The Internet's Effect on 2008 Presidential Campaigns

Here is a look at how the candidates utilized their technological resources througout the campaigning process. I think in the future candidates will be able to do much more as our technology advances, but how much is too much? Does it get a little over the top at some point?

Campaign of 2008

The campaign of 2008 was one that I thought was more in favor of the candidate than the party. There didn't seem to be much competition among republicans. Johnny McCain seemed to lock up the vote for the GOP pretty quick despite facing stiff competition from Mitt Romney, Rudi Guiliani and Huckabee. On the Democrats side Barack Obama got a little bit of momentum and ended up shooting down Hillary's dream faster than the Jamaican track team's performance in the 2008 Olympics. To me it was the storylines of the election that I found fascinating.
Due to it being 2008, campaigns became a lot more interactive among the people. Technology being the main cause of this. Both Obama and McCain utilized all facets of life, from radio to television to internet. It was like nothing I had ever seen before. Kerry and Bush in 2004 didn't use the latter nearly as much as 2008 candidates did in my opinion (My mind might be a little fuzzy in 2004 but I'm pretty sure it wasn't nearly as much). While candidates dominated the election season in 2008 there was no question that this was the year it should have happened.
Many Americans were unhappy with the previous administration and how they had handled many issues in the last eight years and thought it was time for change. John McCain was the sacrificial lamb for the GOP in my opinion. Did they really have a chance after Bush and Cheney's administration. If you're approval rating dips below 50 percent among your own party, you must have done something wrong. McCain seemed like the most moderate candidate for the job after 8 years of a very conservative president. McCain thought Sarah Palin would breathe some life into their campaign and resurrect the republican party so he brough her on as his vice-presidential candidate. That worked for about a week with normal Americans (longer with clueless soccer and hockey moms, my girlfriends included).
Barack Obama on the other hand was the talk of the election. After eight years of conservative rule in the White House, the people wanted change. When Obama had enough steam behind his campaign and Hillary finally conceded, Obama couldn't be stopped. With his campaigns going door to door to houses (I didn't answer) to let it be known Mr. Obama wanted your vote. Hearing his voice on the airwaves and and on my yahoo homepage must have gotten to be pretty expensive. It didn't matter though because he had raised so much money that it wasn't an issue. Democrats essentially just got out of the way and let him do his thing because that is how badly they needed the White House. Was he bigger than the democratic party? Yes he was.
To me 2008 was so big not because of the parties, disarray, or money spent on the campaigns, but because for once I saw some humility from the nominees of both parties. Actual human beings instead of some robot politician doing whatever their party wants.

Can Money Be a Force For Good?

I just kind of stumbled across this article and was pretty amused by how some of this works. I think last night I was kind of overwhelmed with the reading and all of the numbers they were throwing out and this was kind kind of a refreshing new look at this instead of from a text book. To learn of how money is raised and how technology has helped politicians raise money instead of taking it from their respected political parties shows that campaigns are already and expensive and could get even more expensive, but if it's all money from donors like us as everyday people we as tax payers I think should be honored that we get to give money, no matter how much, to the person that we think will run this country the best. I'm still left wondering though, will campaign finance laws change with the times?

Module 3

Primaries are a great thing. Just yesterday I got to go and vote in a primary for who would be village president. The guy I voted for won so I can say that I am very pleased with the outcome. That doesn't always happen, but I think primaries are great because they show what's likely to come in the future in certain elections like this that are local and even national. According to the book, "an important outcome of having the primary system is that party leaders have been sensitized to the interests and feelings of the most active rank and file members". Candidates usually want to place well in primaries so that they can get more funding from their party, depending on how important that persons seat is to win will depend on how much money they throw the candidates way. While I think "political machines" and bosses have been brought down by primaries, I also think that with the downfall of those people, the media has come in and become just as influential in what we see everyday. I do not think it was intended for the media to come in and become as influential as it has, but as you can see in events like conventions, they have transformed it into some sort of Hollywood award ceremony like the golden globes or oscars.
Campaign finance reform is a little different than the nominating process. I think the new reforms haven't really achieved some of their goals that they thought it would get to. It hasn't made the cost of campaigns limited. Campaigns have become more expensive times 10 in the last thirty years. People that are running for office often rely on campaign funds from many people and groups. Presidential candidates though can often raise more money through privately raising money and not incurring that many limitations. Look at how Bush got the nomination in 2000 over McCain. McCain ran out of money pretty much, while Bush had managed to rais over 100 million dollars. PAC's will donate money but it depends usually on the candidate and what they can do for them by winning the seat or maintaining the seat. PAC's are necessary for candidates because they give much needed donations in order to campaign, but I think it's still like borrowing money from a relative or friend because it's held over your head, if you don't really believe in their cause. I think primaries and don't really affect how much money is regulated towards each candidate in an election. You have your strongholds in government locally and in the state that you don't really have to worry about, so your national party will give you money depending on how close they think the race will be for you. Obviously if they think it will be a closer race they will pump more money into your campaign in order to try to be a winner in the election. I think that if you have the money to campaign and backing from state party leaders that you are in good shape in terms of having a chance to win an election. Factions in these elections have been a good thing because they are usually donating large sums of money to the candidate that will help their cause, and it helps create bi-partisanship because it seperates people and draws a line in the sand of what a person will and won't vote for.

GOP gubernatorial candidate Whitman outlines stands

After reading chapters 1 and 2 in Hetherington I thought this article on Ebay executive Meg Whitman was quite fascinating. Some of her beliefs, like many other republicans, are too conservative for Californians, who usually in presidential elections vote democratic, but have the Terminator who is a republican, in office. Are her beliefs about gay marriage and not giving help to undocumented immigrants some of the issues that would hold her back from winning the election of governor in a couple years? I think these are some issues that in other states might help her, but because of her location and geography will only hurt her. I just thought this was an interesting little piece of what hurts her in Cali, could help her in a place that bleeds red, like a southern state or Colorado, which has voted republican as of lately. Coming off more moderately might have helped her on a few of these issues here. Could being moderate on the issue of gay marriage hurt her in other red states, most certainly. I just find it interesting that a person's poison in one state could be a person's gold in another state.

Decentralization

Decentralization is something that has to be done in order to make sure our whole way of life runs smoothly. The federal government couldn't possibly be expected to do everything for everybody. That's why they place it in the hands of our local and state governements. With that being said our congress people (they aren't just men anymore people) and senators have the responsibility to address our issues that we have within the state such as potholes in the road (mighty big ones too at this time of year), homicides, water main breaks (incidently one outside my house the other day), and other issues that people may have within their district. The state and local governments broke down all of these problems into different branches so that everything could be settled fast and efficient. We have the police to deal with homicides, the water department to deal with my water main break, and even look at the Department of Public Instruction. Shorewood has to go to school longer every day because if they don't have enough contact hours with students their funding will get cut. Could the feds deal with all of the problems I have addressed right here? Probably not. If I called Mr. President and told him that I had a water main broke he'd pry say "Take your wife to the hospital there's nothing I can do about it". To put it simply, they have bigger fish to fry.
Decentralization is a logical response to heterogeneity because throughout the United States you can definately see people have different beliefs on certain issues. Each state and local government is different because of this. Ranging from how harsh certain penalties are if you commit a crime to what is done in cases of abortions, states all have different ideas and penalties for these issues (not just these issues though, a plethora of them.) Look at presidential election of 1964 when Goldwater ran against Johnson. Southern states had been primarily democratic states in the past, until the issues of segragation came up and Goldwater said that he would leave that up to the states. Guess who won all the states in the confederate states that election....Goldwater. (I guess we could say racism turned the south red huh?) Now that's a sad situation but it just goes to show that is what can happen when you take some control out of the feds hands and place it in the local and state governments lap.
Right now obviously the President is in control of the democratic party. How can he not be? With all of this hope for change out there that he's promised the democrats look at him as a savior right now, especially since they no longer have to worry about a republican presiden anymore and they have control of the house and senate.
To be honest with you I'm not sure who is in control of the republican party. Sarah Palin seems to want to make a run at the White House in 2012, but she's not in the senate or house. McCain is still too moderate for some hardcore conservatives. Frist was always a big player in my book for how he felt about stem cell research despite his party affiliation. I think the republicans need some new blood. The old white guy doesn't do the job anymore. In my opinion neither will the hockey mom. When I hear my girlfriends mom say "she's like a lot of other moms out there, I like her", that's too much for me. I don't need anyone running the country that's as smart as her (not saying that my gf's mom is dumb, I just don't want ordinary running the country).
It will matter going forward in terms of the presidency. I don' t think it will matter in terms of local government as much, because we very rarely (at least where I live) see a lot of changes in the districts around here. Voters are too set in their ways locally to change that I believe.

Sigh of relief for homeowners?

I guess you could say that it helps some people out. It's supposed to also breathe some life into the struggling market. While it may do that, I like that the President Obama is at least trying to make an effort to meet some of the demands that the GOP has asked for in this stimulus package. While I'm sure the president won't make them happy about everything in the stimulus package, it's nice to know that he is willing to work with them during this crucial period. Heck it seems like he's more willing to work the GOP than "dubya" was during some of his days in office. Sorry I just wish I could say that out loud to everyone. Is there anyway to do voice posts in these blogs?

Political Parties...It's not keg and eggs

A lot of people think they know what political parties are all about. Heck I used to think I did, but now I realize how clueless I have been all these years. Now I just think people that represent us don't like to pay their taxes We all know that Republicans want tax cuts, no abortion, and no gay marriage. We know that Demi's want to spend money (800 billion dollar stimulus plan), gay marriage, and a womans right to choose if she wants her baby. While the bi-partisanship is one of the great things about America, I wouldn't call political parties families or anything. Although, President Obama is certainly trying to sway the GOP with their bellies. The beauty of all of this is though that political parties represent you and the rest of the people of the United States. Everyone is so happy now with the "change" and "hope" and all else that comes with the newly appointed President Obama. A lot of americans smelled what Barack was cookin. Everyone (take exception to felons and minors) has a vote that counts in the United States. People vote for the political party that they think can benefit their lives the best. Call it a preference or an allegiance to one party if you will, but I dont know many people that just switch the party that they usually vote for. I live in Waukesha county though, so it seems as if everyone here is republican. I get thrown into the fire for having some moderate views on things around here. Political Parties are around so while coming up with rules and regulations in this country, hopefully the person that you voted for is representing you and doing the best they can in order to make sure that what is done for americans is done with tireless effort.