Election Day 2008

It’s over. The longest and most expensive presidential campaign in U. S. history ended last night with Barack Obama’s clear victory, both in the electoral and popular vote. His victory did not come easy; he had to outfight formidable opponents in Hillary Clinton and John McCain and persuade Americans that he had the ability to lead them in tough times. But the precision and professionalism with which he and his advisors ran his campaign made him the decisive winner and gave America its first African American president. It was a stunning moment, especially for people like me who vividly remember that less than fifty years ago, segregation was legal in the South and de facto segregation was pervasive in the North. Barack Obama’s victory does not mark the end of racism in the United States, but I think that it marks the beginning of the end.

This election galvanized voters of all parties. Everywhere I went yesterday, people sported “I Voted” stickers and were eager to discuss the election. My husband and I went to West Springfield High School at 7:15 AM to vote and found that the line was already snaking its way out of the building. But despite the early hour and the long line, people were upbeat and talkative, energized (in part) by the coffee and baked goods volunteers were selling outside, but mostly by a keen awareness that we were taking part in a historic election. Our long line moved swiftly, and in less than an hour, my husband and I were inside the school and voting. The use of scannable paper ballots made it possible for more people to vote at once, and this new voting method kept the line moving and frustration low. What about you? What happened when you went to vote?

On Mason’s campus, the weather was dreary and damp, but spirits were high.

Student Government ran vans to the Woodson High School polling place, and volunteers promoted this service by becoming “human advertisements.”

Rain apparently, does not damper revolutions!


This guy stole my heart!

Our university was not without its own drama. Yesterday morning, a hacker broke into the Provost’s email account and sent out a fake message announcing that the election had been moved to November 5th. Rumors circulated that Mason students who voted could lose their financial aid.

But such lame attempts proved ineffective against the smart and savvy youthful voters who went to the polls in record numbers. Your demographic – voters between the ages of 18 and 25 – voted overwhelmingly for Obama and helped power him to victory. Now it’s your turn to act upon that mandate and consider how you will help him guide our nation toward economic recovery, energy reform, and improved security both at home and abroad.

How will you meet the challenge Obama made to all Americans in his victory speech last night that change can’t happen without “a new spirit of patriotism, a new spirit of sacrifice?” How has this election influenced your outlook on the future and the role you will play in it as a working professional?

Gauging Impact of Obama's Race

This article poses the question of the relevance of race in the 2008 election. Also, it states that this election is unlike any other election in history, due to Senator Obama's family background of a white mother and a African-American father. Thus, leading the author to question the motives of voters who vote against Senator McCain. The author uses the motives of voters to substantiate his argument that the polls aren't a good indicator of which candidate American's actually want as their president, because they don't want to be labeled as a racist for voting against Senator Obama. Essentially, this article questions the credibility of white voters as well as undecided voters. Because race overshadows both presidential candidates views, it will ultimately be the deciding factor of who will win the election.

Article from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122513480246872949.html

Do you think this article is correct when it states that race basically overshadows credentials in this election? Also, do you think the majority of votes for Senator Obama will be out of fear of being labeled a racist? Finally, do you viewing our election in terms of black versus white sets America back about 450 years, because of it's inability to overlook race in its most important election?

When Your Political Opinion Isn't Yours Alone

Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122359949981721549.html

During the recent presidential debates, many people have obviously noticed the graph representing the undecided Ohio voters down at the bottom of the screen. As these undecided voters turned the knobs on their dials, the results showed millions of viewers the reactions to what Senator Obama and Senator McCain were saying. Some may find the graph interesting while others just find them annoying. The issue with this graph is that “recent psychological experiments suggest they influence viewers’ judgments.” These reactions have been compared to a live audience reaction. When the line goes up the audience is cheering and applauding, and when it goes down the opposite. If they are airing the focus groups reactions, shouldn’t they air the live audience’s reactions as well? Better yet, if CNN is showing these reactions, the audience should be able to react to what the candidates are saying, instead of having to agree to stay quiet. Below is a video of how the graph worked during the second debate.

For 2008's presidential debates, CNN has assembled focus groups that use handheld dials to record their sentiments. Those reactions are displayed in real time on the bottom of the screen. Watch a clip of the technology in use.

Two previous studies have been done to show that audience reaction really impacts the way people think. In one study, 94 college students watched an excerpt from the 1984 election between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale with feedback that was changed to favor one candidate or the other. “Those who saw pro-Reagan feedback were 2.8 times more likely to say they would have voted for Mr. Reagan than those in the Mondale group; in the pro-Mondale group participants were 1.8 times more likely to say they would have voted for Mr. Mondale.”

When asked about this chart, Mr. Bohrman said, “It’s another layer of information, but I don’t buy that it’s swaying people’s votes.” But studies have already shown the opposite. Although this necessarily is not a live audiences' reaction, isn't it pretty close to it? Although the graph may have no influence on you, how might it affect undecided voters?

Discussion Questions

Do you personally think airing a focus group’s reactions sways voters’ opinions or does it keep voters engaged?

If you have noticed it, have these graphs affected your opinions about either candidate?

Do you really see a need for this graph to be shown at the bottom of the screen or should it be removed? If it should be removed, for what reasons?

Obama, McCain, in a Rarity, Cast Votes

Through the 2008 presidency, Senators Barack Obama, and John McCain have missed hundreds of panel votes within the Capitol involving the financial crisis package. The package stated that 700 billion dollars would go for the bail out of the American Crisis. On this day, both Barack Obama and Johm McCain voted for this bill, therefore it is now on its way to the House for future voting. Obama stated that "this is not just an Wall Street Crisis- it is an American crisis, and it's the the American economy that needs the rescue plan." On October 1, 2008, both Barack Obama and John McCain made their way to Washington in order to vote for the bill on the hill. On the floor was seen Obama made a speech in favor of the bill and McCain refused to speak. As said by John McCain Independence, Missouri, "If the Financial rescue bill fails in Congress yet again, the present crisis will return into a disaster." Shockingly, many records have shown that Senator John McCain, since January 4, 2008, has missed "over four hundred and twenty votes, or about sixty five percent of all votes since the hundred and tenth Congress was convened. It is also shown that even Obama has missed "three hundred and three votes, or about fourty seven percent. My first question starts as, If a Seneator running for president was really that concerened on the financial crisis within our society, then why did it take him four hundred and twenty votes, in order to make his statement?Since the turn within the financial crisis and its slow outcome, it has shown that the democratic campaign is pulling ahead within the election. The public recently has felt that the democratic party is more capable in handling the economy opposed to the republicans. Since this fluctuation, Obama has been recieving support from Pennsylvannia, Ohio and Florida, the three states in which always sway within their votes. I feel that after reading this article and watching the vice presidential debate, I feel that McCain went farther into a hole because Palin does not have enough experience in politics in order to be the vice president. Even though she has first hand knowledge of the oil and electric, she does not have enough knowledge of what exactly is going on outside of the United States. With McCain already losing a massive amout of votes because of the Presidential debate, his hostility did not do a big impact either in the Senate voting since he did not make a speech during the bill voting. While the article is all for Obama and his pull ahead within the campaign, it also focuses on McCain and his fall of votes within the campaign. Since the debate just came to a closure, in your opinion, do you think that Palin was able the hold her own against Biden, or did she just ruin the election for McCain? Also after reading this article, do you think that Biden and Palin were accurate when talking about the financial crisis, since Barack Obama and John McCain both voted for the bill? Do all of their views follow the views of the bill? Article from:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122289387980195519.html

How much of someone else’s money would you spend to be president?

Washington Post Article

The presidential election is a race that all of America can bet on. We can show how confident we are that we’ve “bagged us a winner” by simply throwing our money like confetti in the wake of our respective nominees marching toward the winners circle or oval in this case. However, if you wagered more on your candidate does that mean you’ve increasing their chances of winning?

The 2008 presidential election between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama has become a spending spree for the ages. In a recently released diagnostic by the Wall Street Journal, the two nominees have managed to spend over a half a billion (685.3 million) on their combined campaigns. With Senator Obama way out spending Senator McCain. In fact, his over all expenses more than double those of the humbled John McCain. This combined total is already about the entire spending of 2000 presidential election and easily more than half of 2004.

Financial Spending for the last 3 Presidential Elections

“You’ve got to spend money to make money,” that’s what they’ve always said. Only neither of these two candidates are selling the American people anything other than themselves. If that’s the cases, then Obama must be about twice the worth of McCain right? And if so, his words and promises must be as well. Senator Obama has promised to turn this country around with no more “wasteful spending on obsolete federal government programs that make no financial sense.” Yet he feels that a necessary expenditure would be to market himself to the American people by nearly twice as often as his opponent. If his ideas were solid, then why would we need to hear them twice. Maybe it's because he's not telling them the first time? Does the man with less experience at dealing with financial problems but the more promises to fix them, deserve my money or more importantly my vote?

Where pray tell do we imagine Obama’s going to pay back all this barrowed money from? It certainly won’t be out of the pocket books of those rich, “fat-cat” republicans that refuse to throw their hard money behind McCain; will it? It’s not like they deserve it anyways.

In the last couple of months there has come a dramatic swing in McCain’s spending for his campaign. In a lot of ways it seems to be bringing him back from the brink of defeat and putting him back on his feet. Does this mean that you can buy your way into the white with someone else’s money or did McCain randomly just become more appealing to you too?