Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. 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 Joshua Pellew's Vote: A Young Voter Manifesto



As a young voter, and college student certain issues in this upcoming election matter. Mainly job creation, health care, foreign affairs, and now forever increasing fuel prices matter to me the most. The first time I voted in 2008 the issues were about change getting out of these financial deficits that were still currently dealing with. I feel that this upcoming election we voters have a very difficult choice on our hands. Do we stay with our current president who (I feel) has done most of what he can or do we elect a new president (one of the republic candidates) to take control and possibly change things.

Currently the vote on the republic candidates is between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney and I personally thing neither one of them has a decent plan for changing the current issues that concern me. As a young American currently heading into the job market what jobs will be available to me? Will I be able to get a job in my field willing to pay enough so that I can obtain my own medical insurance, pay back my student loans, and even maintain a living on my own?

This is what I’m afraid of the most. I’m not sure I fully believe in any candidates plan for change in the current administration, I think there should be a complete revamp of congress with people who have experience and some general compassion for not just the middle class but for all people. I am not a strong supporter of anyone of these candidates even though Santorum’s solutions moderately speak to me. I feel he is only winning because his financial contributions and popularity not for his solutions. Although, I am not happy with my choices now that Ron Paul is a “non-factor” in this race but the president’s administration has not completely failed us, we are getting there little by little.

Another issue of mine is the U.S. involvement in foreign affair how we must come to the rescue of every country that is in the mist of civil warfare and spread our democracy, but how can we spread our government when our government is beginning to fail us? I feel the U.S. should stay out of foreign affairs unless issues of genocide and civil war are at stake. The problem is between the uses of Soft power (humanitarianism) vs. Hard power (military). The U.S. should only focus on regional conflict and global security not spending money and sacrificing U.S. personal. With many of my family members as active duty soldiers including my youngest sister, I would hate to see the U.S. involved in matters it has no business in.

Overall, the U.S. and the state it’s in have left me wondering for my future. I’m that who every wins the presidential election knows that in order to restore the country everyone must reach some sort of common ground otherwise I’m moving to Canada.

Joshua Pellew
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2012

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Politico: A Credible Political Blog


For the media watch assignment, I was assigned to Politico. My first observations were that this is a news blog, not a newspaper or proper journalistic source. Yet, Politico is often regarded fairly highly, as if it were an actual news source. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because the news is accurate. However, it is definitely a slanted view that does not offer two sides of an issue. Although they do recognize Mitt Romney as a front runner in the Republican race, they do not necessarily favor him. There were articles that painted him in a negative light, particularly regarding his social policies.

Politico is now included in the list of news sources that send updates to my cell phone. This turned out to be an advantage to me because it was the first source that informed me that President Obama had overturned his stance on mandating birth control from employers and health providers. I think it is important that they were so quick to report on this because it was such a controversial issue at the time. It was controversial for reasons including views on abortion, and bringing the church into issues of government. It was important to be reported factually, and to satisfy the people’s need to know what’s going on in the regard of scandal, which is not always newsworthy, but it is something that people do want to know about. Politico had this story as breaking news before any of the other news sources that I follow which includes CNN, USA Today, ABC, The Associated Press, and my local paper, the Scranton Times.

The website is always set up with a large picture at the top. This picture accompanies their top story for that given moment. For a while, these photos included Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich, in regard to talking about the Republican nomination race. After the primary election day which included Missouri and Minnesota, this shifted. Instead of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum became more important. They started reporting negative articles about Newt Gingrich. For example, on February 14th, a story ran with the headline “No Guarantees for Gingrich in Georgia.” This headline alone leads us to believe that Gingrich will fail in the Georgia primary, even though Georgia is his home state. The article goes on to say that he is still favored there, but for readers who may only read the headlines and not the rest of the article, it is already framed that Gingrich will not do well there. This primary is not set to happen until March 6th, yet a decision has already been made regarding the potential outcome.

As far as the most recent debate was concerned, below is the large picture that ran. It features Rick Santorum holding his finger up to Mitt Romney, as they discuss issues regarding government spending. Harsh language was used in this article, especially in the lead paragraph, which sets the tone for the rest of the article. “Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum tore into each other’s records on government spending, health care, abortion rights and more on Wednesday night, quickly turning the crucial Arizona primary debate into a flurry of charges and counter-charges that reflected the bitter tone of the GOP race. Notice that words such as “harsh” and “bitter” are used right in this first paragraph. This shows that the news may not be reported in a straightforward manner. There is opinion there, and it is important for the audience to know that from the beginning before taking what is said as ultimate truth.


Gillyan Gowarty
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2013

Monday, February 20, 2012

A True Patriot: Barack Obama SOTU 2012



President Barack Obama started out his fourth the State of the Union (SOTU) in a smart way: patriotism.  He said the Iraq War was successful and the killing of Osama bin Laden was also included in this section of the speech.  While I agree that finally murdering his assembly was pretty much the greatest take down since Adolf Hitler took down himself, I cannot stand beside the President on his position of the Iraq War.  It’s really not his fault, as he inherited it from President George W. Bush, there is no way he can possibly actually believe it was a success.  There was no way that war could be successful because it wasn’t started for a real reason at all.  It started with a war on weapons of mass destruction.  Then we found out those didn’t exist.  Then it was dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Where the transition was made from WMDs to freedom, the world may never know.  The point is, I think the President was saying what he had to.  It’s not like he could go out and admit losing American soldiers’ lives didn’t end in a successful way so much as just end.  That wouldn’t show confidence and could even be misinterpreted as anti-American.  Which is the last thing he needs.

Next, Obama moved to the American Dream, another move to instill feelings of patriotism and togetherness in the American people.  He wants to bring jobs back to America by stopping offering tax breaks to companies who outsource would-be jobs for Americans.  He called this a restoration of American values.  That was smart.  It makes people think of moving jobs overseas as not only irresponsible, but as a move specifically against America.  Which, yeah, it pretty much is.  That inference is accurate.  To move our economic potential somewhere else is a very me-centric way of thinking.  Based on the way the American economy has been heading these last 10 years or so, that’s not working out so great.

On the same lines, Obama said he wants to become more energy independent as well as for more United States markets to go international with their products; investigate unfair trading in China; and train more Americans in a specific trade.  All of these ideas can be said in sum by using just three words: jobs, jobs, jobs.  And this is very important to the American people right now.  Millions of folks are out there struggling because their either under qualified due to a failure of an educational system or because there just aren’t jobs in their specialty available.  The aforementioned actions would open up millions more jobs for Americans and give the economy a major boost.

Then, Obama started talking about education and I had a lot of moments where I just didn’t know why he was saying what he was saying.  If I were to offer advice to him it would be this: DO reward teachers; DO offer the tuition tax credit for college students; punish educational institutions for unreasonable raises in tuition rates; DON’T torture teachers and the children by keeping kids in school against their will until they’re 18.  That last one is a biggie.  Because there really is no benefit to it.  There is a tiny possibility a student or two will change their tune between the ages of 16 and 18, but it’s not worth all of the other kids’ educational and possibly emotional suffering.  It’s a waste of teachers’ time and tax-payers’ dollars.

Then, Obama moved onto the subject of immigration.  To no one’s surprise, it’s the same thing he has been saying for years.  Guess he’s not rushing to actually jump on that issue.

Here he discussed the almighty dollar.  He said he wants to extend tax breaks to small businesses to help them grow more easily, continue providing grants to medical and technological projects, capitalize on this country’s natural gas resources and provide money to improve local infrastructure.  It was like the republicans’ worst nightmare except the part about natural gas.  I agree with pretty much all of this except I am a little annoyed at the desire to siphon all of America’s natural resources.  It’s hurting the earth.  Which is sad.  Because we all live here and Earth can’t even defend itself, save for hurricanes and tsunamis.  We need to work harder on alternative energy.  Can you even imagine the strides we could have made here if instead we had spent the gargantuan number of dollars pumped into Operation Iraqi Freedom on energy research?  Obama also said later in his speech he wants to provide more jobs for veterans.  I think we should educate and train them for use in various energy projects, the ones who aren’t retired, anyway.  But, that is a ridiculous idea which I have no defense for.

Other positives on the money front included the fact that Americans can officially refinance at historically low rates, saving up to $3000 per year and a crack down on large-scale fraud and vowed to have the Financial Crimes unit protect investments so the disaster of the economy of 2008 will never happen again.  I don’t know a lot about refinancing or the economy, so I don’t have a whole lot to say about all that.  But what I do know and what I will say is that’s a bold claim, being that Obama will not be president forever.

He also promised a crack down on insider trading in Congress.  Am I alone in being really taken aback by this?  Maybe I’m just not paying attention or try to see the good in people too much, but the fact that insider trading is happening within Congress is astonishing.  Because obviously people know about it.  Because it is a big enough issue for the President to address it in the State of the Union Address.  It’s just another example of the rich using corrupt methods to get richer.  If these rich people want to complain about the economy, how about the top one-percent all give ten-percent of their money to the government and fix it.  Instead, they’re too concerned with making more money they don’t need and will never use.

The idea of interacting with Iran at all makes me shake in my boots.  Remember when they sent that pink plane back?  They know where we live.  And they do not like us.  But, I have little hope Obama or anyone else is going to go over and develop any sort of diplomatic plan.  This is America.  We don’t say, we do.  Ask Japan.  They learned that the hard way.  But none of us are looking to the total destruction of Earth that may be World War III and I’m afraid what we’re doing messing around with Iran and North Korea is going to be the start of something terrible.

Obama concluded his speech with: "Each time I look at that flag, I'm reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those 50 stars and those 13 stripes. No one built this country on their own. This nation is great because we built it together. This nation is great because we worked as a team."  I agree.  And I think we can do it again.  Yes we can.


Cathryn Frear
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2012

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