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