Teens On '12

Phillips Academy's New Media Studies Class on the 2012 Presidential Election. Fifteen students. Dynamic discourse. Honest political opinions. var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-35984214-1']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();

[teenson12-blog]

Mark Horvath Asks Homeless People About Political Issues in 2012 Election

[teenson12-blog]

What about the Homeless?

Yesterday, two ex-homeless men came to Andover to talk about their experiences on the streets. I learned about how they went from average young adults to people who had little hope for themselves. They were lucky- and were able to do what was necessary to step back into housing and be accepted by caring people. What I got from their stories was a promise to help those in need (without putting myself at risk) and more questions.

Leaving the building, the same place where we followed the election coverage, I made a connection. Rather, I noticed the absence of one. How, when I was studying the election for an entire term, did I not hear ANYTHING about the homeless and their role in politics. Not only are they often invisible in the public eye, but they also go unnoticed in the public political sphere. This is a major problem because many social programs are created for them. I listened as Ed told me about how he would rather sleep out instead of in a shelter because of the safety of his possessions and the way the condescending workers treated him. When it comes to making improvements, who knows better than the people themselves. Both Paul and Ed agreed that to solve the homeless problem, it takes more than temporary shelters and church volunteers. Organizations need to focus on treating the underlying causes- great personal loss, addiction, abuse, mental health – if any changes are going to be made. If the homeless had a chance to speak out through all of the political banter, maybe the progression of social organizations would better assess their needs.

http://blog.cottonwooddetucson.com/2012_01_01_archive.html

A homeless man asking for help who is ignored in passing.

According to nationalhomeless.org, “[The] turnout among homeless voters is one of the lowest for any demographic.” Recent voter ID laws do certainly not help this. Paul mentioned how he needed a social security card (he is a US born citizen) but could not do so without an official ID. Except he needed a social security card to get that ID! People from low socioeconomic backgrounds have to struggle to get basic things that others don’t think twice about. Sure, the voter ID laws would make voting more secure, but that makes many homeless unable to vote. Ed, even though he had problems in his life, still followed politics and without a doubt knows more than me. So why should I get to vote about social issues over him?

  At the end, both men said that the most important thing is just to show that you recognize that homeless people are actual people. Being on the streets is not easy on your body or your ego, and the most painful part is feeling less than a person. If they could have recognition among peers AND in the political sphere, perhaps they would have more hope for their futures.

~Holly 

[teenson12-blog]

Cliffhanger

Someone hit the brakes! Hurry, the road is ending! This is what I picture in my mind every time I hear “fiscal cliff.” It’s been a big buzzword I’ve seen since during the Presidential race, all over Twitter, Television, and news websites. Even if you don’t what it is, you know it’s bad. I only had a vague idea of what was going on, so I decided to look more into this dangerous topic.

According to investopedia, the “fiscal cliff” is a combination of expiring tax cuts and across-the-board government spending cuts scheduled to become effective December 31, 2012. The Bush tax cuts will expire, unemployment benefits will be reduced, Medicare funding will be cut, and spending will greatly decrease. According to CNN, 277,000 jobs could be at stake, putting defense workers, food inspectors, air traffic controllers, and several other federal workers in danger. A ticking time bomb.

If the government allows the fiscal cliff continue as planned, it could have a huge, detrimental effect on the still-recovering economy. Taking $500 billion out of the economy, it could possibly send us back into recession. Household incomes would be reduced, unemployment increased, and consumer and investor confidence decreased. On the brighter side, allowing the fiscal cliff would also greatly reduce the enormous federal deficit; it would be the biggest single-year drop in the annual deficit since 1969.

To solve this imminent problem, Congress and President Obama will have to work together to come to an agreement on what to do. Republican and Democrat disagreement and the election have delayed the formulation of a solution, but now there are just four weeks before cuts become effective. President Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest two percent of Americans and maintain the current tax rates for the remaining 98% of Americans while Republicans want significant reform on Medicare and Social Security in the deal. With the debt ceiling also quickly approaching, the President and Congress will have a lot on their plates in the coming weeks. I am hoping Congress can put some of their differences aside and come to a bipartisan conclusion so America doesn't have to suffer from Republican-Democrat quarrels while the clock ticks away.

-Jonathan

Sources:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiscalcliff.asp#axzz2Dfg7ZfZ5 http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/07/news/economy/obama-win-fiscal-cliff/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/economy/federal-jobs-fiscal-cliff/index.html?iid=EL http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/27/news/economy/debt-ceiling/index.html

[teenson12-blog]

We Do, Indeed, Have a Say

Who said that the youth vote didn’t matter? The 2012 presidential election is a strong indicator of the impact that young voters can have on the results of any election. According to exit polls, 19% of the voter turnout was between the ages of 18-29, amounting to approximately 23 million people. This percentage went up from the 2008 and 2004 election, in which youths represented 18% and 17% respectively. An immense number of eligible youths showed up at the polls, seeing that they only represent 21% of the eligible voting population. Youths had a large impact on the election outcome because such a large percentage of them voted.

The youth vote played a major role in Obama’s reelection. Obama secured a win for the second time because the youth voted they way that they did. From matters like gay marriage to the engagement of the federal government, youth voters tended to vote with the Democratic Party. 60% of youth votes were towards Obama, while the remaining 36% voted for Romney. According to the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, Obama won the election thanks to the youth vote. Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Pennsylvania would not have gone Obama if it were not for the youth vote because, in those states, he captured less than half of the voters over the age of 30. This is a change from the 2008 election, where the youth vote only affected three states. The Center for Information and Research on Civil Learning and Engagement stated that if no one under the age of 30 had voted, these states would have swung towards Romney. In this case, Romney would have won the Electoral College. If Romney could have secured the youth vote, we would probably have a different president today. 

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/21766_447487368620871_1122779254_n.jpg

The Pew Research Center conducted a study on how the youth vote has differed from their older counterparts. This research has shown that the elections from the years 1976 to 2000, the opinions of the separate generations remained relatively small. In 2004, a gap started to appear.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/26/young-voters-supported-obama-less-but-may-have-mattered-more/

What can we learn from all of these numbers, charts, and percentages? The youth vote matters. Just because we don’t have the experience that older people have, does not mean that our opinions should be discounted. After all, if it weren’t for us, the course of history would have been different. 

Emily C.

[teenson12-blog]

The Road to Disenfranchisement or Democracy?

     The issue of voter fraud rose to the forefront during this election cycle due to proposed legislation, by Republicans, to introduce voter identification laws in certain states. Previous to the election, thirty states actually had some form of a voter identification requirement, however the strictness of these laws varied greatly from state to state. For example, in Georgia you must present a government issued photo id, in Missouri you could simply present a bank statement as your identification, and in Mississippi there is no voter identification law.  

     The American left quickly countered the Republican effort for stricter voter identification laws and characterized this proposed legislation as voter disenfranchisement; the NAACP President Ben Jealous went as far to characterize these proposed laws ‘[as] Jim Crow voter oppression laws.’  And the Obama campaign organized a ‘Weekend of Action,’ in which campaign personnel educated voters in key swing states on how to challenge and get around the laws.  The strongest argument made by the Democrats is simply whether or not the ends would justify the means. Does it really make sense to risk disenfranchising voters in the hopes of reducing a relatively negligible issue? According to News21, in-person voter fraud on election is virtually nonexistent, and they claim that this crime is committed at a rate of only 1 in every 15 million voters. Furthermore, the implementation of a voter identification law would place new financial burdens on voters, who would be forced purchase a government id, which can cost up to $25. Critics worry that these laws would disproportionately disenfranchise young and minority voters, and that the laws are simply a ploy by Republicans to limit the Democrat voter base.

     However, the political right has a very different take on the issue and plays off criticism of these laws as liberal propaganda. Representative Peter King of New York said, “There are a lot of individuals out there who are happy to break the law, who don’t even understand [voter fraud] breaks the law… We’re seeing voter fraud that pretty prevalent out there.” In addition, Republicans make a valid point that identification is a necessary aspect of modern life. You need an id to get through airport security, ride on Amtrak, buy alcohol, guns, or tobacco, and open a bank account. You even need a government photo id to enter the Democrat National Convention. Although the Democrats raise a valid point that voter fraud rarely occurs, the Republicans also raise a valid point that in a democracy each vote is sacred and should be protected at any cost.

       At the end of the day, the Republicans lost this argument and the courts in most swing states, including Pennsylvania and Ohio, overturned the proposed legislation. Even though I am a Republican, I feel that at the end of the day the courts made the correct decision. While it is unfortunate that some fraud is present in our current system, I do not feel that it is a justification to disenfranchise millions of Americans.  

--Jamie 

[teenson12-blog]

Michelle Obama

             Barrack Obama’s reelection means one thing for sure, four more years of Michelle Obama’s amazing fashion style. In the past four years, Michelle Obama has become the new American fashion icon. No other first lady has taken as much care as Michelle has in their appearance since Jacqueline Kennedy. Michelle knows that people scrutinize her ever move, since she is the first lady. Fortunately, Michelle is able to turn this scrutiny into something good. While she wears high-end designer clothes, she also wears off the rack collections, from stores like target or J.crew (two of her favorite stores). Besides that, she also wears name brand clothing as well as clothes designed by unknown designers. For the Inauguration Ball in 2009, Michelle wore a beautiful white, one shoulder, chiffon dress designed by a little know Chinese American designer named Jason Wu. Thanks to Michelle, Wu’s name was put on the fashion map practically overnight. Wu has now shown several collections in multiple big fashion shows, as well as having ready to wear collections at Target and Nordstrom.

Besides placing unknown designers on the map, Michelle is also not afraid of recycling outfits. She is constantly spotted wearing dresses, skirts, or shirts that she had worn before. For example, for Obama’s reelection, Michelle actually wore the same Michael Kors dress that she wore two years previously to a Medal of Honor presentation.

Seeing that Michelle Obama is the first lady, many people automatically assumed that recycling dresses is a huge no-no. The fact that Michelle is not afraid to be spotted wearing clothes that she has worn before just validates that she is like everyone else, and being the first lady does not matter. She is able to appeal more to the public, especially in this economy where not everyone can afford to buy a new dress for every since occasion.  I am excited to see what Michelle will be wearing, or re-wearing in the next four years.

It's been nice,

Emily J.

[teenson12-blog]

Post-Election Depression and Post-Election Romney

Post-election depression- sounds slightly ridiculous, but it gripped a large fraction of Romney nation following the 2012 presidential election and has only now begun fading away for many of the most ardent Republicans. According to a CBS Minnesota article, Minneapolis psychologist Dr. Linda Reiss said that, for many of the voters disappointed with the election result, the subconscious mind could be at play. She claims that the anger and disappointment felt after losing can “trigger other emotions that have been buried.” Dr. Reiss continues to state that, “the day after the election can remind us of how we felt at other times in our lives when we felt those close to us where not making rational decisions.” The statement seems overtly Freudian in my opinion, but nonetheless true in essence. For passionate Romney supporters, Obama’s reelection might have induced a sense of despair for America and its people and a sense that those around them are betraying the nation at large. 

Although I supported Obama in the 2012 election, the Andover bubble forced me, on a near daily basis, to collide opinions with many people who supported Romney and to witness a good deal of informal, in-dorm debates.  What surprised me most about the Republican reaction to the election was the amount of post-election cynicism that I heard circulate. Prior to the election, Romney seemed to speak to the American public without acknowledging the self-interest factor that plays a part in election decisions. Along with his Republican followers, Romney talked about America as a whole rather than about individualistic interests within the nation. Following the election, Romney and many of my Republican friends argued that the election was won on a basis of self-interest from poor, minority, and young voters. As Dr. Linda Reiss said, disappointment in election results can cause people to question why others aren’t making “rational decisions.” Instead of looking inward at what might have been done wrong, Romney looked outward, questioning what may led the voting population to make the misguided decision.

In a conference call with fundraisers and donors to his campaign, Romney blamed his defeat on Obama’s “gifts” to faithful democratic voting constituents such as poor, minority, and young voters. Finally free from public scrutiny, Romney had no issue pointing out that Obamacare’s estimated $10,000 cost was “huge” for families making a mere $25,000 to $35,000 a year. He mentioned how “amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for [the Hispanic] voting group.” Romney then went on to say that free contraceptives for college age women and parental health care coverage for under-26-year-olds was a “big gift” to strengthen party alignment. Now my rhetorical question to Romney would be, “Since this knowledge was known all along, why didn’t you attempt to appeal to the interests of these particular voting groups?”  I would expect a two-parted answer: partisan politics and lesson learned. Perhaps this year’s post-election depression wasn’t terrible after all.

-Harrison

[teenson12-blog]

The Group at the Heart of the Election

My politically argumentative family, (father, mother, and sister - all registered independents), couldn’t seem to agree upon anything during election season. They fought and bickered about which evil they personally believed was worst: reelecting Obama or supporting Romney. To them, and to many other Americans as well, the election was a “pick your poison” type of arrangement that could not and would not end positively. In their eyes, each candidate had a fatal flaw and therefore could only be voted for with a nose-pinched face of disgust.

For my father, numbers do the talking, and Obama’s numbers, the unemployment ones in particular, simply could not warrant my father’s approval. I could also sense that he felt deflated, embarrassed even, by the fact that he had backed the President in 2008. My mother, in contrast, vehemently condemned Romney’s lack of attention to social issues. To her, the primary requirement in choosing a president should be the ability to “like the president and the president’s stance on moral issues.” By “moral issues,” she was referring more specifically to social policy concerns. Although she felt highly disappointed by Obama’s first term in office, “things Romney has said” about marriage, abortion, and immigration forced her to question the man’s character so much as to not vote for him.   

Although Massachusetts was not a battleground state, my parents represented an influential group of voters that I referred to in an earlier post as “Obama Independents,” (Independent voters who casted ballots for Obama in 2008.) The split in their candidate selection characterizes the grounds by which the election was won, abortion, and the dividing factor, which accounted for this division, gender. Since “Obama independents” were primarily female, secular, and young, it’s no wonder that Romney lost the election as a result of his far-right approach to the religiously entwined issue of abortion. Given the “pick your poison” nature of an “Obama Independent’s” election decision process, it’s quite clear that Romney, in this sense, was far more poisonous than his running mate.

In key battleground states, women, the majority gender of the “Obama Independent” constituent, held gender-specific interests in their election focus. According to a pre-election Gallup poll, 39% of women considered abortion to be the most important issue for women in the election, a choice that held a whopping 20% margin as compared to the issue of unemployment. In addition, women prioritized the issue of equal pay and opportunity above tax concerns. Surprisingly, this victory for Obama came as a default reaction to Romney social policy, “moral issues” as my mother would call them. Social issues, gender-specific ones in particular, led Obama to secure a very small and yet incredibly influential group of voters: the “Obama Independent” battleground women. 

-Harrison

[teenson12-blog]

The Third Party Race

By now, we all know that President Barack Obama beat out Republican candidate Mitt Romney in the Presidential election, earning a second term in office. With 50.6% of the popular vote and 332 Electoral votes, Obama had a pull-away lead.

I previously wrote about the biggest third parties (excluding the elephant and donkey in the room) and their race to win third place in the election. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party looked to be the two favorable candidates.

Expectations

During his campaign, Gary Johnson was after 5% of the vote, a lofty goal. With advertisements like “Be the 5%,” he strived to get a larger percentage of the vote than ever before. His five percent goal would allow him and his party to have greater power in the next election. At least five percent of the popular vote is needed to qualify for the Federal Election Commission’s Presidential Election Campaign Fund. If the party had 5% in the 2008 election, Johnson would have received $9.5 million from the fund, three times more than the $2.3 he raised himself. Johnson would have also been on the ballot in all 50 states instead of just 48.

Results

Gary Johnson, by far won the Third Party Race. According to Google Politics and Elections and the Associated Press, he gained 1,191,420 (1.0%) of America’s votes.2 Jill Stein came far behind him with only 420,515 votes. Compared to the last election, they both did well, more than doubling their votes.

What’s Next?

Johnson was the most successful Presidential candidate in the Libertarian Party’s 41 year history.3 A Libertarian candidate probably won’t win the Presidency in the near future, but if the party keeps rising, the big two might have a new competitor to worry about. We’ll see what happens in 2016.

-Jonathan

1. http://ivn.us/2012/11/01/why-5-matters-to-gary-johnson/ 2. http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results 3. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gary-johnson-ran-most-successful-libertarian-campaign-party-193500973--politics.html

[teenson12-blog]

Oops! Remembering the Best Political Gaffes of 2012 (So Far)

They say the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one. And so ... My name is Nikita Singareddy, and I am a total sucker for politics. Ezra Klein’s “Wonkblog,” a Washington Post blog on all things American politics, is my home page. I have about seven Obama buttons and bumper stickers. And though I wasn’t able to vote in this 2012 election, I am a highly vocal Obama support online and in real life. But, if this election season has reminded me of my enthusiasm for politics, it has also reminded me of its foolishness. With innumerable gaffes from all sides of the political spectrum, antagonistic words thrown helter-skelter, and blinding ideologies, the interests of the country seem to be lost in oblivion — this is the unfortunate state of politics today.

It happens each election cycle: some politician makes a comment so ridiculous that the fallout undermines his or her entire political campaign. These disastrous quotes generally go way beyond former VP Dan Quayle’s spelling abilities, Al Gore inventing the Internet, Palin’s Paul Revere mix-up, or Joe Biden, well, being Joe Biden. Rather, the gaffe quotes that cut the electorate to the core are those that force a “WTF” to pop into voters’ minds every time.

Such is the case with Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin. The damage from his inane comments on “legitimate rape” and a woman’s “natural ability to prevent pregnancy” cannot be washed aside by the world’s greatest spin masters. Akin’s quote on rape is one of the biggest career-ending utterances in modern American political history. Argue as he may that he misspoke, politically Akin was done — banished to the electoral graveyard the moment he continued to stay in the race.

But Akin is not the only person to open his political pie-hole and insert his foot. Undoubtedly Rick Perry's minute-long stammer fest tops my list as one of the funniest game-changing gaffes from the 2012 GOP presidential nominees. While confidently naming the government agencies that Perry would eliminate, the GOP presidential hopeful was stumped on his third program:

PERRY: I will tell you, it is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone. Commerce, Education, and the -- What's the third one there? Let's see.

(LAUGHTER)

PAUL: Five.

PERRY: Five. Okay. Commerce, Education, and the—uh – err-- umm

ROMNEY: EPA?

PERRY: EPA. There you go.

MODERATOR: Seriously -- is EPA one you are talking about?

PERRY: No, sir, no, sir. We are talking about the -- agencies of government -- EPA needs to be rebuilt.

MODERATOR: You can't -- you can't name the third one?

PERRY: The third agency of government I would -- I would do away with Education, the --

MODERATOR: Commerce.

PERRY: Commerce and, let's see. I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops.

Before that debate, Perry had been criticized as a weak, erratic debater; this gaffe-tastic performance solidified that reputation. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol wrote, "But no front-runner in a presidential field has ever, we imagine, had as weak a showing as Rick Perry. It was a disqualifying two hours for him." Perry’s gaffe led to an immediate sharp drop in the polls. He moved from the GOP frontrunner to another Republican laughingstock, effectively ending his run for presidency.

But even President Obama is not exempt from questionable comments. On March 26th, the day before nuclear security talks in Seoul, Korea, a hot mic picked up President Obama assuring former Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev about missile defense issues. “After my election I have more flexibility” to deal with diplomatic issues isn’t the most relaxed phrase for the American public to hear from a president. Romney and other critics called the remark “alarming and troubling.” This geopolitical blunder, unfortunately, earns a best gaffe award for weakening American confidence in Obama and his diplomatic abilities.

However, Mitt Romney should not be to quick to point fingers at the President. His loss in the popular vote has been attributed to a political gaffe known as Romney’s “47%” statements. A video posted on Mother Jones‘s website on Sept. 17 showed Romney at a fundraiser, unaware he was being taped, calling the 47% of Americans who do not pay federal income taxes “entitled.” They “believe that they are victims” and that “the government has a responsibility to care for them,” he said.  “My job is not to worry about those people.  I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”  And with those comments, Bloomberg and other news media sources declared that Mitt Romney had lost the election, jokingly (I think) suggesting he step aside and let Paul Ryan finish the campaign. Add to the mix Romney’s politically craven response to the attacks on American embassies in Egypt and Libya.  Romney called his remarks inelegant and "off the cuff" but stood by them -- and a gaffe was born.

But without the digital, most gaffes would never see the light of day. In this way, social media is a politician’s best dream and worst nightmare — it boasts unlimited access to his constituency, but necessitates 24/7 supervision. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Reddit and a lengthening list of social networks afford the electorate a (somewhat) unfiltered lens with which to view its candidates. With the social web, political hopefuls enjoy a powerful tool for engagement — and just enough rope to do serious damage. Think U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner’s lewd photo and Romney’s approval of an app that misspelled “America.”

 “The media is the 24/7 gaffe-o-meter,” said U.S. Naval Academy professor of political science Steve Frantzich in his book, OOPS: Observing Our Politicians Stumble. “The media is looking for something out of the ordinary. Coupled with social media, this gaffespolosion has led to the unrelenting hype of modern politics.”

- Nikita

#teenson12

[teenson12-blog]

The Divide

Living with my very liberal family has changed my outlook on the world.  I see homeless people as needing help and I believe that green energy is necessary in order to save the planet.  However this is not true with my cousin and his family.  My cousin and I are best friends; my family and his spend every Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Fourth of July together.  We are all very close and agree on a lot of things, until politics are brought up.

            I can remember one summer night in particular.  My cousin, his sister, and I were sitting in a room next to the deck of my great aunt’s house on Cape Cod.  Our parents were all outside on the deck, enjoying the warm summer night air and the view that the house’s vantage point offered them.  I was half asleep, as it was already very late, when my cousins and I heard out fathers raised voices.  They had started to talk, or really debate, about politics again.

                               Both of their voices raised and both of them getting angry, they debated about the economy and the president, about the government and its spending, it was not the first time.  My uncle, who is really my mother’s first cousin, but I refer to him as my uncle, stormed inside, telling me that he did not understand my father’s views.  My cousin and I looked at each other and shrugged.  This is how politics is now, argument from both sides and the middle ground becoming harder and harder to reach.  This reminds me of a NY Times article by Nicholas Kristof, “The Daily Me.”  In this article he discusses how people tend to become more and more extreme in their views, especially political ones, when surrounded by like-minded people.  This, I am sure, is why when my uncle and father talk about politics, they clash.

            As I said before, my family is very liberal, so most of the time my dad is surrounded by our liberal views.  And I cannot speak for my uncle, but as Kristof mentions, people like to be with people that share the same views.  I do not think that political views should be such a huge dilemma.  My father and uncle now both refuse to even bring up politics when the other is around and grow upset when someone does.  It makes sense though, we are there to spend time as a family and we should avoid meaningless differences such as political views, but I believe that this still reflects poorly on America.

                                    This mentality of the other side being wrong just seems wrong.  I am not claiming that I know which side works; I just know what I believe in and how I wish the government to function, that is it.  I believe that both parties should really focus on what they want and how they wish to achieve that, not focusing on the shortcomings of the other party.  I believe that a unified America is a strong America.  How can a nation function when we are made up of apposing parties that even disagree on what issues we face?  It is daunting for the future of America as people become more and more segregated by their views.  I fear for how this will effect the years to come.  Hopefully a middle ground can be met and this nation can be unified to face the problems at hand.

-Will

[teenson12-blog]

Politics Needs to Change

During the presidential election, and like most elections nationwide, the Democrats and Republicans engaged in a political civil war.  Both sides attacked the other party with such vigor, such hatred, and such ferocity.  Some parties made up facts, some spoke the truth while the other party falsely denied such statistics.  Perhaps the moment that best summed up the animosity shared between the two parties came in the second debate in Hofstra, NY, when Barack Obama and Mitt Romney left the comfort of their chairs to come as close to physical contact as has ever been seen in a presidential debate.  

Sure, I'll give both presidents an "A" for effort; after all their only goal over the past year or so has been to strictly campaign against each other.  Yet, there is a larger, deeper, overarching problem that became painfully aware from this election; politics needs to change.

As Andrea mentions in her blog post we are "utterly and hopelessly divided."  Today, a 55% to 45% popular vote victory for either candidate would be considered a borderline "blowout" or "landslide."  Yet, this still means that roughly half of the remaining American citizens are unhappy with the decision as to who the next president will be.  This means that roughly half of the US population has completely different views as to how to run our government.  The original debate that developed both parties happened over contrasting views as to the role of the government, basically the "big government" versus "small government" debate.  Still, over two-hundred years later, we have failed to unite the country under one common understanding of the involvement of government.  Arguably, we have regressed even further than previously.

Perhaps my biggest concern throughout the election was the advertisements on television.  The general public seems not to like such political ads because they are more demeaning to the other party rather than proclaiming the plans that party intends to enact, if elected.  While I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment of political advertisements on television, I believe there is actually a deeper issue here with not only the advertisements, but also the overall ridiculous amount of spending by both campaigns.  According to the New York Times, the Obama campaign spent 852.9 million dollars in their efforts to persuade the public, and the Romney campaign spent 752.3 million dollars.  But that's not all; the top six "outside spenders" in the presidential campaign paid an additional 325.8 million dollars.  This adds up to a bare minimum of approximately 1.93 billion dollars.  

Just let that sink in...

America has long been undergoing an economic recession.  7.9% of Americans are out of work.  Hurricane Sandy has struck the eastern coast, leaving families homeless and hungry.  Yet our two presidential candidates, people that the public should admire, have spent 1.93 billion dollars to make themselves appear a less offensive candidate to these struggling Americans.  The American citizens who watch these commercials I'm sure would much prefer a chunk of the 1.93 billion dollars that watching annoying, degrading, hypocritical political advertisements.  

What would have happened if one of the candidates would have stopped spending some of the money they raised and instead donated it to reliable charities?  What would have happened if, instead of campaigning in the final few days before the election, one of the candidates would have actively participated in helping to clear up the destruction from Hurricane Sandy?  Whichever politician was a little less selfish, a little less self-absorbed, a little less hostile to the other party, would get my vote.  Not only would they get my vote, but they might also get my neighbor's vote, my friend's vote, and my family's vote, swinging the election drastically.  

"Politics as usual" needs to change.

-Larry Flynn

[teenson12-blog]

Utterly and Hopelessly Divided

Have you noticed the shots being fired and the battles breaking out lately in our political sphere? No, not necessarily real shots and battles, but ideological battles. With the recent election it was clear that there are pretty much two distinct sides to the American political life. Obama was reelected by a mere margin of 2.8%, clearly not a landslide. Our country seems to be evenly divided between Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. 

Some people are even claiming historical likeness to one of the most divisive period in the history of the United States: The time of the Civil War. In a Huffington Post article written by Howard Fineman (an interesting read if you have the time), Fineman describes how the era we are in now is eerily reminiscent of the Civil War era. It is reminiscent in the sense that our two parties, as they are now, may be powerless to solve the existing issues. Congress “is paralyzed by partisan division in a way it has not been since the years after the Civil War.” The media is divided, as well as the people. 

This separation may have been caused by the trend of extremism. Moderation “simply isn't very attractive because the nature and function of politics has changed,” says Bill Bishop, author of The Big Sort, in an interview in The Washington Times. Bishop goes on to claim that the purpose of politics is no longer to solve society’s problem. Politics has become a form of expression, and this has been facilitated by platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. People can easily post, or tweet, their political inclinations to the digital world. The political ideals become more of a statement rather than simply beliefs. Because politics has transformed into a form of self expression, being moderate is not enough to stand out anymore. Our society tells people that they have to be unique in order to stand out, and middle ground political ideas just don’t carry the same weight as extreme ideas. It is also important to keep in mind that the rise of social media, and the “Daily Me,” a term popularized by MIT Media Lab founder, Nicholas Negroponte, has also contributed to the political polarization of Americans. As new sites and search engines begin to become more and more personalized, the users will become more and more extremist. If a liberal becomes increasingly more and more exposed to only liberal leaning articles, news shows, or ideas in general, it makes sense that this person may become increasingly more liberal. 

As the country continues to become more divided, more problems will arise. Misunderstandings will happen more often between disjointed polar communities, and it will be harder to make important decisions. The current political ramifications are such that they are impeding the country’s improvement. Congress isn't working together, neither side is coming up with a solution to problems that the other side can deal with. Our country is utterly divided. It is possible to claim that the more people disagree with each other, the harder it is to reach a consensus, and especially so when the two sides are even in numbers and extreme in their ideals.

It is important that a shift in the opposite direction happen soon. The country is caught in a gridlock with no movement forward, or in any direction really. An interesting article published in Scientific American describes the separations between conservatives and liberals in terms of psychology. Towards the end of the article the author, Emily Laber-Warren, makes some interesting points about how the approach to politics can be changed to promote cooperation. 

No one really knows why the country has reached this point of separation, but we do know that it is not beneficial for our two political parties to be so vehemently opposed to working together. Now, more than ever, cooperation is needed to solve major problems. And I mean, the last time a division this big happened, it started a war.  

~Andrea

[teenson12-blog]

That Election Buzz

Eyes fixated on the rapidly climbing numbers, ears abuzz with keyboard taps and the occasional cheers and sighs, it was election night in Andover, MA. I sat alongside my fellow student-journalists anxiously following my Twitter feed while simultaneously trying to synthesize the analysis on TV. Every few minutes, as more exit polls came in, some students cheered while others sank low in their seats, palms covering their faces. After a few moments, the roles reversed--as Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio flip flopped back and forth, the symphony of elation and disappointment crescendoed until finally, at 12:55 AM EST, Governor Mitt Romney took to the stage and conceded the race to President Barack Obama. 

The next day, expecting everyone to be excited that the Election 2012 had finally come to a conclusion, I walked into my classes declaring, "Wow, what an election! What did you guys think of Romney's concession speech? Obama's victory speech? Florida??? Electoral college???? Republican House????? Anything?????" My classmates all looked away, annoyed. After a beat (or two), one of them said, "It's over. I don't want to talk about the election anymore."

What? When the Olympics were over, people replayed highlight reels and gushed over the same winning moments for months, but when a presidential election is over, discussion is too? 

I wrote in my very first post for this blog about why the teen voice matters. We teenagers have opinions and passions that can drive certain issues to the forefront that may have otherwise been left on the side. We use different strategies and tactics to make sure our voice is heard. We are loud, obnoxious, and determined to get things our way. 

All of this passion hardly matters, though, if it only lasts during the high of election time. Taking part in public discourse and joining the political discussion should not only occur once every four years. I sincerely hope that my fellow teenagers will use this election as a starting point for a civilly conscious and publicly minded life. The buzz of the election does not have to fade away. I say we use the adrenaline and energy from this election to set the entire country abuzz in a way we have never seen before--with a young and engaged generation who are not only informed, but can use innovative ways through social media and other platforms to ensure its voice is heard. 

[teenson12-blog]

Nate Silver's Wizardry and its Impact on the Media

Nate Silver predicted Obama was heading for an easy victory with a greater than 90% probability of winning all eight battleground states and 332 electoral college votes. This prediction, although shared by two leading academic pollsters (Drew Linzer, of Emory University and Sam Wang, of Princeton), was declared politically biased and blatantly mistaken by conservative experts who prophesied that the race was either too close to call, or that Romney would win.

  The predictions of prominent conservative pundits included:

1.   Peggy Noonan WSJ who wrote in her blog the day before the election that Romney would win because...”it just felt like it.”

2.   MSNBC host Joe Scarborough who called Silver an ‘ideologue’ and pronounced the election too close to call.

3.   Newt Gingrich who predicted 53% of the popular vote and at least 300 Electoral College votes for Romney.

4.   Glenn Beck who predicted “321-217 victory for Romney in the Electoral College.”

5.   George Will who saw a “321-217 Electoral College landslide, including a Romney victory in nearly every swing state...”

6.   Larry Kudlow who confidently foresaw “...a landslide with Romney gaining 330 electoral votes.”

7.   Dick Morris who looked forward to “a ‘dominant’ Romney victory with 325 electoral votes. His rationale: the media polls oversampled Democrats. So they're all wrong.”

8.   Karl Rove, the ultimate operator, whose authoritative prediction was that “Romney would carry at least 279 electoral votes with a three-point popular vote margin” He compounded his error by his vigorous protests as Fox News called the victory for Obama:

  As we now know, these impressionistic assessments proved to be worthless. In fact, the results matched Silver’s predictions, scarily perfectly. So, what has been the reaction of those who poured scorn on him? Are they issuing heartfelt apologies to Silver? Is there a widespread recognition that gut feeling is patently unreliable? Are we witnessing political consultants and talking heads taking courses in data science to better understand Silver’s methods? And are conservatives embracing data in the attempt to understand what really happened in this election? It would seem that the answer to all such questions is a resounding ‘no’! So what does this mean for these pundits and further, what does it mean for the media?

  Perhaps not surprisingly, it appears to be hard for an old dog to learn new tricks. Confronted with their failure, the pundits have simply resorted to the same style of impressionistic ramblings that took the place of data science and analysis prior to the election. Much has been made, for example, of the significance of Hurricane Sandy that allegedly ‘broke Romney’s momentum’ and helped Obama ‘look Presidential’. “Hurricane Sandy saved Barack Obama’s presidency,” claimed former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, “It broke the momentum that Romney had coming into the end of October.” Such statements, however, are made with the now familiar characteristic that they have no meaningful validation. Contrast Barbour’s unsubstantiated claim, with Nate Silver’s analysis of the Hurricane’s impact prior to the election, in which he marshals an impressive amount of data to argue that while there was some impact, it was small and overshadowed by larger longer run trends in Obama’s favor. See the difference? It seems that even when proven wrong, the pundits still find it very hard to break the habits of seemingly random guesswork.

Are there lessons to be learned from the data? Fortunately, it would seem that the answer is yes. The ‘Daily Beast’ expresses it succinctly. “In reality, the Republican Party didn’t lose the election because of Sandy, or Christie, or a mural. It lost because 71 percent of Latinos, 93 percent of black people, 73 percent of Asian Americans, and 55 percent of women voted against it. The party did not embrace policies that appeal to these demographic groups—and lost. And that’s the GOP’s fault.” Surely these pundits’ impressions, masquerading as analysis, are doing the Republican Party more harm than good.

  Perhaps the broader question we should be asking is, ‘what is the role of journalism and media in the light of the evident intellectual bankruptcy of a host of familiar talking heads’? The answer would seem to depend on what we believe the purpose media to be. If it is to entertain; then pundits with opposing views provide low cost dramatic content. If however, it is to edify the public, then such fare is worthless. The age of the pundit prophet is over, and the age of the data scientist has arrived, it’s time we all recognize that and get onboard. 

-Ben

[teenson12-blog]

This part of Obama's re-election speech really stuck with me, so I decided to draw this. Hope the next four years aren't a huge mistake!

~Krissy

[teenson12-blog]

We take a look at the 2012 election, asking and answering questions via miscellaneous numerical facts.