Response to Post 1: Due Friday, 9/21
Please post your response to a classmate's post to post 1 HERE (click on the comments link). Please do not start a new thread.
You may choose anyone in period 3 or 5 to respond to but prioritize responding to a classmate that hasn't been responded to first. If you want to respond to someone who already has a response you can but then also respond to someone who hasn't been responded to as well.
Your response should be at least a paragraph and use at least one piece of evidence. You should state specifically WHO you are responding to. We shouldn't need to read their post to understand your post. You need to state what they said (you can quote them if you want to) and then explain why you agree or disagree with them.
Your response should be up by class time on Friday, 9/21.
See me or email me if you have any questions. Have a nice weekend.
posted by Ms. Aby @ 12:51 PM
36 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with T-Poon (Trevor), the Democratic National Convention was much more of a success than the Republican National Convention. Your points are convincing and your sources are sound. Both parties attacked each other but both focused on one man; President Obama. Although some of the remarks were negative, like an advertisement, the more one hears something repeated, the more likely that person is to remember it(2) (ie: the President's name). This could backfire against the Republicans because it could incite more interest into actually seeing how much the President has helped the US since the Bush administration left office. But I have one thing to point out. While it is true that the DNC was tweeted about much more than the RNC (3), and it received much higher media ratings, this is due to the liberal bias of the Media. The media could be a very significant factor as to why President Obama gained such a large boost in the polls than Romney, who merely stayed at 48% to tie President Obama after the RNC (1) [by the way, as a side note, your source for the drop of 47% to 46% doesnt actually point to a source, it only points to the articles tagged with "Democratic National Convention" on thinkprogress.com, next time, link the specific article(s) that you are citing]. The media covered the DNC in a much more in general than the RNC post convention when most polls were taken, which means President Obama was receiving much more positive attention than challenger Romney (4). But overall I agree that the DNC was much more of a success than the RNC for it did exactly what it needed to in order to better secure a victory: rally its voter base.
1. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/cnn-poll-obama-bounce.php
2. http://psychology.uchicago.edu/people/faculty/cacioppo/jtcreprints/cp89a.pdf
3. http://www.examiner.com/article/polls-show-significant-bump-for-obama-after-democratic-national-convention
4. http://kstp.com/article/stories/S2760311.shtml?cat=0
I agree with what Sydney said in her post. She wrote about how the Democratic National Convention seemed to be the best out of the two conventions this year. In her blog, Sydney said that, “The crowd’s reaction at the DNC was lively and enthusiastic compared to the stuffy cheers from the suited up Republicans,” which I thought was the perfect difference that was seen between the two conventions. In my research, I found that people loved the things that Obama was saying such as, “So you see, the election 4 years ago wasn’t about me. It was about you. My fellow citizens you were the change (1).” That quote was moving and powerful and it only can only support the fact that the people at the Democratic National Convention were lively because their candidate was being a real person at the convention. Also, along with Sydney, I found that Obama’s ratings rose after the DNC. I found that Obama’s favorable rating went up to 53% while Romney’s remained at 49% (2). Sydney found that “Obama’s lead went up 6% after the DNC.” I also agree with Sydney, wherein she said that at the DNC they were “better at raising support for their candidate.” It appears that the Republicans only cared to point out everything that Obama was and wasn’t doing. Whereas, Obama and the other speakers at the DNC, like Clinton, were backing up their candidate and not trashing Romney. In conclusion, Sydney and I both saw that the Democratic National Convention was the better of the two conventions. I agree with the facts and statements that Sydney made and presented throughout her entire blog. The Republican National Convention did not even come close to competing with the Democratic National Convention.
1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/democratic-national-convention-2012_n_1848873.html
2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/fox-news-poll-obama-has-lead-over-romney-in-post-convention-poll/
In response to Jeremy’s post, I agree with many of his points in regard to how the convention went and what exactly swayed the polls. However, in certain aspects, I think some of the analysis provided was biased and was lacking concrete evidence.
First of all, it was wise to provide a definition of what a convention is. As stated by Jeremy, “The conventions are primarily an engine for selecting the candidate the Republican and Democratic Parties wish to endorse (1).” This phrase provides a framework for demonstrating an argument for or against a convention. According to Jeremy, the Democratic National Convention outweighed the strengths of the Republican National Convention. Jeremy stated that Obama was the clear choice for the Democratic Party, in that he has the ability to connect with groups such as Hispanics and women (4). My argument is similar in that Obama has the talent to develop a bond with several groups that in turn, works in his favor. We both made the point that the atmosphere in the DNC was much livelier than that of the RNC (5). Jeremy said this was displayed during the bland rendition of the “Star Spangled Banner” in the RNC and the moving solo from Amber Riley in the DNC.
Trevor's Response to Jeremy's Post Continuation:
Jeremy stated that the Republicans were critical of their speaker choices as they excluded Michelle Bachmann (2). As Jeremy and I have pointed out, the Democrats provided an antithesis to the Republicans as they had a wide variety of speakers such as Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry, who were welcomed in the convention. Those speakers created a warm atmosphere that was critical for a powerful DNC (5). Romney was, as I have said, an “afterthought (5).”
Jeremy makes a good argument that the Democratic Convention was strong, but he could have provided a little more insight into the RNC. He mentioned that the polling data showed Romney’s disproval rating was 49% and Obama’s approval rating was 55% (3). This is showing two opposites however. To give an accurate depiction of the polling data, he should have shown either approval ratings, or both disapproval ratings. This would have taken out the uncertainty of undecided voters and other factors that interfere with the data (7). Another aspect I disagree with Jeremy on is Romney’s selection for the candidacy. The Republicans clearly had options for a candidate such as Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Santorum, and Chris Christie, but the people spoke and through their support, elevated Romney to be their Republican candidate to take on Barack Obama as seen in the caucuses (6). Therefore, I believe that Jeremy’s statement saying, “Republicans have figuratively shot themselves in the foot by forcing a candidate on people who don't wish to be courted,” was a bit misleading. One last comment of dissent is about the source called “thestir.” Upon review, I found that it was a heavily opinion based source focused on extremist interests (2). The statement made by Julie Marsh was, “I watched the RNC. I saw none of that same generosity. No acknowledgement whatsoever that in spite of our disagreements on philosophy and policy, Republicans and Democrats have our country's best interests at heart. It was disappointing, but it was one more reminder of why I left the GOP (2).” Expressing a personal opinion is dangerous in a sense that it can alter a perception without substantiating views with solid evidence. A non-biased source may have made Jeremy’s analysis more credible. Overall, our political arguments concur for most of the DNC and RNC elements, even if our perspectives may differ.
1.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/convention
2.http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/143183/democratic_national_convention_inspired_me
3.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
4.http://pjmedia.com/blog/secrets-to-convention-success-for-the-rnc-and-dnc/
5.http://thegrio.com/2012/09/07/dnc-vs-rnc-a-tale-of-two-conventions/
6.http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/will-mitt-romney-be-the-gop-presidential-nominee
7.http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-would-lead-eight-unskewed-data-from-newest-cnn-orc-poll
My responce is to Sir Ryan O. Ryan states, "I define success as who focuses on noth the past and future party, who captivated the attention of the country more, and who received a better "bump" in polls and fundraising". His responce supported the fact that the Democratic Party was more successful. To be quiet honest, this is one of the few things Ryan and I can agree on. Ryan, you were ON TARGET touching down on actual number percentages and dollar numbers. Ryan including the after-convention polling statistics from CNN showing Obama at 52% and Mitt trailing with a measly 46%. Ryan even went over the top giving five, whole, intext citations. I also got a kick out of his surprising ability to give necessary sass. With a sassy remark about Romney's only success was through an 82-year old celebrity, Mr. Clint Eastwood. Great job Ryan, on your knowledegeable and just sassy enough Blog. Keep it up and maybe you'll have a blog of your own one day!
I completely agree with Jake the Snake in his assessment that the DNC was more successful. The DNC did have more dynamic speakers than those of the RNC. They were able to fire up their party more because of it. (1) However, it can be argued that the RNC also presented many different ethnic faces to try and represent its party as a more diverse one, but it was not successful in doing so. They presented people like Condoleeza Rice and Marco Rubio, two important people in the party. However, the faces alone could not bring a spark to the RNC. I believe that it is the platforms of the party in which minorities rally around and they tend to believe that the DNC and its message was more relatable. Overall, again I do agree with Jake, the DNC was more successful because of its speakers not just those that were minorities. Bill Clinton played a great role in firing up the Democratic base and was therefore more successful. Their message seemed to relate to more people than that of the RNC.
http://www.theroot.com/views/call-it-color-them-democrats?page=0,1
In response to Sam L
I agree with Sam that the Republican National Convention was more successful. Despite the media and liberals bashing it (as they always will), the Republicans still had a good convention and many noteworthy speakers, such as Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush, and Senator John McCain (1) . These speakers (as noted by Sam) gave excellent speeches focusing on why Mitt Romney should be elected. Condoleezza Rice’s speech was one of the most powerful, emphasizing Romney's strong points while not indulging in much Obama bashing (2). Furthermore, Romney is winning the race in the polls among people who call themselves “independent” (53% Romney vs 39% Obama) (3) . This is significant because this election will most likely be be decided by these independents. In addition, with the economy being such a major issue this election, Obama’s failure to bring the deficit under control will be a major problem for his re-election campaign. His 2013 budget projects that spending would be $3.8 trillion, but projects revenue at only $2.9 trillion, causing a budget deficit of $901 billion for the year (4). This shows that Obama has absolutely no intention of reducing the federal deficit. Mitt Romney would be much more fiscally responsible. Republicans articulated their arguments better than the Democrats, so I agree with Sam that they have an edge.
1
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/29/list-republican-convention-speakers-for-wednesday/
2 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/29/transcript-condoleezza-rice-speech-at-rnc/
3 http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/07/10/National-Politics/Polling/question_5592.xml#
4 http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/federal_budget_us/index.html?8qa
I agree with Noah in his post. The first thing that Noah did well was to explain the purpose of the National Conventions. In his own words the purpose is to 'establish the rhetoric of the party'(1). In this I heartily agree. We also agree with the lukewarm reception of the Republicans in Tampa. He did a good job of proving Obama's oratorical supremacy and was clear and unbiased in his argument. I particularly enjoyed reading his comment about the number of followers on twitter, an interesting way to gauge the success of both presidential hopefuls(2). However, I do not think Noah is correct in assuming that, in his words: "[the] few moderates left are more swayed to the president.(1)" I simply felt that this divulged slightly from Noah's argument and was not adequately supported by evidence. But otherwise Noah has shown and supported his argument well.
1. Noah's Post is quoted.
2. http://twitter.com/BarackObama
My response is to Megan's post.
While it is true that I chose the Democratic Party as having the most successful Convention this year, I really like the perspective that Megan is coming from in looking at both of the Conventions equally. In terms of successes, each party reached out to its supporters, as well as attempt to gain more. I think that although it seemed from polls that the Democrats seemed to sweep up some new followers (1), the Republicans kept up their reputation of appealing to elderly whites (3). Although, it is probably not desirable for the party to only appeal to a certain type of person. Megan makes a very good point about where people get their information from certainly impacts how they view something(2). In the end, she stated that she believes that the Democratic Convention was the more successful one because of its increase in support as evidenced by the polls and the more diverse audience. I completely agree, however it is nice to see a perspective that shows equal support for both even though a clear "win" can be seen.
Her post definitely pointed out the good parts of both Conventions and I think it is important for people to look for success and failures from both parties even if one of the parties had more success in reaching a more diverse and loyal audience.
1. http://www.politico.com/p/2012-election/polls/president
2. Megan's blog post
3.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80853.html
After reading Erik M’s take on the political conventions, I have decided that I agree with his statements about who was more successful. Erik stated that the Democratic Party had the better convention because it gave President Obama a better bump in the polls in comparison to the hit that Romney took. I agree that President Obama’s increase in favorability resulted from the convention, thus demonstrating how the Democrats were more successful. In addition to this favorability growth, Obama saw an increase in campaign funding, a benefit from the convention that Erik forgot to mention. The fact that the Obama campaign brought in $114 in comparison to Romney’s $111.6 million during the month of August adds to his thesis (1). I also enjoyed the comparison between Mr. Eastwood’s speech and Mr. Clinton’s. It was a beneficial way to compare two keynote speakers that had such drastic effects on the success of the overall conventions. It is clearly evident that the Clinton speech was much more effective in captivating the audience’s attention (2). It also helped President Obama and his campaign for re-election because it did a much better job convincing the public that the Democratic candidate is more fit than Romney to lead. Rather than aiding Romney’s election efforts, Mr. Eastwood’s conversation with the chair overshadowed the issues and Romney’s keynote speech, detracting from the overall success of the Republican convention. Overall, I believed that Erik did an effective job of evaluating the conventions based on popular opinion and that his conclusion was in fact the proper one.
1. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/248377-obama-posts-114m-haul-in-august-besting-romney
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/05/democratic-national-convention-night-2-winners-and-losers/
In response to Sara’s last blog post regarding the success of each of the National Conventions, I would have to say that I agreed with most of the points she provided. I agree that President Obama connected better with the people (2). He used moving lines and an inspirational tone that is needed in any successful leader. Like any good sports coach, you first need to make your team believe that they can triumph, even over the hardest of obstacles. Giving the people hope and courage definitely gave Obama a rise in the polls (3). I think that President Obama was able to portray that kind of positive attitude even in these hard times. I also agreed with many of the statistics that Sara mentioned because when doing my research, I found many of those statistics as well, so they were already familiar to me (1). Having that familiarity and knowing that some other writers were using the same resources I had made me feel like we were using strong information and sharing it together. I made many of the same points in my post, offering the fact that the DNC had many powerful speakers to aid them and statistically defeated the RNC in all aspects: approval rating, viewer percentage and many of the other polls included (1). The one thing I would have liked to see a bit more in her response would have been a more complete coverage of the RNC incase any of the readers had not watched it. Her coverage on the DNC was impressive and thorough but she was not able to make direct comparisons because she left out some facts and details about the RNC. Overall the blog post was informative and I agreed with many of the facts because I had based much of my post off of the same things.
1)http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/169387076.html
2)http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/12/fox-news-poll-obama-has-lead-over-romney-in-post-convention-poll/
3)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/democratic-national-convention-2012_n_1848873.html
Kangqiao, in an effort to review the success of the conventions in “the most holistic way”, attempted to look at how the conventions measured up to supposed preconceived expectations held by Americans. In reality, he ended up ignoring not only the Republican Party’s performance entirely but also any hard facts that would support his claims. By not examining any polling data or concrete measurements, he ignores why so much money is spent at these conventions: to gain and rally voter support. The Democrats did not spend money expecting for their convention to be a low-key affair, and Barack certainly didn’t seem to have the same lowered expectations that Kangqiao claims were held by the American populace. And anyways, who considers a stadium full of adulating supporters yelling “four more years” for minutes on end (1) a muted affair? Besides that, Kangqiao also neglected to mention any aspect of the Republican convention besides one celebrity speaker’s gaffe, neither stating the expectation for their party nor attempting to compare their performance to one. So, while Kangqiao may have been correct in his answer, his argument was spotty at best.
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd8MFmUDbg4
I agree with Sadie on many points. From my limited political experience and talking to my family members it was a pretty typical RNC where they criticized the Democrats. She makes very good points about Romney chasing his tail saying nothing very specific about how he would fix the problems. Sadie also brings up the point of the one hundred plus speakers that the DNC had. While we did not hear a lot about the majority of the speakers the speakers that we heard of were all positive in regards to what they said. For the RNC one speaker overwhelmed the entire convention, and that speaker was Clint Eastwood. Sadie is completely right in the fact that president Obama should not have to apologize for anything in the last four years. He came into the white house with a hot mess of an economy. Conveniently all the republicans have stepped over the fact that the economy started on the downward spiral under the control of their last president. After the conventions Obama had a slight lead and now, two weeks after the fact he still has a lead. “A new poll of Wisconsin likely voters released Wednesday afternoon shows President Barack Obama with a double digit lead over Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney there.” Ironically Wisconsin is where Romney’s running mate is from. The poll was conducted “entirely before” the leaked clips of Romney’s fundraiser. Overall Sadie made many fantastic points that I agree with.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/19/new-wisconsin-poll-shows-obama-with-significant-lead/
In response to Grant's post, I agree. The Democrats did a better job. He laid out conversationally his points with fluidity and strength. He adeptly analyzed both numbers, atmosphere, and power. He detailed delegates “cheering at the top of their lungs” as if at a concert (1), vigor and enthusiasm absent at the RNC. However, he missed the key concept conventions pursue and that is the base-rallying and moderate-wooing arguments presented. He did not contrast the speakers of the conventions. The convention rhetoric is front and center in the arguments presented, and with the speakers being the focal point of the rhetoric, he should have noted their worth (or lack thereof). First if all, he did not contrast Ann Romney with the First Lady, a stark difference of scripted unctuousness versus (probably acted but much better conveyed) heartfelt sincerity (2). Ann Romney spoke on obtaining wealth as being the American Dream while Michelle reiterated that but with a twist: The ladder of success is not an escalator, and it is more important to gain spiritual and moral wealth than material wealth (2). Also, he did not contrast Paul Ryan’s truth stretches with President Clinton’s deft policy-centered speech. Clinton was the highlight of all the convention weeks! To draw that contrast would have shown the Democrats to be based more on facts and tried-and-true warriors such as Clinton and not the forever-lambasting and out-of-touch Ryan. Chris Christie spent most of his speech extolling himself, one of many example of a convention bent on the image of its members and leaders and not its nominee (3). Another example is how minorities who spoke at the RNC did not focus on minority issues and were thus minority figureheads for the GOP (3). Ultimately, Grant did do a strong analysis of the conventions. Playing the devil’s advocate (yet I’d like to say I regularly advocate for the Good Guy upstairs), he simply left out the contrasts of speakers and rhetoric, crucial aspects to the success of the conventions in empowering bases and wooing voters.
1. Grant’s blog post
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-miller/michelle-vs-ann-fashion_b_1858401.html
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-e-dowlin/contrasting-the-two-conventions_b_1865660.html
In his post, True makes many good points. I agree with his idea that conventions are basically big infomercials for candidates (1). I particularly like this metaphor because it brings to mind boring summer afternoons with nothing better to do than watch the magic bullet commercial. Again. You sit on the couch and you are bombarded with delicious looking quick and easy meals, and before you know it, you are dialing the number before the supply runs out (which of course it never will, and yes I do actually have a magic bullet, and no it doesn’t work as well as they say it does). The effective thing about infomercials is that they suck you in. You couldn’t turn off the TV if you wanted to. This is the same reason the conventions are so appealing. You want to know who the speakers are going to be, what they’re going to say, and maybe, just maybe, you can witness some of history. Also, like infomercials they are money generators. Speeches bring enthusiasm, enthusiasm brings passion, and passion brings donations. True is correct when he says that if looked at from this angle, the RNC was the clear winner (1,2). However, what’s more important than the product an infomercial is selling is the idea of the product. The enthusiasm for the product. If we look at it from this angle, the DNC clearly won, with people so moved by the passionate words of Michelle, Bill, and Barack that they actually stood there and wept (3). Enthusiasm wins in this case because it translates directly to votes, while money translates to more advertising, which hopefully translates to more votes.
Source 1- True’s blog
Source 2- True’s first source. Hyperlink not correctly working
Source 3- http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/highway-2012/rnc-vs-dnc-obama-polls-sugar-high
I concur with the arguments of a Ms. Kelly Leung. We seem to share the opinion that poll numbers are the main indicator of candidate success as the election approaches. After all, KQ Peng likened them to the holy grail. It is certainly important to note that both the favorability of President Obama and his overall polling numbers have increased after the conclusion of both conventions (1). This appears to me to be rock-solid evidence that the convention for the Democrats was more of a success. Another indicator of the success of the DNC that Kelly mentioned was the more than four million viewers that chose to watch the Democrats' convention over the Republican one. This lead shows that the Democratic party clearly has a lead in public interest, as well as overall polling numbers. The final point that I agree on has to deal with speeches. Kelly and I agree that the Republicans' speeches (including Romney's) focused more on the supposed flaws of the Obama presidency rather than why Romney should be elected president (2). Between the increase in viewers, as well as the bump in polling numbers that President Obama has seen in the weeks after the convention, it is clear that the Democratic party had a more successful convention than the Republicans.
(1) http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/cnn-poll-obama-bounce.php
(2) http://thegrio.com/2012/09/07/dnc-vs-rnc-a-tale-of-two-conventions/
Though I may not agree with Mike, I found his analysis of the conventions both unbiased and well based in fact. Instead of using opinion (like me) Mike got down to the numbers and did a hard analysis of what they meant. Looking over his sources, I see that he only used the sites The Huffington Post, and the Gallup Polls. Both of these organizations have a reputation of being unbiased and balanced. When I get down and look at the numbers in the polls, such as (1) and (2), I see where Mike is coming from. The Democrats did get a much more significant bump than the Republicans. Mr. Obama appears to now be leading Romney by 4 percentage points. However, this bump may have little to no long term effect (3), which is a statement that Mike also agreed with.
1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157322/democratic-convention-rated-slightly-better-gop.aspx (Originally Mike's source)
2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157322/democratic-convention-rated-slightly-better-gop.aspx (Originally Mike's source)
3. http://hiphopwired.com/2012/09/10/president-obama-sees-post-dnc-bump-in-the-polls-mitt-romney-says-dont-get-too-worked-up-about-it/
Annika brings up many points that I agree with, and touched upon in my previous post. I odviously pointed out the Clint Eastwood “speech,” but something I forgot to put emphasis on was the popularity of the Bill Clinton speech. Despite Clinton’s past discretions, he remains one of the great communicators of our time and his political presence has proven to be a great asset to the democrats. She also mentions something I hadn’t thought about before. I said that the majority of people are swayed left or right and whoever’s in the middle is fairly insignificant and decreasing still. However, she mentions that the growing minorities will have a greater effect on the election (1). This is true, the growing minorities are being continually haggled for votes by parties that claim to have strong diversity and yet have predominatly white attendees. My train of thought then brought me to the internet and those if a minority opinion. People on the internet are bombarded constantly by the big two’s social media prescence, as well as debates that seem nonstop. Are these debates and party presence going to polarize people further? Or is the presence of other options, such as independent candidates or rallying behind certain causes going to cause diversity and weaken “Party Power.” Unfortunatly, I have no answers to these questions.
1. http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog/who-out-latinod-who-assessing-the-rnc-and-dnc-conventions-latino-outreach/
I tend to agree and disagree with Dylan on his post. He said that the Democratic Convention was more successful than its Republican counterpart. I agree with this statement for a variety of reasons. Firstly, Dylan defined success as seeing a jump in the polls. I think this is reasonable, as the purpose of conventions is to strengthen your chance of election. The Democrats clearly saw a larger increase than the Republicans (1). While he recognizes this in his post, Dylan makes a point of examining results from Minnesota along with the national numbers. When evaluating the success of the convention as a whole, I think the numbers from Minnesota only represent a tiny chunk of the entire population. Therefore, I find this data irrelevant when comparing overall success against the Republicans. However, I completely agree with his statements about the bulk of the convention. He said that the Democrats achieved their goals through inspiring speeches from Bill Clinton and President Obama, while the Republicans muddled their way through the convention. This was the final push in addition to poll jumps that accelerated the Democrats to success.
1. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/cnn-poll-obama-bounce.php
I conquer with Ben Hanson’s opinion on the more successful convention. We agree that the Democratic National Convention gained more votes than the Republican National Convention for the upcoming 2012 election. Ben and I both used the polls as our first definition of success. We, similarly, found that the Democrats accumulated more of a poll boost than the Republicans (1). I found it interesting that Ben compared the net gain of the two parties and that the Democrat’s was double that of the Republicans. I also took note that after the convention Romney received no boost in supporters (3).
Ben compared the speakers at the two conventions which I thought was an excellent way to compare and judge which convention was more successful. From the articles Ben found it was clear that the Democratic National Convention had superior speakers over the Republican National Convention. Bill Clinton’s speech was powerful and moving (2). Ben and I also agree that having Mayor Julian Castro, the first Latino to present at a national convention, speak at the convention impacted minorities and persuaded them to be on the side of the Democrats (2). I thought that Ben had analytical and thorough ideas on the successes of the two conventions. I agree that because the Democrats gained more of a boost that the Democratic National Convention was the more successful.
1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157322/democratic-convention-rated-slightly-better-gop.aspx?ref=image
2. http://www.demconvention.com/speakers/
3. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157262/romney-gets-no-bounce-last-week-gop-convention.aspx
I respectfully disagree with Akorede on his view that President Obama won the battle of national conventions. While clearly a gifted statesman, Obama continued to promise the same hope and change that he promised in the 2008 election. His Obama promised in his speech that he would reduce the deficit by 4 trillion by the next decade. (1) But his actual plan calls for $3.8 trillion in spending with only $2.9 trillion dollars in revenue, leaving a deficit of $901 billion. We didn’t elect him to “tell us what we want to hear.” We just wanted him to tell the truth. Meanwhile, Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget plan came under fire from democrats, who claimed it would destroy medicare, will actually provide seniors private insurance subsidized by the government. Obama has had four years in office to make changes, including his first year when he had control of both the House and Senate. He claims that he has created jobs for Americans but has not delivered. (2) The economy has experienced a net gain of only 69,000 jobs, most of them in the service industry, while showing losses in the private sectors. (3)The unemployment rate is still hovering just above 8%, according to the Federal Bureau of Labor. Surprisingly, in January of 2008, unemployment was only 4.9%. Again, President Obama is a truly gifted speaker, but that cannot be our only reason to re-elect him.
Source: (1) New York Times - http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/federal_budget_us/index.html
Source: (2) The examiner- http://www.examiner.com/article/incumbent-dead-heat-that-is-losing
Source: (3) http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/labor/national-employment-monthly-update.aspx
In response to Sam Aamot’s post, I completely agree that the Democratic convention was far more successful than the Republican National Convention. Sam addressed that the DNC did a better job because they “reached a wide range of views, which can be seen as success in the area that they were able to gain the interest of a variety of perspectives.” Sam watched an interview that had Google chat in between the speeches which showed college students praising the promises of Obama to lower tuition (1). Sam also talked about how the GOP’s website had three outreach panels to Black Republicans, Hispanics and Women, whereas, the DFL’s site reached out to 17 panels ranging from the LGBT community to veterans (2). Sam based success on outreach and polls. Sam found numerous polls that gave the upper hand to the DNC from acceptance speech ratings (Sam found that Romney’s was the worse since 1996) to reports that the DNC was more popular than the NFL football game playing at the same time (3,4). I agree with Sam that the DNC was more successful because of the “wide range of viewers” and the increase Obama received in polls. Overall, the DNC absolutely did a better job.
Sources:
1. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/obama-biden-dnc-speeches-google-hangout-analysis-17179076
2. http://www.gop.com/coalition-support/
3. http://www.eurweb.com/2012/09/mitt-romneys-rnc-speech-gets-lowest-approval-rating-since-1996/
4. http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media/content/second-night-251-million-viewers-watch-dnc-coverage-hinting-nfl-game-didnt-hurt-much
In response to Nici’s arguments that a convention’s success can be based on the number of people who watched it, I would say that this is not true. First, she cites the statistic of the number of viewers who watched the Democratic National Convention as proof of the convention’s popularity. However, this statistic is misleading because it does necessarily mean that one convention was more popular than the other. On top of including Democratic viewers, this statistic also encompasses conservatives who watched the DNC in order to understand the Democratic platform and some conservatives who viewed the convention to criticize the Democratic platform. By assuming that all the people who viewed DNC supported the Democratic cause is making a broad assumption that is unproven with this statistic. It is similar to saying that all the people who watched the music video “Friday” enjoyed it. Secondly, Nici said that the DNC was more successful because it used a more exciting atmosphere. However, Nici proves this excitement by citing the presence of, “a crossdresser wearing a rainbow sash; the opportunity to purchase alcoholic beverages; 20-something boys who look like that have strong opinions about the strengths and weaknesses of Cure albums.” However, this statement portrays the DNC more as a wild college party than a gathering of elected officials with the purpose of determining the future of this country. In fact, this quote shows the inadequacy of the convention because it portrays the main goal of the convention as one of entertainment instead of as an event meant to inform the people about how President Obama will get the nation back on track (1). Finally, Nici mentions that the RNC had a negative atmosphere citing Paul Ryan’s quote “College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life,” from the top 50 quotes from both conventions (2). Although the RNC did criticize President Obama, she fails to notice that the second most popular quote was President Obama’s quote that mocked the Republican’s view on the positive effects of tax cuts. Criticizing the opponent is a legitimate tactic and is a part of daily politics. The fact that one side highlights differences between the parties is not an act worthy of condemnation but an act that helps the public make a more enlightened decision about who they will vote for in this coming election.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Further examination of the hallowed words of Roth Fricke; a paragraph in four sentences.
Roth makes many a good point in his breakdown; Bill Clinton was a wonderful speaker, the RNC was mostly negative, and Adventure Time is a wonderful show. I’d suggest to him to further investigate, but that’s his own business. Indeed it seems that the bump remained with Obama, with the most recent polls showing him in a five point lead (1). Now I myself am off to the Land of Ooo for some mathematical adventures of my own.
(1) – Fox News, I think. Came from Colbert, don’t think it’s up yet for sourcing, can’t find, sorry.
Jessica stated that the DNC was indeed more successful than the RNC. Lucky for her, I agree. In addition to the points I put in my last post, Jessica covers bases that I missed. According to her, the polls showed Obama ahead of Romney. A post on CBS.com yesterday backs up her argument with a simulated election that placed Mr. Obama as the victory based on popular votes (1). Another thing Jessica commented on in her post was the amount of protesters at the RNC. I found a source last week that stated that because on the poor weather during the DNC, many protesters opted to not show up and scream their messages to the sky (Don't ask me to site it, I don't know what the source was but props to the gentle(wo)men/scholars that did the research and posted their finding on the Internet. Should they find this post, let them know I appreciate and give them full credit). So, while Romney protesters seemed to be more evident at the RNC, this may have only been because the Obama protesters were hiding from the rain. Also, I do not believe that the Republicans pushed the women vote too much. I still believe most of their focus is on the Latino vote (2) and the same goes for the Democrats. Overall however, I agree with Jessica. The DNC made a bigger splash with the political community and may have won it for Obama.
(1) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57515796/in-electoral-vote-simulation-signs-point-to-obama/?tag=contentMain;contentBody
(2) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57514624-503544/romney-courts-hispanics-wishes-he-were-one/?tag=mncol;lst;4
I agree with Maddie that the Democrats were the more successful of the two parties. Maddie drew her conclusion from a series of polls and studies that clearly show President Obama in the lead. Her argument was based on the following logic:
1. The goal of a political Convention is to sway the public’s opinion in your party’s favor.
2. Since public opinion is paramount to success, success can be measured by assessing national polling data as a representation of public opinion.
Regardless of which candidate spoke better, which party has a better platform and which party did a better job of avoiding slightly insane keynote speakers (1), success is ultimately defined by whether or not voters like your candidate. Maddie’s polling data shows that the Democratic candidate is the national favorite and indicates that they had more successful convention (2).
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTucyyBRMHY&feature=relmfu
2. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama
Response to Roth. I agree with your first statement that the National Conventions are a primary means for each party to motivate their party bases. We also agree that parties should use the National Conventions to establish their message and reach out to voters who are still undecided. You continue on to conclude that the success of a Convention is determined by their impact relative to the impact of the other party’s Convention, and that the Democratic National Convention had a much larger impact than the Republican National Convention. However, in your assertion you state your own inability to accurately judge, and so the reader is left wondering exactly what evidence, even anecdotal, you used in arriving at that conclusion. You further establish your self-proclaimed incompetence by declaring that you did not willingly watch the convention, you only watched four minutes of it, and that your mind was elsewhere during the viewing. You then introduce your first piece of evidence, by stating that “the reporters where practically raving over Mr. Bill Clinton”. Ignoring the obvious grammatical error (one of many to be found throughout your argument), your analysis is based on the observations of a single selected network’s reporters. Your argument does not contain evidence of wider popular approval of Mr. Clinton’s speech, you do not provide evidence from polls or other public opinion surveys which show the impact of Mr. Clinton’s speech on people beyond those two reporters, nor do you even provide evidence that other news networks responded as positively toward the speech. You conclude this element of your analysis with the statement that “To everyone, Mr. Clinton's appearance was a pleasant surprise and his speech was a huge success”. You never establish any basis for the declaration that “to everyone” it was a success, nor do you provide any data at all indicating (even in the slightest) that his speech was a success, even though it would not have been hard to find. For example, Gallup reports that 56% of all American adults considered Clinton’s speech Excellent/Good, compared to 43% for Obama, even further compared to 38% for Romney. (1)
(Continued in next post)
You move on to the next section of your argument with no transition to connect your previous statements with the next. Instead, you leap right into a new subject—obstacles still facing both parties—followed by a vague statement that Obama pulled ahead, which would be better placed after your previous arguments that the DNC had a larger impact, not immediately following a new subject. Your post so far lacks any sort of overall structure and creates a haphazard feel where the reader is thrown violently from one point to another in a whimsical fashion, and then is left to their own means to make sense of it all. You continue with the nearly-anecdotal evidence that the RNC was “emotional” as your support for an antithesis to the DNC’s noticeable bump in the polls. (2) While it would seem self-explanatory why one cannot judge the success of a speech or Convention based on its impact on your emotions, perhaps it should be laid out more clearly. Each person, having a varied and unique experience, approaches any event with many different pre-established assumptions, convictions and biases. For example, most Conservatives show a stronger support for tradition than average, value law-and-order, small government (or local government), limited regulation, and conservative social values (against same-sex marriage, abortion, stem-cell research). On the other hand, most Liberals have the opposite views: they prefer a progressive changing society, they support generous rights for the accused, large national government, and modern social values. (3) With these widely-varied backgrounds two people could view the exact same event (speech) and have entirely different interpretations of it (as many polls (1) show). Therefore, one can never use the impact of an event on a single person, or even a small group of people, as an accurate measure of that event’s wider impact. You continue on to say that “With emotions on Romney's side, it would seem he would have no problem hyping up his party members.” However, you never establish what the reasoning is for this connection between emotion and ‘hype’. Under a Toulmin model of an argument this would be your Warrant, or a basic assumption that the reader and writer must agree upon before the logic of any statement can be effective. While perhaps it is true that emotional events create more ‘hyped’ supporters, the opposite could also be true. I am a very rational person, and I find that I am most ‘hyped’ by sheer insurmountably of superior reason or logic rather than an anecdotal personal story, however emotional. If you wish to prove that the emotional character of the RNC should lead to a more ‘hyped’ base then you must first demonstrate this connection. Perhaps the lack of ‘hype’ in Romney’s base is due to the fact that the connection you assumed was present, but never examined in detail or proved, is not. This would explain why there is less energy in the Romney voter base more accurately than a generalization that the Convention was “too...Anti-Obama”.
Despite all of your mistakes in previous reasoning your final point is the most valid and, had you searched out more evidence, the most supported. The idea that the Republican Party has become the Not-Obama Party is well-established and could have been expounded on much more with great success. As your Fox news article pointed out, Romney needs “to give undecided voters a reason to vote for him, not just against Obama.” (4) Overall your argument was severely lacking: you used anecdotal evidence multiple times, where data with very little bias was easily accessible and could have supported your argument; your grammar and punctuation show a level of detail not fit to be found in any analysis of a political event which could shape our world; and finally, your argument lacked any structure whatsoever- it would have been categorized as a stream-of-consciousness post were it not for the fact that the core element of this post (though it could be argued whether you have achieved this means in any way whatsoever) is comparison and analysis of the effects of the RNC and DNC. So Roth, GET GOOD... you’re nothing.
1. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157322/democratic-convention-rated-slightly-better-gop.aspx
2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/157406/obama-gets-three-point-convention-bounce.aspx
3. Bruce Frohnen, ed. American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia (2006) pp ix to xiv
4. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/30/after-convention-warm-up-romney-to-make-his-case-in-nomination-speech/
I can agree with most of Melayna’s post, most specifically the parts about viewer numbers. Turning away from the television and looking at Youtube, the preferred video site for many internet watchers this year, one can see that the number of views for Obama’s acceptance speech as posted by one user numbers 3,744,483 (1). As far as Youtube videos go, and for having been put up only a week ago, that number is pretty high. On the other hand, the video of Mitt Romney’s 46 minute speech rounded up only 242,852 views compared to Clint Eastwood’s twelve minute speech which received a whopping 2,283,087 views—perhaps a little disproportionate, considering he’s not even a candidate (2,3)? As Melayna stated, “the next morning more people were talking about what he [Eastwood] said than what Romney said.” This is blatantly true, considering both the videos were posted two weeks ago and show such a disparity in viewer numbers, and the fact that 20% cited Eastwood as the highlight of the convention afterwards compared to 17% for Romney (6). On the Democratic side, Bill Clinton’s speech got a healthy 1,633,137 views on the video released by CSPAN, and 3,432,278 on a video posted by a user (4,5). Strategically, one would think that a party would want their candidate’s speech to be the most watched video hovering around the internet; obviously, the Republicans didn’t foresee the former Western film star’s blundering words. Therefore, I certainly agree with Melayna that the views that these speeches got (especially in relation to the conventions’ other speakers) are key in addressing how successful each convention was, on both the television and Youtube.
1. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=barack+obama+dnc&oq=barack+obama+dnc&gs_l=youtube.3..0l4.88733.95104.0.95670.17.10.0.7.7.0.165.879.4j5.9.0...0.0...1ac.1.mjuiyVUKQPE
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGTi4-ysJS8&feature=plcp
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoqKdWY692k&feature=plcp
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5knEXDsrL4&feature=related
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzDhk3BHi6Q&feature=related
6. http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/05/rnc-highlights-romney-shares-top-billing-with-eastwood/C
I am responding to Tori, i agree with her statement that the DNC was the more successful in the convention because as she said they did gain more votes than the republicans did with their convention. Also unlike the republicans the democrats did not lie in their efforts to gain more votes, as Paul Ryan was caught lying by the media the next day, “Ryan’s comments are highly misleading. Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut funding from the Medicare program’s budget.” Both Michelle Obama and Ex President Clinton gave great speeches that helped influence the growth in votes that the President received.
Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-said-president-obama-funneled-716-billio/
Because Blogger eats replies sometimes. In response to Eric, I definitely agree with your point that the conventions are all based on the hype that is gained. The polls definitely showed that the Democrats came out ahead in that manner, due to their more positive campaign. I also agree that the RNC, lost much of its gleam after Clint Eastwoods speech, because of his rambling comments. The RNC also failed to gain much media hype, possibly from the lackluster speeches, or through their timing. All of that leads me to agree that the DNC was the much more successful party, when it came to getting people excited, and getting attention in a positive manner.
Jake the snake said:
I am responding to Sam W. who said that overall the democrats were more successful than the republicans due to the larger bump that obama received from his convention. Romneys slight bump was said to have dissipated after a few days anyhow. I disagree with this. Ratings and pollings which his argument was based on can be innaccurate up to four or five points depending upon the poll. This could very well easily cover the close polling numbers you are seeing. The news station you watch might say something different than the truth because they feel that they will get a larger group of their viewers to agree and watch more of their station. It is very difficult to find an honest news station because in the end they want to post profits and profits come from happy viewers. The bump Obama received may very well have been superficial and the upcoming presidential debates will be much more meaningful in terms of evaluating the candidates.
In response to Justin's post. I agree with most of what he said. I don't agree when he said "the conventions stopped being successes a long time ago(1)." I do agree with what he said about the success of a convention being how much attention they got. That also kind of proves my point that both conventions were successful, but the DNC was better. The RNC got attention because of Clint Eastwood...talking to a chair. However the DNC still managed to get more attention. I also agree with what he said about the conventions becoming more of a popularity contest.
1) Justin's post
2)http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/ratings-democratic-national-convention-michelle-obama-368090
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home