Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Focus Group Summary Data : What We Learned About Young Voters in 2012 Presidential Campaign


During spring 2012, members of the COM 398: Controlling Spin class conducted four separate focus groups to determine how engaged young voters (defined as between 17-30) were in the presidential primary.  Specifically, we wanted to determine what issues or concerns were affecting their perceptions of the 2012 campaigns, how they acquired political information about the race, the level of their affiliation with political party or ideology, and their assessment of how effectively the presidential primary campaigns were at addressing their interests.

Four focus groups were conducted, two within the COM 398 class, one with students in COM 102 and a fourth at the Bigler High School Journalism Conference held at Wilkes University on April 13. A total of 43 individuals participated, almost evenly split between females and males.  Specific demographic breakdowns will be included with each focus group.

(1) FG#1        

5 males and 5 females; all 10 were registered voters.

Political affiliation: 5 registered Democrats, 3 registered as Independents and 2 as Republicans. All 10 were Wilkes University Communication Studies majors enrolled in the COM 398 class and had been following the 2012 presidential primary throughout the semester.  Ages ranged from 19-23.

Issues that they wanted to hear about in the 2012 presidential campaign, in order of frequency: (a) jobs; (b) growing student loans and debt; (c) making the educational system a top priority (not just higher education); (d) gay rights (including marriage)/civil and human rights; (e) health care, and (f) issues of women’s rights.

Excerpts regarding “issues” from discussion:

“Outsourcing jobs to India and China—especially Apple’s iPod in China, is affecting jobs here. Production jobs need to be returned here…we need federal incentives for businesses to in-source jobs in U.S.”

“The poor job market combined with escalating college loan debt, functions as a double-edged blow to my generation’s ability to create a secure future.”

“I will leave college with over $50,000 in college debt. It will take many years to pay that down, even if I get a job after graduating in May.”

“Education should be the last program cut when budget cuts are applied.”

 “We need to stop accepting poor teaching…and graduating students who fail.”

“The U.S. is long past the point of singling out a group as being unprotected by their civil rights, including marrying whomever they choose.”

“Gay marriage is an issue of civil rights and equality—and not religion.”

“My recent visit to a local emergency room would have cost over $14,000, but I was covered by my parent’s insurance. I support Obama Care.”

“We need to make contraceptives available to everyone. Do not outlaw birth control.”

Birth control is a health care issue for many people. I strongly disagree with candidates who link birth control to religion and morality. For me, birth control is a health issue, and not always used as a contraceptive.”

When asked how candidate character and personal traits, as well as campaign strategies, might influence who they vote for in 2012, FG#1 mentioned in rank order: (a) being relatable; (b) honesty; (c) stop negative ads; (d) demonstrate foresight and long-term vision for the country; and (e) stop using devil/god terms; left/right polarizing language.

Excerpts from FG#! On “candidate character or traits” that will
Determine who they will vote for in 2012:

“Be relatable. If you want my vote you should not be condescending when speaking to or about young voters, middle-class voters or women.”

 “Put constituent needs ahead of self-interests.”

“Honesty is the key. Determining who is honest is very hard in a political campaign.”

“Please embrace nonpartisanship—I am so sick of campaigning in Republican or Democratic terms. Address the whole nation’s needs.”

“Stop the negative ads!  I tune them out.”

“In this election I can’t tell if an ad is the voice of the candidate or funded by some multi-millionaire PAC. The ugliest ads that attack others get away with it because a PAC sponsors it. This election’s ads are nastier than ever.”

“We really need campaign finance reform—now.”

“ I know people want to hear how a candidate will make their lives better right now. But I expect a President to have foresight, long-term vision for how we can move forward.”

“Polarizing language, like devil/god terms insult me. Don’t candidates realize young voters can see right past those cheap tactics?”

The group was also asked how they get their information about the presidential campaign.  Acknowledging that this specific group may be better informed than most because of their enrollment in this class, they acquire information about the 2012 campaign from: (a) conversations with their friends who follow politics; (b) Twitter from on-line news sources; (3) on-line news, mostly headlines from CNN; (d) Jon Stewart and the Comedy Channel; and (e) a tie between blogs and local newspapers.

Excerpts regarding how they acquire political information:

“I learn the most from our conversations in class and outside of class. I am interested in why my friends feel the way they do about the election.”

“I read CNN headline news…seldom more than that unless it is something that interests me.”

“I get my news on-line. I don’t read local or national papers.”

“Now I get Twitter updates from Politico. I read what comes to me as a text.”

“Most of my friends get their political news from Jon Stewart or the others on the Comedy Channel. I think their sarcasm is more objective than most political newscasts—they ridicule everyone equally.”

“I don’t have the time to watch 30 minutes of news. It doesn’t interest me.”

Comments on how engaged they are in the campaign and the political process over-all, included repeated comments like this following:

I am a registered Independent. I don’t want anything to do with the major political parties. They don’t speak to my needs as a young college student. Maybe I am a Libertarian.”

“Ten years from now, almost no young voters will identify with either the Republican or Democratic party. A real generational divide has emerged and it won’t go away.”

(2) FG #2 

This focus group was conducted in mid-March and involved 4 males and 4 females, all Communication Studies students enrolled in the COM 398 class. Again, they were probably better informed than their peers because of the content of the class. Of the participants, 3 were registered Democrats, 2 were Republican, 1 Independent and 2 were not registered to vote.  Ages ranged from 19-24.

Regarding the issues that mattered to them, they agreed with the topics raised in FG #1, but in addition added the following:

“There needs to be a separation of church and state. That separation should be there but listening to this campaign it is clear the church still influences the political process.”

 “I strongly oppose censorship on the internet. This is actually related to job creation and revenue development.”

 In terms of how they get their political information, this group expanded on the role of social media:

“Everyone our age is reached through the social media—first and frequently.”

“People want to be entertained, especially our generation. That’s why Jon Stewart is a source of campaign information. I watched the GOP primary debate in SC with my friends. And we made fun of everything—the moderator, the candidates and how seriously they took it. We didn’t take it seriously at all.”

“My family is not very politically involved. I was taught that you can’t trust politicians and that they are all liars.”

“I have not been taught how to vote…or why.”

The relevance of the two-party system came up repeatedly in FG#2:

“The two party system is ridiculous; it is judgmental and labels people.”

The parties spend way too much money and spend too much time fighting. That’s just not relevant to me. In fact, it makes me want to stay away from politics.”

“For me, and many of my peers, it’s time for No parties, just people.”

Final note: when asked if they had to vote for President at that time, which of the leading candidates would they vote for, 15 said they would vote for President Obama and 3 for Mitt Romney.

(3) FG#3  

The third focus group consisted of 8 Wilkes students enrolled in COM 102: Principles of Communication class, which is required of Communication Studies, Integrated Media, and some undeclared students. All eight were registered to vote. There were 4 males and 4 females, aged 18-23.  They were asked a similar question protocol as FG #1 and 2. Four of the eight were registered Independent, 2 Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 Libertarian.

Regarding issues or topics that concern them, this FG agreed with FG #1 and 2 and ranked jobs and the economy as the number one issue that concerned them. However, the other issues difference somewhat. Issues in rank order: (a) the economy, specifically jobs; (2) education and (3) and abortion as related to birth control.

Excerpts from discussion of issues in FG#3:

 “No one seems to know how to fix the economy. I will vote for someone who can restore a sense of well being.”

 “Obama is doing damage.”

“I look ahead and I don’t see jobs.”

“Abortion is an issue that will heavily sway who I vote for.”

“I could argue for hours on birth control and abortion, but that is a personal stand.”

When asked how they get their political information, FG#3 expanded the discussion into how they learned anything about politics.

Excerpts from FG#3’s discussion of sources of influence and information:

“I don’t follow politics.” {Mentioned by four participants)

 “My parents never pushed politics, they never encouraged me at all. However, my high school did.”

“In my high school history class, we were given voter registration forms when you turned 18.”

“My parents heavily encouraged me, and politics was discussed daily at home. They are involved in local politics and pushed me to become a Democrat, so I became a fan of the Republicans.”

“I have friends who are active in politics. I listen to them.”

FG#3 participants acquire political information about the 2012 campaign from: (a) friends—conversations and Face Book; (2) SNL and comedy shows; (3) CNN and to a limited degree (4) local papers. Only one follows national news; one follows local news coverage “of the corruption.”

“I get information from CNN on basic issues and the candidates.

“When my friend who is interested in politics posts something on Facebook, if I’m interested I will look.” (Several agreed about getting information from Face Book postings by their friends.)

“I get most of my information—all subjects-- from Face Book and Twitter.”

“I watch Saturday Night Live and enjoy when they make fun of the candidates, esp. after the GOP debates.”

“I talk to peers…that’s where I learn about the campaign.”

“We don’t pay attention to politics, or news in general. I would tell the next generation of young voters to stay better informed and educate themselves, even if they don’t want to.”

“I stay out of political discussions. I don’t like the rift it creates between people.”

FG#3 was also opinionated about the two-party system.

Excerpts on the two-party system from FG#3:

“I am a Democrat and will always be a Democrat. However, I am not blindly voting for someone just because of their party.”

“It [two-party system] works, so why add more parties? That would make it more confusing.”

“The Tea Party is way too extreme.”

“If I have to pick, it would be the lesser of two evils. A no party system makes sense. It should be the person or individual candidate and not the party that shapes voting.”

“Republicans today are what Democrats used to be—militating for change and social reform.”

When asked who they would vote for, if the election were held on the day of the FG, this group had a tepid response. Two said possibly Obama, one possibly Romney and five said they didn’t think they could vote for any of the current candidates

(4)  FG#4. 

On April 13, the fourth focus group was held as part of the annual Bigler High School Journalism Conference at Wilkes University. Knowing the participants would be high school-aged, the questions were adapted to the “next generation” of voters.  FG#4 had 17 participants, 9 males and 8 females. The ages ranged from 14-18. Students were from 6 different high schools in northeastern PA. FG#4 differed from the other three in several key ways. They were younger. They were more politically informed. And, they seemed to have been strongly influenced by the Libertarian Party.  Even though they were from 6 different schools, the affiliation to the Libertarian Party transcended any one school’s influence or location.  If they were to register now, seven of the 17 would register as Libertarians; 4 Democrats; 4 Republicans and 2 as Independents.

(The FG moderator did a follow up on how they were defining Libertarian to make sure they knew what the party was. All seven gave clear, detailed explanations of the Libertarian Party.)

When asked where and how they first were introduced to the importance of politics and voting, their responses were, in rank order: (a) reading on-line newspapers daily; (b) national broadcast media, including on-line broadcasts; (c) classes and teachers at school;
(d) Jon Stewart and Colbert Report and  (e) Twitter and Face Book postings by friends.

Excerpts on sources of information from FG#4:

“I listen to Glen Beck.”

“I have a history class that discusses the election and the parties every day. I get a lot of information from our discussions and my teacher,”

 “I actually watch Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report to learn about the campaign and debates.”

“I follow some blogs and Fox News.”

“I get all of my news on-line. It is easier and faster.”

When asked about the issues that mattered to them, FG#4 participants were both vague and strongly aligned with religion.  They cited the following as issues that concerned them: (a) jobs/employment and  (2) birth control and abortion.  Almost no comments were made on education.

Excerpts on issues from FG #4:

“Life begins at conception. I am pro-life and that shapes my vote.”

“Separation of church and state is important. The Republican views on birth control and a woman’s right to choose are being taken way too seriously.”

“There is a big divide between us and our parents and grandparents. Their issues—social security, Medicare, Iraq—those are not my issues.”

“I will not vote for anyone who supports abortion.”

When asked about the two-party system, FG#4 was the least hostile to political parties. However, they were strongly supportive of third parties, specifically the Libertarian Party. When asked if the election were to be held now, six would vote for Ron Paul, five for Obama and three for Romney. The others had no opinion at this time.

Excerpts from FG#4:

“In the Northern Tier the Tea Party Republicans are solid. I am with them.”

“Government should not regulate business or an individual’s freedom. I am behind Ron Paul.”


Key Take-Away Trends from Four Focus Groups of Young Voters Conducted at Wilkes University - May 2012

Four separate focus groups involving 43 individuals were conducted from March through mid-April by the COM 398: Controlling Spin—News, PR and Politics class at Wilkes University.  The participants ranged in age from 14-24.  Twenty-five of the 43 participants were already registered to vote, with 18 not registered.  After analyzing the data from the focus groups, five key take-away trends among these young voters—and the next generation of voters—suggest a changing electorate.

•Young voters get almost all information about the 2012 presidential campaign from conversations with friends and from social media (especially Face Book and Twitter).  CNN Headline News, Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report were mentioned more often as  “political news sources” than any other broadcast or print sources.

“Everyone our age is reached through social media—first and frequently.”

•There is distrust of the 2-party system among young voters, coupled
with growing registration as Independents among the 18-24 year olds.  Of the 26 participants old enough to register, their registrations included:
            Democrat                  38.5% (10)
            Independent             31% (8)
            Republican               19% (5)
            Libertarian               .04% (1)
            Not Registered         .08% (2)

Of the total 43 participants, including the high school students, while “Democrat” was most often selected, the combined registration as “Independent” and “Libertarian” totaled 42% of the young voters.
            Democrat                  32.5% (14)
            Independent             23% (10)
            Republican               21% (9)
            Libertarian               18.5% (8)
            Not Registered         4.5 % (2)

“Ten years from now, almost no young voters will identify with either the Republicans or Democrats. A real generational divide has emerged and it won’t go away.”

•Issues that concern young voters most are: jobs, mounting student loans and debt, improving quality of over-all educational system, civil rights for gays, including marriage, and separation of church and state.  Regarding issues, age matters. There was a big difference between how 18-24 year olds responded to this question and how the high school students, aged 14-18 responded.

“I graduate in May with $50,000 in debt from college.  I am concerned about my job prospects since I will be paying off loans for years.”

The U.S. is long past the point of singling out a group as being unprotected
By their civil rights, including marrying whomever they choose.”

•Young voters, and the next generation of voters, are very media savvy and see campaigns that use negative ads as divisive. Polarizing language is seen as typical of two-party campaigning.

“Polarizing language insults me, especially god/devil terms. Don’t candidates realize young voters can see right past these cheap tactics?”

“Be relatable. If you want my vote, you should not be condescending when speaking to or about young voters, middle-class voters or women.”

•At the time of the focus groups in March-April 2012, when asked, “If the election were held today, which of the presidential candidates would you voter for” young voters were leaning toward President Obama or not voting at all.
            Obama                        51% (22)
            No One                       19% (8)
            Romney                      16% (7)
            Paul                            14% (6)

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

How to Get Ian Foley's Vote: A Young Voter Manifesto

As a voter, I find only a handful of issues I believe to be firmly perquisite to a candidate garnering my vote in an election.  I try to take a more world-view and look at issues in a big picture form, to determine what really matters in short term, as well as long term. We live in a nation where the priority of issues is non-static, and thus it is important to understand that weight of an issue is contingent upon this natural priority, rather than personal.  Therefore, I find the following to be necessary an elected official.

Foresight


The ability and willingness to compromise short-term public opinion for long-term national gains or solutions. Self sacrifice of elected office in order to fulfill long term constituent needs, as opposed to short term wants, is an admirable trait.

Fiscal Responsibility

Adjunct to the previously mentioned, an elected official must show the willingness to make tough decisions for national solvency for years to come.  He must not only maintain current bridges, but to build ones he will never cross.

Trustee of Government

Elected official should form own opinion based on voter opinions, then act with the best interests of the constituency and the nation. They should act on the true needs of the constituency, nation, and to the extent of their own knowledge, experience and discretion.

National Solvency

The ability to balance ethics, justice, and sovereignty. While an elected official must work for the betterment of the planet, should not promote or act in any way that leads to the destruction of the nation or constituency. Every effort should be made to defend and extend the economic interests and authority of the nation. A compromise against the nation in view of any other purpose contradicts the art of representative government.

Ian Foley
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2014

Monday, April 2, 2012

21st Century News: The Colbert Report



I watched "The Colbert Report" to document the coverage of the 2012 GOP Presidential candidates. Stephen Colbert's character on the show is that of a conservative Catholic who always has something to say. But this is done in a satirical way that does not push those beliefs onto his viewers. The main audience that Colbert is aiming towards is young college aged adults who would probably watch "The Daily Show" that is on before this program. Although the show is intended for the younger crowd, my 72 year-old grandmother loves to watch his show and actually agrees with some of the points that he makes.

The main premise of the show is to entertain, it is on Comedy Central. It should not be taken as a hard news show that people should get all their information from. But writing it off as total drivel should not be done either. Other television programs try to showcase themselves as unbiased and as a reliable news source, when they are nothing more than opinion. "The Colbert Report" plays off of this idea by presenting the information in a satirical version of these other shows. While other station show only what they believe in, "The Colbert Report" gathers all the clips and shows how silly the other networks are. Over the weeks of watching the program clips from Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN and articles from The New York Post were used to show the slant from those media sources. I think that by incorporating the different views "The Colbert Report" offers a broader view on issues rather than watching only one of the other networks.

Behind every joke there is some truth, and through watching the program I was actually informed about some events happening in the political world. Some of the guests that Colbert had on his program also provided a sense of information and legitimacy like Christiane Amanpour. She is a well traveled reporter who is well respected by most people and yet she went on "The Colbert Report". Another guest that was on the show was Robert Kagan who is a foreign policy advisor to Mitt Romney. Colbert asked Kagan about what the Obama administration had done in foreign policy, like the death of Bin Laden or al-Gaddafi. Now instead of crucifying either side, Kagan conceded that Obama did well even though he works for Romney.

The main candidates that Colbert talked about were Romney and Gingrich. They were all highlighted and then dragged through the mud over the course of the two weeks. Even Obama was featured on the show as both a positive and a negative. I think that this really showcased what some of the younger Americans think about the presidential race, that it's a joke. An example was when Newt Gingrich was being sued for using The Eye of the Tiger as his theme without getting permission. In retaliation, the original lead singer of Survivor came on and sang Gringrich's book without permission. Colbert then provided that the Washington Post said that 80% of inmates would vote for Gingrich.

Romney was behind Santorum in the polls in Michigan which is Romney's home state. Then the show played an awkward clip of Romney from C-SPAN from campaigning in Michigan. Romney just rambled on about how the trees are the perfect height in Michigan, his love of lakes, and his car knowledge. Colbert then commented on the perfect height of the trees so a person could hang themselves after they lose their home state primary.

Santorum was mentioned less but he was still represented. A "Face the Nation" clip showed Santorum saying that we should be the earth's husband because he claimed that Obama was a radical environmentalist who is a member of a tree hugging theology. Colbert then made a joke about being the earth's husband because we would "be on top as God intended and frack her all night long." Then they played a clip from 2008 of Santorum saying that Satan in attacking the United States alone. Colbert then made an argument that because Satan's eyes are directed only on the US, God must be causes the famines, genocides, and disasters in all the other countries.

In conclusion, I think that "The Colbert Report" presents a more balanced perspective than some other biased media outlets such as Fox News or MSNBC. Young voters have to be exposed to what is happening in the news and if they watch it on a Comedy Central program that is better than being totally uninformed about the world. Now I know that I am extremely cynical and can dissect humor and lies, but others might not and take this show at face value. But there are a lot of people who do the same for other opinion based news shows. Overall I think that the whole political field is a very entertaining arena and Colbert is just capitalizing on it.


Kristina Seiger
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2012

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

How to Get David Cook's Vote: A Young Voter Manifesto


I Am Not A Pawn

Treat me not as a pawn in some larger game, but as a human being, capable of knowing what is best for me. I do not want, expect, or desire you to tell me what is best for my life, and I under no circumstances, want you to pretend like you know what life is like for me, or anybody else besides yourself.

You see, I get it. Politicians cannot really relate to the majority of the American public, and that’s okay with me, because I do not want an average run of the mill American who thinks that Survivor is really an unscripted television event determining what country we need to enter into military conflict with. So, please, just demonstrate that you are an above average citizen by being honest about whom you really are. I know, this is an unusual concept, but being human and being self-aware is important.

Economic Issues

Talk honestly and openly about the economic problems in this country, and worry more about resolving them than being reelected. Short term change is not going to get this country  moving forward, we need long term plans, which undoubtedly, are not going to be very popular. But, we need them. Somewhere, you know this to be true, so come out and say it, and then stick to it.  Also, I get it, the economy is in terrible shape, but; for the love of God and Country, do not take the easy rhetorical strategy and blame the other side. Both parties brought us into this—and so did the entire American public, as we ran up credit card debt for the last 20 years. So, take a real stance on the economy and have a plan that really tries to accomplish something. The thing is, I don’t even care if I disagree fundamentally with your politics, as long as you can demonstrate a real long term plan that will move this country forward, with the promise of ‘trying’ and not guaranteed success.

Take notice of that, too. Do not talk to me like you know your plans will work, or that you have some sense of omnipotence, which proves only your economic recovery plan is of any merit or is the only one with guaranteed success. The economy has never worked that way, and neither can an economic recovery plan, so, just be honest about it.

Work Together

Reach across the Aisle and work on legislation which helps the country, not the party. Democracy dies when we refuse to listen, think, and solve problems together. So, come out and speak against the people in your party who alienate, who denigrate, who postulate that the country is in trouble because of the ‘respectable senator’ from the other party.  More than ever, this country needs unity—do something about it.

David Cook
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2012

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Bye, Bye GOP 2012: A Perspective of a Young Voter


I am a 20 year old college student who is registered independent. I was never satisfied with either political party because I feel like all they do is fight and get nothing done for our country. I vote based on the individual and what he or she stands for.

The South Carolina debate on CNN was the first time I ever watched an entire debate. I was amused by the debate, and I was surprised what a theatrical production it was. The beginning introductions, where the candidates walked out, felt like a talk show. “Please welcome Regis Philbin and Kelly Ripa.” Regis and Kelly walk out on that cue and wave to the audience. The audience would be on their feet cheering and clapping really loud. The same was true for the beginning of the political debate. The moderator announced each candidate, and then they walked out waving as if they were celebrities. The audience applauded and cheered as the different candidates walked across the stage.

I could not believe that CNN would start a presidential debate by asking Gingrich the question about his ex-wife. I feel they should be more professional and get right down to the issues. Gingrich had the perfect response that shut the host right up. Looking at this debate from a talk show perspective, this is definitely how they would start a show. Jerry Springer would jump on the opportunity to start his show on a personal subject matter like this.

I was turned off by what some of the candidates had to say about Obama Care. Since my health care is covered under my parents until I’m 26, this is an topic that I’m really concerned about. Romney wants a complete repeal of Obama’s entire health care plan. Gingrich told the audience, “Let’s create jobs so they can pay for their own health care. Parents, elect us because your kids will have work and be able to move out of your house.” Up until this issue, I somewhat agreed with what Romney and Gingrich had to say. I will not support them now because of their positions on health care. Regardless of what they say about creating jobs, we know this is not going to happen. When many students graduate from college, they do not find a job. So many times I heard stories about students who had to go back and work at McDonald’s after college because they couldn’t find any other job. When I tell people that I’m a communications major, the first thing they tell me is how hard it is to find a job. One guy told me, “Good luck finding a job. My daughter got a degree in communications and she works at McDonald’s now.” Thousands of jobs for college students are not going to be created over night.

I don’t see the big deal about releasing tax returns. Gingrich said he released his an hour before the debate. Everyone is making a huge deal about Romney not releasing his taxes yet. Regardless if he does or not, that would never determine whether or not I would vote for him.

I really liked Rick Santorum in this particular debate. I think he spoke from his heart throughout and he is the closest to an “average Joe” on the ballot. His passion about pro-life issues was really inspiring. In his closing arguments, he said that they need to elect the best person to fight Obama and that person is the one who has the most contrast with him on the main issues.

Ron Paul seems to be getting a lot of young voters. In all honesty, I have no idea why. I feel he never really answers the questions. He always brings up that he was a doctor. I think he had a significant career, but there is no need to bring it up every five minutes. When asked about releasing tax returns, he said that he never will. He was completely honest, and no one really questioned him about the issue. Young voters probably like him because he is so direct and to the point. I really liked when Paul told Santorum that he is “overly sensitive.” I would never vote for him because he is too old to be President. After this debate, I don’t think I would vote for any of these four candidates.

Dominick Costantino
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2012

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Brittany Battista's Opinion: South Carolina GOP Debate


Many of the questions asked early in the debate were not high priority topics in my book. They were clearly set for the particular South Carolina audience. I would set three or four key issues that America faces and give a detailed plan of how current plans can be changed, improved or accomplished. I would keep other issues to the side, abortion as one example, all while stating that they are important, but many other changes are needed as well.

As a voter, I find it interesting how Romney adds in how long he’s been married for to sway the voters by pointing out their values. “Only US vet on stage tonight,” was said by Ron Paul purposely. I think Gingrich freaking out and personally attacking CNN’s John King for opening a debate with that question was taking it too far too soon. I agree it shouldn’t have been the first question he asked. I believe Americans will tend to vote for someone who has the same values as their own. Therefore I think it should be a topic that needs to be discussed but not the first question.

I also do not agree with blaming the media for negativity towards them. In a perfect world and if they didn’t react in a negative way to things there would not be any bad press. Charging the media with twisting their words and actions, which I know happens, is a safe loophole that they are using. Within the first 15 minutes there was nothing asked that I really would have liked to hear about. The candidates were asked one question about jobs before they were asked about Romney’s faults as the CEO of a company. They need to be asked the important issues first like jobs, education, healthcare and immigration. Other issues are not as important and they shouldn’t waste their time by answering.

I also do not believe that the Republicans should waste so much energy attacking their opponents and Obama. If they are asked a direct question about their opponents’ faults they can be addresses. Other than that, so many negative remarks give that candidate a negative connotation in my opinion. I would be less likely to vote for them the more they attack others and not building themselves up instead. They only shoot each other in the foot to set themselves apart instead of getting in depth with their own beliefs.

I’m being extremely overdramatic but it appears that every time Romney spoke, he had something to say about Obama. It’s getting very tiresome to hear. I do find that these men have incredible self-control. They bash one another when they are a few feet away from them. No wonder they attack one another, to relieve their stress from previously being publically attacked. It’s amazing to just watch their faces.

The vast majority of the debate was Romney, Santorum and Gingrich with Paul only adding in occasionally. I do not think Ron Paul will be nominated. Even as president he would get eaten alive and walked all over by more aggressive people in the government. Sometimes it’s difficult for me to watch him because I just think of how awkward it would be to see my sweet grandfather verbally attacking someone. I see him as the next one to drop out. Romney and Gingrich will be the last two standing.


Brittany Battista
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2013

Saturday, February 4, 2012

The South Carolina Debate - My Personal Opinion


As a Republican who will vote in the upcoming primaries, I found that Ron Paul was very much in the background for the entire debate and the other candidates made their stand. I noticed all exchanges between candidates were between the other three on the stage. I also noticed that Newt Gingrich does very well at not only defending himself from questions, but throwing them right back at the moderator and making it look like he is right and the moderator is wrong.

The candidates spent some time talking about each other, but they also spoke about the policy wrongdoings of President Obama, which I thought was a good idea. I did not want to hear them attack each other the entire night, which they did not do. The questions were framed more so about the economy and jobs, which I think everyone can agree this was a good direction to go in, because most Americans are concerned with that at the moment.

Personally as a voter, I felt that each of the candidates spoke about what voters wanted to hear. I think that John King spent more time on the minor campaign minutia, than the candidates. When asked a question, some of them gave a few round about answers, but when a policy perspective was presented, they specifically said what they did not like about it and why it was wrong, or they were able to offer an alternative policy. I think those two things are the most important parts of debates, from a voter’s perspective. That is the real substance voter’s need to influence their choices, rather than talking points and commercials.



Ian Foley
Political Science & Communications Studies
Wilkes 2014

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

One Republican to Rule Them All



Last Thursday’s Southern Republican debate was an interesting one.  It separated the men from the boys, the winners from the losers, the strong from the weak.  The obvious front-runners were Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, and Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts.  Though, Romney didn’t come anywhere close to Gingrich, in my opinion.

In the meantime, Ron Paul, current Congressman for Texas’s 14th District and former dilation measurer, and Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania Senator, spoke their minds, sure, but they just weren’t as strong or well-liked.

This debate demonstrated that pandering to your audience is key.  Gingrich was spouting out details specifically related to South Carolina, as well as sporting his oft covered-up Georgia accent, like all he was focused on during this campaign was South Carolina.  He mentioned specifically their potential for oil-drilling as well as the utilization of their various ports.

He was prepared with background information on all of the others, including Romney’s stance on abortion and Paul’s military service.  The man had done his research.  He obviously practiced his answers thoroughly.  His team has got to be impressive, considering the fact that his life is riddled in affair-related scandal, yet those most religious are leaning toward him.  This is in spite of Santorum’s decidedly more conservative views on issues such as contraception.  But then, civil rights are not really the focus of this campaign season.

Gingrich’s dodge of the question of his alleged affair and then request for an open-marriage with his second wife made a powerful statement.  It showed that he is confident enough to at least give the image he can rise above such absurdity.  The audience agreed, as well.  The majority of people seemed to be on his side and he really was right in stating questioning of that subject to start off a political debate on a supposedly reputable and serious new station such as CNN was disappointing.  It seemed as if the moderator was trying to pull some kind of a shock-value stunt to make himself look like he asks the hard questions or something, but it completely backfired on him.

The tax discussion was interesting.  Their views on taxation didn’t stick out to me much, but their views on releasing their records definitely resonated with all watching.  Gingrich was the only one who didn’t avoid the question or make an excuse. Not only that, but he was the only one willing to release his tax records and in fact had earlier that day.  The discussion around this made it sound suspicious of the other candidates to withhold this information.  Even Paul—who had the most legitimate reason not to publicize his taxes—claimed he didn’t want to look bad compared to the other guys because he doesn’t make as much, just appeared to be making a lame excuse.  Romney said he’ll release them when this tax season is over, which made him appear to have something to hide, especially since the nomination could be won by then.  Santorum’s “my computer is home” argument was by far the most ridiculous.  It’s not 1980.  People can access their computers from other places.  Plus, there are other ways to obtain these records.  His excuse was an obvious dodge.

Overall, this debate was an effective one.  A lot of good information was provided, character was tested, and in the end, Paul, Romney and Paul were left to walk home with their tails between their legs.  Gingrich, on the other hand, was triumphant and I believed offered up much to be admired in a candidate.  Even if the majority of his views are not congruent with my views and values, he made it clear he has a plan, he has conviction and he isn’t taking anything from anyone.



Cathryn Frear
Communication Studies 
Wilkes 2012

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

2012 South Carolina Debate: Obamacare = Romneycare


Barack Obama was made out to be a villain, a devil and someone to immediately get rid of during the debate Thursday in South Carolina. Heated words did little if anything to help current presidential hopefuls, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

All four wannabe presidents slated blows against Obama and his current
administration, which could easily be detoured with common sense.  The debate started off with a bang, when Gingrich responded to a question by John King about his ex wife.

Gingrich said to King, "To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.” This self-pronounced hate for the media is not necessarily a good thing being that most of our country bases their perception through the media. What would this heated anger to do for our country? Gingrich might have merited respect of voters in South Carolina, but do we want an easily irritated president; a president that can’t manage to maintain his composure? It seems that Gingrich has consistently shown this irritability throughout the primaries thus far. His inability to control himself will inevitably hurt him down the road.

Gingrich spoke out against Obamacare and spoke of his experience in that aspect leading the charge against “Hilarycare” in the house.  Then made a jab at Obama by saying, “I'd love to do a three-hour Lincoln-Douglas debate with Obama,” “He can use the teleprompter. I'll just rely on my knowledge." Even though reading a teleprompter speech versus a memorized speech has little to do with anything.

Much of Rick Santorum’s attacks focused on a person from his own party, Mitt Romney. Santorum grilled Romney about his Massachusetts health care legislation bill, calling it “Romneycare.” “When he was governor of Massachusetts, he put forth "Romneycare," which was not a bottom-up, free-market system. It was a government-run health care system that was the basis of "Obamacare." And it has been an abject failure, and he has stood by it,” said Santorum. This nit picky fighting between parties will inevitably divide Republicans and the rest of our nation when it comes to a Republican nomination. It is easy to see that Santorum is just trying to claw back into the race with low blows. This constant fighting between candidates leaves an easy weakness, their lack of loyalty to their party.

Mitt Romney repeatedly used his all too familiar go-to strategy of focusing everything back on Obama. Romney said things like “I know we're going to hit it hard from President Obama, but we're going to stuff it down his throat and point out it is capitalism and freedom that makes America strong.” When asked if there was anything he would have done differently in his campaign he said,  "I wish I took all the time I spent talking about one of these guys on stage and spent it talking about Obama." Romney looked a bit off when trying to relate to American people, he said, "I've lived in the real streets of America." This statement is a bit off-putting because Romney is a multi-millionaire, multi-millionaires don’t live on the real streets of America.

Ron Paul barely had a voice during this debate. At one point the crowd started screaming when John King skipped him on an abortion question. Paul was allowed little say in this debate but when he was given a chance, he shouted out to his military donors.

Overall, the winner of this debate was definitely Newt Gingrich led solely on Gingrich’s ability to react very hostilely toward John King at the very beginning thus creating momentum throughout the debate. Romney was overshadowed by Gingrich’s aggressive behavior and attacks at his own expense regarding similarities between Romney’s “Romneycare” bill and Obama’s “Obamacare” bill.

Bryan Calabro
Communication Studies/Integrated Media
Wilkes 2013