Okay, I admit, not as catchy as the beloved “there’s an app for that,” but it has a place these days in political communication via internet.

I like to stay politically informed, but often I get caught up in the fast pace of my college life and don’t have time to shift through a large breadth of political coverage to know as much as I would like to about an election. Over the last several months, when searching for information on the current campaigns, I have been pleasantly surprised by the incorporation of interactive graphics into the political coverage of several major news outlets.

While this is likely a case of keeping up with the Jones’ of the media world—-can’t you hear it now, “ The Jones’ put an interactive graphic on their site to help make political coverage more accessible…we need one NOW”—I would like to be optimistic and think that they have incorporated these in order to make consumption of political news and data more accessible to busy Americans.

In this digital age, it is imperative for people to be able to access online, synthesize, and then form opinions on  information quickly. These interactive graphics make this possible and easy.

The Washington Post has several graphics that help track spending on advertising (if you’re one of those people who likes to know who is putting money where and how much, this is the place for you), a horse-race journalism style tracker of the Republican Primary, and a Campaign  Finance explorer.

Similar to the aforementioned horse-race graphic on the WP sight, the New York Times has a similar delegate tracker. As a side note, The New York Time really does have an app for that.

My personal favorite interactive election graphic is featured on US Election News. It allows the user to chose specifics that they would want to see and about which they would like to learn. This allows people to receive aggregated data about issues or candidates that are important to them personally.

Negative advertising has shown to be effective in harming the images of candidates and showing what some viewers might perceive as flaws and  inconsistencies in candidates’ views but has also shown a correlation with decreasing negative advertising.
According to scholars Wattenberg and Brians, “the intent of most negative commercials is to convert votes by focusing on an issue that the sponsoring candidate has credibility in handling, but upon which the opponent is weak, As John Petrocik argues, each party has issues that they ‘own’and a campaign is a contest to focus attention on issues which favor them.” (Wattenburg and Brians) And this, many times, works.
In the 2012 campaign negative advertising is rampant. According to the Washington Post campaign tracker, shows that $114.9 million dollars has already been spent on advertising during the campaigns thus far. Including advertisements by interest groups and PACs, 72 percent of the ads produced have been negative.
Romney has spent 14.5 million, and 53 percent of his ads have been negative.
Obama has spent 3.8 million, and 38 percent of his ads have been negative.
While negative ads can be effective in influencing voters opinions, it has also been linked to decreasing voter turnout by 5 percent. (Ansolabehere, Simon, Valentino)
It will be crucial for the candidates for this not to occur—at least not to their supporters.
I believe that the already extensively negative leanings of this race will be disillusioning for the electorate. Voter turnout is already predicted to be lower than in 2008 because of less enthusiasm, and I think that,  in conjunction with this pre-existing disinterest, the negative ads will contribute to lower voter turnout.

In light of the comments about Romney’s wife not working and the conservative uproar saying the left doesn’t respect stay-at-home moms, I thought I’d take a look at motherhood and conservative politics.

Women have been in conservative politics much longer than I thought. In fact, huge groups of women rallied around the campaign against women’s suffrage before the 19th Amendment was passed, and that was one of the first organizations of politically conservative women on a national scale. They believed that giving women the right to vote would dissolve women’s privileged status and detract from their more important domestic roles as wives and mothers. They couched it in terms of “rights” — the right to be exempt from political affairs, while other women were fighting for the right to have a say in their government.

But conservative women are getting a lot more attention now, largely thanks to the Tea Party. It’s amazing how many leaders of the Tea Party movement, including the national director of activism site ResistNet and several members of the board of several Tea Party organizations, are women. And what’s remarkable is that they are making arguments based on the exact same premise: their roles as mothers.

Sarah Palin, the celebrity woman in the conservative movement, has touted her motherhood as her number one qualification for being in government.

“There’s no better training for politics than motherhood,” she said.

But it’s more than training; it’s more than a job description — it’s the reason Palin, and so many other conservative women, say they’re getting involved.

Concerned Women for America, a deeply religious conservative women’s organization founded in 1979 to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment, advocates for stay-at-home motherhood, saying feminists put pressure on women to be “Superwomen” juggling parenting and careers when childrearing is the role that would make women the happiest. But when asked why they work despite having children at home, leaders in the organization say they have to advocate for other mothers and families who share their beliefs (even though some say there’s no way they could be full-time moms).

This contrasts pretty starkly with the views of most Americans — 73 percent think the shift toward more women in the workforce has been a good think, and 62 percent believe a marriage with both parents employed is a more satisfactory lifestyle, according to a Pew Research Center poll.

Still, CWA and other conservative organizations believe motherhood is the first priority for women, and that shapes and motivates their political participation. Abortion is seen as an abandonment of that duty; same-sex marriage is a betrayal of traditional values, and government-funded childcare is socialism by taking children from their parents and indoctrinating them with secular, liberal ideas about America.

So yes, the Tea Party has given spotlight to women in leadership roles, and many of them mothers: Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin both have five. But the close ties between religion, conservatism and motherhood are nothing new.

The only surprising thing to me is that in today’s economy, anyone can be a stay-at-home mom like Mrs. Romney.

A new biography of Obama is coming out in June, and Obama’s campaign staff is worried about it, according to a POLITICO article this morning.

You see, Obama has created a powerful story with his two memoirs — one of hope and transcendence of race and class boundaries, one that encapsulates Obama as the epitome of America in this moment of tension. America is mixed and financially struggling and, frankly, a little lost, much like Obama was for the majority of his life.

POLITICO says that the biography reveals Obama’s ambition, and implies that ambition can be damning for a president.

Particularly dangerous is this quote by Genevieve Cook, who Obama described only as his “New York girlfriend” in his own book, when she wrote directly to his in her journal that she had “a sense of you [Barack] biding your time and drawing others’ cards out of their hands for careful inspection — without giving too much of your own way — played with a good poker face. … I feel that you carefully filter everything in your mind and heart — legitimate, admirable, really. … But there’s something also there of smoothed veneer, of guardedness …I’m still left with this feeling of … a bit of a wall — the veil.”

So, obviously, Obama has a veil with America. He’s not going to reveal all of his personal details to the public (unless this biographer does it for him), and some of his guardedness with Cook may have been reservations about her as a girlfriend. After all, he ended up marrying Michelle.

But the real story here is about ambition and creating a story — who creates politicians stories and how do Americans want to see them? Why is ambition bad, especially when it comes to the person in the Oval Office?

Alexander talked about politics as a performance, and creating a narrative that shapes your image to the public fits in with that model. Obama was not the first to write an autobiography before entering the White House, JFK did the same. It’s a useful tool, especially for young politicians, to sculpt their identities in American minds without much outside influence.

Another book I’ve cited in these posts, Theodore White’s rehashing of the Kennedy/Nixon race, talks about ambition. Both candidates had ambition, he said, but he had never seen anyone revel in the power and responsibility of the presidency like Kennedy. My high school teacher always gave that title to FDR, but the point is that ambition is a necessary quality for a president. You have to want that kind of power to get there and make use of it.

It may be good in terms of democratic discourse that Obama’s narrative won’t be solely crafted by him anymore. The new book, by a skilled former Washington Post reporter, will certainly give a new and more objective look at the President, offering insight to the public on the man who signs our laws. But I think it will do a disservice to political discussion if ambition on Obama’s part is seen as a character flaw.

Ambition is the concrete stuff that makes hopes and transcendence a reality. If Americans see Obama as a metaphor for the nation’s composition and potential, we should want to see in him furious ambition to be the best we can be.

Presidential candidates often face questions and inquiries about their families. They don’t often get asked about their dogs. But it’s 2012, and Mitt Romney and President Obama’s dogs have become part of the discourse surrounding this election.
It started when the press latched onto the story of how, on a family road trip in 1983, Romney put his dog’s crate on top of the van roof in order to save some space. The story was first reported in 2007, but it’s become a popular talking point in this year’s election, mostly for Romney critics looking to attack the candidate. The Obama camp has certainly tried to use the story to the president’s advantage, tweeting pictures of First Dog Bo and creating a “Pets for Obama” board on Pinterest. All of this is probably meant to do two things: appeal to pet owners and cement Obama’s status as the more likable of the two candidates.
In their study “Change: How Young Voters Interpreted the Messages Sent During the 2008 Presidential Election Season,” Kenneth Levine et al write that, in addition to party affiliation and platform, people consider how much they like a candidate before casting their votes. A recent Wall Street Journal article said that pollsters say that “the candidate that voters regard as most likable wins his party’s nomination and the presidency.”
Normally, an issue like a candidate’s dog probably wouldn’t be a part of the conversations surrounding the election. But now it is a part of those conversations. People like dogs. People don’t like people who mistreat their dogs. Now Romney’s reputation as a bad dog owner is yet another issue he will have to deal with in order to improve his likability and win the election.

Ron Paul is in a unique place. Because of his philosophy of limited government, his followers are devoted solely to him. While at many conventions Romney backers are split between numerous would-be delegates, Paul has supporters who follow his unique, libertarian leanings and are faithful to him as their potential presidential nominee. In fact, at state conventions around the country his supporters are increasing his support by joining state party committees. Like are acting similar to the Tea Party in the way they are trying to send a message to the greater Republican party leaders. They have come behind Paul and are trying their hardest to give Romney a run for his money. In fact, at the Massachusetts state convention less than half of Romney’s delegates were chosen to go to Tampa for the national convention, Paul’s delegates were chosen instead.

The possibility that the republican nomination will come down to a convention floor fight has been discussed, however at this time it seems unlikely that a brokered convention will occur.  I had never heard of a brokered convention before researching for this post. I learned that a brokered convention occurs where there are not enough delegates won during the primary elections. Essentially, a single candidate does not have a majority. There then has to be re-votes and the delegates who had been faithful to one candidate are now allowed to switch their allegiance. I am hoping that it doesn’t come down to this, even though the Washington Post says it’s not likely. The Post also says that really the convention is more of a formality or tradition, and that one ballot is held, choosing the nominee who had already been decided during the primaries.

Although Paul has been having success in state caucuses, such as in Louisiana, where he dominated had favor with four of the six districts, tying in the fifth, he still only has 80 delegates while Romney has 847. 

Throughout the primary election season Mitt Romney has been the “Goliath in a field of Davids. He is wealthier, more organized and more experienced than all of his challengers. But now, he is shifting his focus to the president. Now that he has all but won the nomination, his mind can shift from defeating little Davids, to defeating an incumbent president; no big deal. Obama’s campaign in 2008 was revolutionary. He changed the way elections will look from here on out, branded himself in a way no president before him had. He’s pretty intimidating to run against, I’m quite sure!

On Friday Obama’s campaign team released a video that was designed to raise questions and doubts about Romney’s ability to handle a national security crisis. On Tuesday Obama was in Afghanistan on the one year anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death. No one wants to feel like they are being put in danger and no one wants to have to worry about whether or not their country’s leader can handle a crisis situation, such as a breach in national security. John McCain, a supporter of Romney and former POW, defended Romney with the video was released on Friday and criticized Obama saying that he was trying to score political points on an issue that should be bipartisan.

It was strategic timing for Obama to release the video about Romney a few days before his secret trip to give people just enough time to process the content, and then announce the day of that he would be giving a speech at a military base in Kabul. He is definitely positioning himself as the hero, and what can Romney do to top that? The Obama campaign knows how to win an election, and now that Romney is the unofficial Republican nom, I would anticipate more ads like this.

Although Obama’s campaign team is intimidating, Romney is not without resources. His campaign is made up of veteran political operatives with millions of dollars at their disposal. And to their advantage, Obama is going to have to win back the affections of our nation who has become disenchanted with slow-moving economic recovery.

On April 28, government officials, members of the press and celebrities gathered for the annual White House Correspondents Dinner. The dinner is meant to recognize excellence in journalism and allow the press and the president to interact in a friendly and entertaining environment.
The evening provides several opportunities for an incumbent candidate such as President Obama.  Traditionally, presidents engage in some self-deprecating humor in addition to laughing along to jokes at their own expense. For Obama, this fits into what Jeffrey Alexander would argue is his performance of being a fun and likable guy who doesn’t take himself too seriously. People like Obama. Despite wavering approval ratings, he has continued to score well on likability throughout his term. And studies show that likability can be important to a candidate’s success, so the Obama camp will be happy to take part in something that endears the president to voters.
The president can also use the dinner to push an agenda. In the past, President Bush used the dinner as an opportunity to drum up support for the war in Afghanistan; other dinners have been used to send messages of encouragement and support to victims of natural disasters and school shootings. This year, Obama took his speech at the dinner as an opportunity to remind us of last year’s successful raid against Osama bin Laden, probably to improve confidence in his foreign policy and national security tactics.
The evening can also help the president maintain a positive relationship with the press. Indeed, the dinner has been criticized for being a measure of just how cozy the press and White House often are. In his now-famous 2007 op-ed “All the President’s Press,” New York Times writer Frank Rich cited this as one of the reasons for both his own distaste for the dinner and the paper’s decision to stop attending it. So while others may balk at this display of the deep connections between the press and the White House, the White House is probably just fine with it.
Another opportunity for Obama is the chance to curry favor with wealthy influential people. The dinner has become more and more of a celebrity function, with past guest including stars such as Sandra Bullock, George Clooney and Matt Damon in attendance. This year Fox News is bringing Kim Kardashian. And though these celebs aren’t really part of the press, they can be valuable for the president because a) they’re rich, and b) they get a lot of media coverage. That means they have the potential to become big campaign donors and spread the message that they support the president to thousands of their fans. So the celebrities get the honor of attending and (maybe) meeting the president, and the president gets the honor of support. It’s a win-win.

by Hannah Davis

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is enjoying something of a renaissance these days. The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows her approval rating at an all-time high of 65 percent. Texts From Hillary has become a wildly popular website and meme; the posts paint Clinton as powerful, funny and admired by both politicians and celebrities. Photos of Clinton drinking and dancing in Cartagena made the blog rounds. Clinton even fielded a request by Jason Segal to appear on his sitcom “How I Met Your Mother” (Clinton declined.) Suddenly, Hillary Clinton is cool.
All of this is in direct contrast to how the media portrayed Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign. During a 2008 episode of MSNBC’s “Tucker,” Tucker Carlson said “There’s just something about [Hillary Clinton] that feels castrating, overbearing, and scary.” Carlson’s comments were typical; many in the media described Clinton as nagging, cold and mean.
The media treated Clinton much the same way it did other female candidates for higher office. In “Women for President: Media Bias in Nine Campaigns,”  Erica Falk writes that coverage of female candidates is subject to sexism, and that female and male candidates do not receive equal coverage. Studies have found that stories about Clinton more often referenced common female stereotypes (such as her appearance) or delegitimized her as a candidate by referring to her with informal terms and by her first name (Uscinski, Joseph E., and Lily J. Goren, “What’s in a Name? Coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton During the 2008 Democratic Primary.” Political Research Quarterly 64.4 (2011): 884-896.)
Studies of past campaign coverage of Clinton indicate that the secretary of state probably wouldn’t have enjoyed such favorable press had Texts From Hillary or the Jason Segal offer arose during the 2008 campaign.

This article details two speeches made by Romney and Obama in Washington, D.C. The speeches were made two days apart and outlined “their visions for the nation’s future.” With careful inspection, one can see the different rhetorical styles the two candidates employed.

Following Morgan Marietta’s ideas in this article, Romney was using sacred language. Characterized by absolutist, non-consequential, non-negotiable ideas, sacred language applies “established principles and boundaries to a given situation and then privileges these principles over the consequences.” This sacred language can be seen in Romney’s condemnation of  “the government takeover of health care.” Limited governmental power is an established principle within the Republican party and Romney’s policies. Romney also spoke of restoring “values of economic freedom, opportunity, and small government”, which are a focus on the “moral ends”. He takes an absolutist view when saying, “this is not the time for President Obama’s hid and seek campaign,” giving no leniency to the consequences of this type of campaign.

In contrast, Obama took a more consequentialist approach to his rhetoric and focused on facts and outcomes, instead of relying on principles. This included his discussion of Romney’s support for The Ryan plan and its consequences of destroying a $2 trillion cut in the federal deficit. He elaborated on the facts and possible consequences of the GOP House budge plans. Finally, he made an extremely consequentialist comment and said. “there has to be some balance. All of us have to do our fair share.” According to Marietta, non-sacred political rhetoric does not deny the legitimacy of compromise. It embraces it if the consequences will be better.

These two speeches align with Marietta’s ideas of sacred and non-sacred communication. Within her article, she also states, “the Republic form of rhetoric emphasizes boundaries, protected values, and the citation of authority. Democratic candidates on the other hand, tend to prefer the logic of consequences and bounds.” These two speeches clearly demonstrate this concept.