Here it is, proof that my kids are right-ish, and I am wrong. (In fairness, my 2009 edition of Mags is wrong.) TV is going by the wayside. Campaigns are seeing this and retooling their campaigns. Advertising is decreasing on TV... and even TV manufacturers are advertising their TVs as more computers to which you can give audible commands or surf the web. This platform is dead/dying. We're watching it, and unless you are the evening news or a sports channel, you know it. This article gives the statistical proof that it's not just millenials who are tuning out in favor of their connective devices. It's everyone who has the tiny screen.
0 Comments
More news from down the rabbit hole here. Learned me some history about disclosure waivers granted by the FEC... Did you know that we have, to date, had two? One to the NAACP and one to the Socialist Worker's Party. In both cases, it was because contributors were being harassed for their aid to these groups at various points in time. Well, the TP has asked for the same status because of the harassment of their contributors. (Evidence: the IRS harassing the TP and their contributors last spring.) And right now we have a hung commission... Like it or not, the Senate has voted for the so-called "nuclear option" on confirming nominees. Filibusters have been used more and more in recent history to thwart the party in power, particularly for very powerful positions like administrators of Medicare & Medicaid, as well as D.C. Circuit Court positions (aka the second most powerful court in the land) That problem in completing the lauded "Plum Book" nominees has been noticeable over the last three administrations. Celebrations, abound. This means that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-GA), for one, cannot hold appointees hostage in exchange for access to eye witnesses to the Benghazi attacks last year. So, while many vacant positions will now (hopefully) be filled, the war over who will win in the long run has just begun. GOPs warn that retribution will come the next time the GOP has the chamber in its grasps... But for now, we just have some confirmation hearings to attend. Here is a current list from the White House of how many guys and gals need to be confirmed. And just for fun... the thoughts on the filibuster have moved all around the political compass... Here is abrief run down of quotes from those in power... I have frequently looked at election results, events in D.C., stories on the evening news from around the country and wondered, Who are we? It seems we are a people constantly bereft of history, of a compass that guides and explains why we do the things we do. I know, there is a ton of historical explanations out there as to why we are the way we are. I wanted to highlight some of the information that has come to my attention as of late. 1. Colin Woodward's American Nations. I saw this book at Costco a while back and passed it up. I am kicking myself in the tush, because I have read articles... listened to interviews... and seen his map all over the place. I put this on my facebook page recently, and a friend of mine from back home in Northern Ohio pinpointed the very same sentiment I have had traveling throughout the Great State of O-H-I-O. Depending on how far south you go, it's like passing through another world. (Which may explain this great infographic about Ohio and the 2012 election.) 2-4. The WaPo's Washington: A World Apart. If we can't reach an understanding of what makes America tick based on culture, surely it has to be based on social class and income inequality. I like this infographic because it allows you to drill down to your zip code and compare median income with those incomes all around you... or far, far away. If that doesn't complete the picture enough for you, what about a map that details local usage of federal welfare benefits? Or how the tax burden has changed over time?
Have suggestions? More places to wax philosophic on all things American culture & political socialization? Almost one full week later, and the dust is settling in my neck of the woods, and conservatives everywhere are coming to terms with Terry McAuliffe as Governor. (One of my students told me that McAuliffe's nickname is McAwful... but wait, don't forget that Cuccinelli went by the moniker Mr. ABC... Anyone But Cuccinelli. So how did McAuliffe do it? The wonks over at WaPo can tell us... The map above focuses only on the counties in VA that flipped from Blue to Red and vice versa, showing that McAuliffe really campaigned hard in the growing urban and suburban regions in the state. Without a good turn out in these areas, it stands to reason that McA wouldn't have won.
I wanted to turn my attention to the Libertarian for a moment, Robert Sarvis. He won 6.55% of the vote, which according to the University of Minnesota's Smart Politics, is the third best Libertarian showing in gubernatorial races ever. While I have harped a lot on the schism in the Republicans, I find that the Libertarians gradual expansion in elections is a rather interesting phenom, as well. At a minimum, they have played the spoiler role in many an election as of late, but perhaps there is something else going on. Afterall, Gary Johnson got about 1% of the vote last time around, which isn't all that bad for a dude who was unknown The Colbert Report ... but it made me chuckle. Perhaps you can enjoy this for yourself when you want to wax philosophic about media bias.
Voter turnout is low. Excitement is minimal. Signs in the yards indicate the truly dyed-in-the-wool partisan folks. So, how do these off-year elections measure in election lore? They are important. Really important to parties in particular. Now, as a Virginian I do care about who the g-o-v is, but I am sure that outside of VA, NJ, and the NY Mayoral race... no one cares. Exploring this concept (and depending on who you speak to about this matter), the off-year elections in the states of New Jersey and Virginia can be read as a referendum on the Republican party, as stated in NPR this morning. It should be pointed out that gubernatorial race went against the party in power back to the 1970s, as indicated above. Now, Larry Sabato says that off-year elections are not a referendum; that exit polls show that despite a swing to the right in the last few election cycles, most voters in these states are generally supportive of Obama in particular. In off-year elections, supporters of the opposition party and those who are dissatisfied with the status quo in Washington are usually more energized than supporters of the president’s party and those who are satisfied with the status quo. This helps to explain why candidates from the president’s party have lost the last six gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey. But this doesn’t mean that these elections should be viewed as referenda on the performance of the president. Even with the Republican skew of the electorates in Virginia and New Jersey, the exit polls showed that President Obama was fairly popular in both states: 48 percent of the voters in Virginia and 57 percent of the voters in New Jersey approved of his job performance. Sabato concludes that these two states are no indicator of larger trends to follow. However, I wonder if he would be singing the same tune today? After all, one could argue the referendum is more about who is in control of the GOP: the Old Guard or the Tea Party? If Christie wins in blue NJ, and Cuccinelli loses, does that mean that the TP is not looking like the rallying point for the GOP? Will the shutdown do more damage to Cuccinelli, especially considering the effort of the left to tie Cuccinelli's conservative politics to the shutdown in a state so dependent upon federal spending? It all adds up for some political conjecture, I say. (If in particular you are interested in reading more about the VA race, Cuccinelli as a conservative, McAuliffe, Sarvis, or the NJ race... read here :) And if that isn't enough to get you up in the morning, check out the ballot initiatives around the country today. The buzz over Sebelius's testimony before Congress is at a fevered pitch. I thought it would be a fun time to talk about who else has testified... Remember, these folks are called by the committee in question to testify. Who testifies is very important, for failing to get all vested parties can create bias in upcoming legislation. These hearings have four basic formats:
Sunday brought us a great article from Jonathan Martin, et. al. about the insurgents and how they are funding themselves in Congress. There is so much here. So. Let's. Do. It. 1. We are seeing the sunsetting of K Street's hold over Congress. There is more money in 'purer' ideological factions in Congress. Can you believe that former big wigs like the Chamber of Congress are in competition with the Heritage Foundation's Heritage Action and Club for Growth? 2. They are funded, in large part, by grass roots movements. It's not the SuperPAC nebulous donor situation we are talking about here. In the case of the Senate Conservative Fund, very conservative candidates are put on the primary rolls against (sometimes) Republican incumbents who are not as conservative... to vote them out. This brings us Marco Rubio, at a minimum. 3. The factions in Congress can go both ways. There is a great interactive map that shows us where they are and how they vote. 4. Possibly, has Karl Rove of Crossroads GPS lost control of the conservatives he has brought in? Maybe, maybe not... Teri Gross did a great interview for those of you who want more... It's riveting stuff! My only complaint: I really wish we had more information about the factions within the Democrats. I want to know what those blue dogs and those who back the populist sentiment in the Occupy movement are up to; and are they falling in line behind Obama, who is more centrist than the more liberal elements had hoped for? Closing in on a day rife with class warfare, federal spending, and a cash strapped and over extended government, I stumbled upon this Op/Ed on politico. You know what I love about this... it's simple. How many of us have told our kids, our friends, ourselves that the solution is frighteningly simple. Increase taxes or decrease spending. Or hell, both. Here is more direct advice. A lesson from baseball, the great American pasttime... 1.) Analyze what works and what doesn't. 2.) Spend money on what works. 3.) Cut funding on what doesn't. Many non-profits have been on this basic bandwagon. A personal favorite, from the Concorde Coailtion, has some great teacher resources. This includes a quick 30 minute version of I.O.U.S.A. And for those of us who have problems with big numbers, (like me!!) here is a great visualization from some kids dorm room. Thanks! |
Photo via Flickr/Ted Eytan
Archives
September 2017
Categories
All
|