:
Forgotton Heros: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/03/04/forgotten-heroes.html
Great aricle: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-graziano/returning-veterans-_b_2017297.html
Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701172.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-munoz-frank-islam-and-ed-crego/election-day-and-veterans_b_2018074.html
http://www.govexec.com/defense/2012/10/video-daily-show-goes-mission-help-vets-get-jobs/59016/?oref=river

The Debate on Women

With the eve of election night just weeks away, the competition for the presidency is becoming increasingly heated as polls narrow and support for the candidates evens out. The women vote is more important than ever as important female issues are presented in each party's platform and are the topic of conversation at the Vice Presidential Debate.

Excerpt of the debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/biden-ryan-debate-abortion_n_1960078.html?ref=topbar

What you see here is two men, of the same faith of Catholicism, who have the same religious views that life begins at the moment of conception. The key difference, though, is that while Ryan is willing to govern with those beliefs and create laws based on his religious doctrine, Biden says that he is unwilling to impose his religion on those who do not hold the same beliefs.

This is a little something called "the separation of church and state." As Ryan cites that the government is taking away their First Amendment right to practice religion, if he and Romney took office they would also be denying that same right to Americans who support a women's right to choose.

It seems wrong that laws can be derived from the religious beliefs of those in power. The founders of this country felt similarly and it was because of this religious tyranny that caused them to flee England and seek freedom in America.

Isn't it odd that the conservative and traditionalist nature of the Republican Party fails to see this as a distinct infringement on both the religion and the bodies of American citizens, mainly women?

Like Biden said, he respects the Catholic doctrine that life begins at conception in his own PERSONAL life, but refuses to impose that belief on those who do not practice the same religion.

What about that is wrong? Doesn't it seem more politically correct to govern a country of such vast view points with and open mind? The ability to separate personal beliefs for the good of the nation is vital for any good leader who is capable of looking at a situation from many points of view.

The Romney-Ryan ticket promises to govern in such a way that would completely outlaw abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or for the safety of the mother.

I would like to know the plan these two have for the children who are born to mothers who are living in poverty, underage, or otherwise unfit to be a mother.

With Big Bird and food stamps under attack, I am interested to see who is going to teach and feed these children who are born into environments where they are unable to be cared for properly.

It also frightens me that Ryan cites "science" as a reason for him being pro-life. The science of the matter is that if birth control is covered by insurance and made more available to women, less abortions are needed. So if the Romney-Ryan campaign really wanted to tackle abortion, it would make more sense for them to promote universal coverage of birth control. That way, abortion levels would lower significantly without having to take away rights that were fought for and won 50 years ago.

Outlawing abortion completely would not stop abortion from being practiced. It will drive the operations underground and force women to undergo dangerous circumstances to receive them. As a country,we have been in this place before. If it didn't work then it won't work now, especially in a time when women are more politically active than ever.

So, will women recognize that their bodies are on the line in this election? And even if they are undecided, will they come to the polls to voice their final decision?

In the 2008 election 65.7% of women turned out at the polls as compared to 61.5% of men. It will be interesting to see what those numbers are this year and what kind of impact the women vote had on this landmark election.





Gender Differences in Voter Turnout:
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/genderdiff.pdf

Young Women and Politics: http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/voters/documents/genderdiff.pdf

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/15721901-452/election-could-come-down-to-what-women-want.html

Sources:
Social media user demographics: http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/08/21/report-social-network-demographics-in-2012/

http://www.nd.edu/~cwolbrec/Corder_Wolbrecht_JOP.pdf

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p20-562.pdf

Social Media: Citizens Shaping the Narrative

While millions tuned in to see the President and Governor Romney debate on Wednesday evening, social media exploded with comments and tweets about the candidates, Jim Lehrer, and even Big Bird.

Shortly after the dust kicked up by the debate had settled, Twitter announced that it had been the most tweeted about event in the history of U.S. politics, out-tweeting this year's Republican and Democratic conventions.

With over 11.1 million posts, Wednesday's debate became the fourth most tweeted-about telecast of any kind. The debate was beat out by only three other televised events: the 2012 Grammy awards, MTV's Music Video Awards and the Super Bowl. Wow. Pretty impressive for a country who is generally apathetic toward politics.

I also find it interesting that of the 11.1 million comments, 55% were made by women and 45% were made by men. Why do you think this is? Is it because women feel the importance of their vote in this election? Whatever the reason, the numbers are worth noting.

I find it, for lack of a better term, extremely cool that social media has given a forum in which people can engage with events such as the presidential debate and effectively and pretty accurately shape the narrative of the event. What is so valuable about social media is that it is all unfolding in real time along with the debate. People did not have to wait to hear the candidates' closing statements or opinions of television pundits to form an opinion about who won the debate and then let everyone know what that opinion is.

While I do not doubt that viewers in the past formed their opinions well before the debate was finished, I do think that social media has completely revolutionized the way those opinions are passed on to others. People no longer have to talk politics over a cup of coffee to know their friend's political views. Today, all you have to do is scroll through your Twitter feed and see a link or tweet that gives you that same information in the fraction of the time it would take to get coffee.

"People still use old media to watch the debates, but they use social networks and other new media to have influence, voice opinions and be involved," said Scott Talan, an assistant communications professor at American University.

He continued, "Old media is not dead; its growing. But now we have more people involved and engaged because of digital means."

The millions of posts were not so much about what each candidate was saying but about their demeanor or presence on the stage, proving that while televised debates are designed to be platforms for getting your message out there, they are more-so a test of confidence and the image emoted by the speaker.

The "social chatter" from social media sifted into a few major topics: Big Bird, Jim Lehrer, and Romney's win over Obama.

The reaction to the debate via social media also speaks to the attention span of viewers. The broad topic of "the economy" seems interesting, but in actuality these people are talking about a very complex issue that is hard to understand, leaving many people with glazed over eyes and a slack jaw. Unless you are an economist following the national debt and the inter-workings of our economy it would be hard to intelligently comment on the debate's content and the plans proposed by each candidate. Thus, as soon as Romney said his "Sorry Jim" statement about cutting what he feels is superfluous funding for PBS and Big Bird, people jerked out of their stupors and reacted by agreeing, disagreeing or just plain laughing.

People don't want to be lectured by things they cannot comprehend. So, when Mitt takes a shot at Big Bird, everyone understands that and responds accordingly.

Even an ABC news executive tweeted during a lull in the debate that "avian life is outstripping human life in this debate."

I think it was also outstripping the issues.

Though this makes sense and I cannot fault the public for their ignorance on an issue as complex as the economy (because let's be honest I have no clue either), it worries me that this country is more concerned with the fate of Big Bird than the fate of this country. What I mean is that the real issues are side-stepped in order to appeal to people who don't know or don't want to know the issues.

I could come down hard on the media and blame them for perpetuating this ignorance, but that would not be fair. The media is a business. They are not going to sell a product that the public doesn't want. And like I said, the public wants what they know, not what is over their heads. So the media, being in the business to sell stories, is going to write what the public is willing to consume. In effect, Big Bird is the headline and the debate's fourth most-searched item on Google.

At the same time, social media is important because it is the living, breathing commentary of this country, for the people and by the people- or something like that. It is important for media analysts to take note of what is trending on twitter because that trend is mirrored in the stories produced by the mainstream media. Pretty interesting that, collectively, what we have to say is what the media has to say. Only they make money saying it.

So, what do YOU think?

Do people really want to learn about the issues, in an impartial way, in order to make their decision come election day?

Why do you think women participated in the social-media discussion about the debate more than men (55% female comments 45% male)?

Is the debate important to a candidates win? 

What is more important: the content of the candidates arguments or the impression of their demeanor on the viewers?

Do you think if we collectively as a nation got more educated on the issues, the media would follow suit and report more on those issues?

My kind of debate:

Sources:

Associated Press: Social Media Renders Rapid Judgement on Debate: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/social-media-renders-rapid-judgment-debate-17395191#.UHHf2U2dN2A

Numbers behind the social media response:
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14244918-social-media-analysis-who-really-won-the-debate?lite

Must Reads:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/2012-race_n_1945065.html?ref=topbar

Don't Buy Into the Hysteria: This Election Isn't About a Debate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/dont-buy-into-the-hysteri_b_1944897.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

The Narrative: Getting Behind the Spin

Journalist are always trying to get that inside scoop on the newest developments and hottest news. They are always trying to find ways of "getting behind the spin" and looking for that moment of humility or vulnerability in the story to capitalize on. This is especially true for political journalists in election years who are constantly trying to step behind the facades put on by the campaign in an attempt to find the human story of each candidate.

Because the media is considered to have the important function of checking on government for abuses, journalists and reporters are forever in pursuit of narrative that is least polished by government officials and work to dismantle falsehoods set forth by political "spin doctors."

This creates a tense relationship between the press and politicians, one in which the media can work for or against a campaign at any given time. Each campaign is pushing the media to air their story, not the media's take on their story, which in many cases is quite different and calls out the motives behind each move the campaign makes.

In today's media world of instant access and lightning-speed updates, journalists must stay on their toes in order to deliver captivating news quickly to such a media-hungry society. Journalists are writing multiple stories a day in order to keep up with the ever-changing narrative that is presidential election season.

It is important to understand that journalists not only follow the story, but they also have a hand in shaping the narrative of these campaigns. The news and press releases that these campaigns put out are then processed by journalists who are looking for an edge in which to write a story. That story must be carefully sourced and fact-based while also captivating readers and viewers in order to be successful in it's message delivery.

Some find, however, that journalists in this 2012 campaign are projecting themselves as overly partisan toward one side or another, which works against the abuse checking function that the media is intended to possess.

Seasoned journalists like Bob Woodward and David Maraniss are concerned that the media has become a "gaffe-obsessed" news forum with journalists acting as 'mini campaign consultants' in the daily back-and-forth bickering that is political campaigning. Instead of indulging in the "he-said, she-said" rhetoric that candidates like to use, journalists should be reporting on the facts and putting a focus on the actual issues of the campaign.

In an interview with Politico, Maraniss expressed his concerns with today's media atmosphere and what impact that has on the campaigns and the coverage of those campaigns.

“There’s more of a demand for immediacy, for speed and for attitude, and less of a demand for rational thought and actual reporting,” Maraniss. “If everybody is just tweeting and not reporting, it’s of no value whatsoever.”

Woodward also added his gripes with the way journalists are going about reporting on the stories of this election season.

“Some journalists think of themselves as mini-campaign consultants. It’s our job to ask, ‘What is the plan?’ Not give a plan,” he said. “The media has been too focused on the daily political food fight and not the issues."


If journalists are asking the questions yet making their own conclusions with the answers presented, are they truly 'getting behind the spin' or are they creating a media bias of their own?

Obviously with the past few weeks of non-stop drama in the Romney campaign have given journalists a myriad of material to report on from all possible perspectives. The question is, with the political debates around the corner, how are journalists going to cover the debates? Impartially? Probably to an extent. The best news comes from one with an angle. So if one of the candidates says something questionable or lacks confidence in his answers, it makes sense that the press would pick up on that and write a story trying to explain what this means for his campaign.

The debates bring an entirely new focus to the media in a time when the issues are often pushed aside for more breaking news. The candidates will be given the chance to address the issues and their opponents questions without the mics of reporters in their faces, but rather the eyes of 50 million Americans watching from all across the country. In this forum, the press and the people get to see first hand what the candidate's point of view is, and if they buy it or not.


Sources:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81598_Page2.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/us/politics/cramming-and-pruning-for-first-presidential-debate.html?pagewanted=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/political-press-that-cried-wolf/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/28/analysis-polling-criticism-unfounded/

Cau$e Behind the Ca$h

With the release of a secretly-filmed video starring Governor Mitt Romney speaking rather unfavorably about 47 percent of the electorate, it was no surprise that a media frenzy immediately ensued Monday evening, further flustering an already shaken Romney campaign. The video shows Romney speaking at a fundraising dinner to a small group of wealthy donors who are there to hear why exactly they should be pouring millions into his campaign.

The only thing more disturbing than the words coming out of Governor Romney's mouth is the people at which he is directing them to. Donors. People who are willing to donate large sums of money to support Romney's campaign and share similar views of Americans who, in the words of the candidate, are "dependent upon government" and feel entitled to government handouts.

I honestly am not surprised by these sentiments because they are basically a exclamation of Republican ideals that denounce welfare and promote small government. What I am surprised about is that Romney would label this 47 percent of citizens as all die-hard Obama supporters just because they receive federal aid. What about poor, conservative (white) people who may not understand supply-side economics but do believe gays should not have the right to marry? Ouch. 

It is especially scary that these millionaire donors are capable of funding someone who is willing to write off almost half of the country as unproductive freeloaders "who believe they are victims" and feel entitled to government help without working for it.

What is obvious is that these fat-cat donors feel the same way. They each have their own high-end corner of the world they live in and feel that hard work and determination got them there. If you are able to casually sit at a table where each plate costs $50,000, you would probably feel just a tad disconnected to the 47 percent of people in this country who do not make enough money to pay federal income taxes.

While this has always been the attitude held by the GOP, Romney was the one caught speaking honestly about it, and so he is taking the hit. I mean it now does seem pretty ridiculous that a man who dislikes and misunderstands half of the nation is up for the task of governing them. And as the pool for Republican voters is shrinking, Republicans are worried that they are in trouble as a party, not only for this election, but in the future as well.

Anyway, what really concerns me about the Romney video is the donors. The money the goes into these campaigns, on both sides. It got me thinking: Who is funding the campaigns? Where is the money for this commercial coming from? Do I agree with their ideals? Is it possible to win an election by buying it? Isn't that the opposite of democracy? This being the first presidential election without limits on who can donate and how much they can donate, it should be interesting to see what campaign wins and if they were the one to raise more money.

My own personal moment of zen:

"If they have success they built it. If they failed the government ruined it for them. If they get a break they deserve it. If you get a break, its a handout and an entitlement. It's a baffling, willfully blind cognitive dissonance best summed up by their head coach, in what is perhaps my favorite soundbite of all time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U." -John Stewart on the "denizens of Bull Shit Mountain" http://www.hulu.com/watch/403039#i1,p28,d2

What I don't understand is the disdain people have for the poor. With all this religious rhetoric flying around you would think conservatives would be more willing to help and love thy neighbors. One could consider it a contradiction that conservatives use their religion to decide their opinions on social issues but when it comes to federal aid of the poor, they are up in arms at the idea. Essentially, they believe we should do everything to protect the life of an unborn child, but once that child is born into a low-income family, its health and well-being are no longer the concern of the government. But that's a different blog post.

video clip: http://www.hulu.com/watch/403039#i1,p1,d2

LINKS:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81472.html?hp=l5

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81420.html

Campaign Fund charts:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance