New Forms of Media Influence Politics

With the advancement of technology, every President of Presidential candidate that has been ahead of the curve has seen substantial results in their favor if they embrace it before their counterparts do.

FDR embraced radio through his fireside chats. JFK understood how television worked compared to Nixon. Obama embraced a grass roots campaign through the internet.

Even the current candidates have turned to a fairly new media...social media. Current Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders rose from a fringe candidate status to a serious contender for nomination, winning many states in the process. Republican candidate Donald Trump has turned to Twitter to get his message out and gain followers in the process.

Whenever a new medium is released it quickly catches the attention of the American public. The youth are the largest group to jump on new media forms. This is often a key demographic that a political party hopes to capture because not only do they represent a significant portion of the present day voters, but they also represent the future of their political parties for years to come.

At a time of uncertainty, FDR used the 30 fireside chats on radio to promote the Emergency Banking Act in response to the banking crisis, to talk about the recession, New Deal initiatives, and update Americans on our stance during World War II. These radio addresses kept America as calm as possible during one of the darkest times in our history.

How did this work in FDR's favor? He became the only President to serve more than two terms (elected four times), destroying Hoover, Landon, Willkie, and Dewey in the national elections.


Later television would capture America. This worked in the favor of John Kennedy who participated in the very first televised presidential debate against then Vice President Richard Nixon.

Those who watched the debates on television saw a young, handsome looking man who exuded the appearance of confidence. On the other side of the stage they saw Richard Nixon who was rumored to be sick, was noticeably sweating on air, refused to wear makeup, and sported a five o'clock shadow. Nixon was considered the better debater and those who listened to the first debate on the radio thought he won. Those who caught the debate on TV though felt the opposite was true.

Nixon had a slim lead in the polls at the time of the debate, but that was the last time he was considered to be the front runner.

The result of the debate was that presidential staffs learned that they had to strategize on how their candidate and their message would appear on television. Teams of people actually focused on how the President looked now when they appeared in public.

By 2008, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama adapted his campaign to reach those on the internet. Using his website as well as other websites that were created in support of his campaign, Obama was able to reach a youth vote out there without spending a ton of money. His grassroots campaign was something unseen before as Republican candidate John McCain used traditional outlets of media such as television and radio to reach his base. Social media was still growing at the time and the majority of Americans weren't using it yet. Those who were also got to see the early signs of what it could do.

This year, two candidates have not only utilized social media...they've dominated in it.

Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders was considered a fringe candidate at the time he announced his candidacy. At the time he entered the race, he was only polling at 2 to 5 percent of the total Democratic votes. Hillary Clinton wagered her campaign on name recognition and the use of news media. Sanders on the other hand put together one of the best social media campaigns every seen in politics and rose up to be a serious challenger to the presumed nominee.

Sanders' Facebook followers went from several thousand to over 4 million. His posts on Facebook and Twitter have earned thousands of shares and retweets. At the time of this posting (May 7), Clinton is beating Sanders by over two hundred delegates and has won 26 states to his 19. Though Sanders is behind, his results are not bad for someone considered a far-shot. In fact for those under 40 years old, he is considered the favorite. His message has also been mostly adapted by Clinton to prevent him from rising farther in the polls.

On the Republican side, Donald Trump understood the power of social media better than his other opponents. Ted Cruz's social media campaign was weak. Marco Rubio's made him come across as boring compared to the youthful and energetic image he was hoping to maintain. Jeb Bush's social media presence was abysmal. John Kasich's social media presence seems to be ghostly as his posts are rarely shared compared to the other candidates.

Trump touched on a the theory that "all press is good press". Often appearing to go "nutty" on Twitter in the late hours, Trump comes off no different than some of those online looking to pick fights with other strangers. He tweeted ugly images of his opponents and their family. He retweeted quotes and endorsements from those who come off as being racist or fascist. He often airs out his opinions without his campaign staff getting a chance to chime in on whether the Tweet should go be tweeted.

Even with that said, he still continues to gain more followers, many of whom feel anger towards what they consider as dirty politics ironically.

But one thing can be said about his social media use...he knows how to gain more supporters using it. Trump understands that social media can be a major factor in gaining supporters and getting his message out there, just as Berne Sanders does.

On the flipside, social media can also tear down a candidate. Democrat Anthony Weiner is a prime example of this.

Perhaps one of the brightest Democrats when it came to policies and strategy, he was about as dumb as a horny teenager when it came to social media. On his Twitter account, he tweeted pictures of his genital area on the internet. Perhaps he didn't realize that this would be seen by the world, but that's not an excuse. His actions knocked him out from probably being a future presidential candidate to someone who could no longer even when a race for mayor of New York City, especially when he was caught again being stupid on social media during his mayoral campaign.

As technology continues to develop it should be interesting on what new form of media will develop and then in turn be used by politicians to help further their careers. Maybe some form of virtual reality will be used to transport people in their homes to feel like they're standing by a candidate on stage as they give a speech.

Whatever new form of media develops, it's almost a guarantee that a future president will use it to win a seat behind the Resolute Desk of the Oval Office.

The Primary Process Needs to be Fixed

This is a screencap of the delegate distribution in Wyoming despite Sanders winning by over 12% of the state's popular vote

If you have a pulse and pay even the remotest attention to politics in the United States, it's safe to say that there is something about the Presidential Primary process that confuses you. If you watch interviews with people who are in charge of the process in their own states, even some of them aren't exactly sure how it's run. The problem is this process is alienating the average person from getting involved in the elections process let alone even caring about it.

So many people believe the process is rigged and examples in recent weeks have shown this to be true. In the Democratic Primary held in Wyoming, Bernie Sanders won the popular vote by over 12 percent, but walked away with 7 delegates compared to Hillary Clinton's 11 delegates. One of Clinton's supporters on CNN when asked if they felt this was fair answered, "Oh well."

Trevor Noah asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz on The Daily Show if this is a rigged process and she refused to answer the question directly. When pressed she made the excuse that superdelegates have been around for years and that nothing was wrong with the distribution process.

The process is broken. Superdelegates don't care what their constituents want. In the case of Clinton, after the very first primary held in Iowa nearly ended in a dead tie between Sanders and her, it was announced on every mainstream news station that she was up by over 400 delegates already. How is that not rigged? From day one it's very easy for a person to come to the conclusion that their vote doesn't count since Clinton was basically spotted 400 plus delegates. California is the largest state in the union and has 475. These 400 plus superdelegates that are now up to 477, means that 477 people have just as much power as 39 million residents of the largest and most diverse state in the country.

This creates disenfranchisement among a party and those who already feel disconnected to an overly complicated political system. The problem will never be fixed with people like Wasserman Schultz who are running the Democratic National Committee because there is a clear conflict of interest. She was a campaign manager for Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2008 and one of her best friends. The pro-Clinton Super Pacs are all run by people who also have superdelegate votes. All clear conflicts of interest especially against a candidate that doesn't have, nor want a Super Pac.

There is a DNC rule that states: "The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”

Henry R. Muñoz III, who was President Obama's top fundraising manager is now the Chairperson for the Democratic Party's financial operations. He organized a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in San Antonio, Texas which is a clear violation of the impartiality rule. Wasserman Schultz when pressed whether she would reprimand and/or fire Muñoz for this avoided the question. Some speculation is because she herself had connection to this particular fundraiser. The leaders of DNC have made up their mind from day one that Clinton will be their nominee.

Everyone who holds high positions in both the Democratic and Republican National Committees are content to say that's just how the whole system works and nothing can be done about it. Of course something can be done about it, but both party chairs don't want to. You can't use the excuse that the system has been this way for a while, so what can you do?

The obligation to the American people should be to fix and simplify the process so it encourages more people to vote and be interested in the whole process. It can be done.

First, California should be moved up in the Primary schedule. The most diverse state in the union with the most delegates shouldn't be voting on the very last day. All of the Southern states voted before a single West Coast state (with exception to Nevada) even got to cast a single vote. The Primary schedule should be shuffled evenly across the country.

We have seen this personally affect Sanders' campaign because much of his base is within these Western and Midwestern states. By the time they get to vote, the appearance of a Clinton victory already seems inevitable especially with the addition of superdelegates added to the mix, discouraging voters in the West from even showing up to the polls.

Secondly, make the state by state Primary process delegation distribution purely based on the popular vote of that state. For example, if a state has 100 delegates and Candidate A earns 62 percent of the state's overall popular vote and Candidate B earns 33 percent, then Candidate A should earn 62 of the delegates and Candidate B should earn 33. This prevents issues such as what happened in Wyoming.

Thirdly, make the Primary vote an all-day process just as the National Elections are. Not between 5pm to 7pm or similar examples to this that have small voting windows. The law gives people the guaranteed right to vote on National Election days by making sure an employer grants their employee the appropriate time to get to their precinct and vote (although this isn't always observed by many employers these days), but this law doesn't grant the same right on Primary days.

A good example of this was what happened in Arizona. Garnering a stronger base among younger voters, Sanders' supporters found themselves in long lines when they showed up to their precincts. The law states that as long as a voter is in line in time their vote will count even if they haven't been able to reach the voting booth before the precincts are scheduled to close. With the precincts cut down to 60 from the 200 that existed in 2012 despite the projected voter count to rise from 200,000 in 2012 to 800,000 this year, lines in Arizona were longer than ever before. Instead of counting every voters ballot and following the law, the precincts were closed while people were still waiting in line. This gave the advantage to Clinton who won 56 percent to Sander's 41 even though he was projected to be the winner.

This decision to close the polls hurt Sanders because younger voters tend not to rush to the polls the moment they open. They're more likely to show up halfway along the process. Also because it was held on a weekday, younger people tend to be at school or stuck at work for the first portion of the hours that the Primary is open.

On the other hand, Clinton does better with older people and business owners/managers. Older people, especially those who are already retired, tend to show up early, often right when the precincts open. If they aren't retired, they are often in positions that they can cut out early for the day or schedule around the beginning of the Primary.

When precincts closed despite not letting those in line cast a ballot, Sanders lost any chance he had to win the state. Having an all-day long Primary allows for more of a chance for people to show up to cast their ballot.

Fourthly, I'm not even 100 percent against the concept of a superdelegate. There are just way too many. Limit superdelegates to surviving ex-Presidents and ex-Vice Presidents (unless they are running). Currently that would leave Democrats with superdelegate votes going to Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Al Gore, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. Bill Clinton because of a conflict of interest would lose his superdelegate vote. On the Republican side this would leave George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle, George W. Bush, and Dick Cheney. Beyond that, we don't need anymore. Call it a benefit for winning the office of President in the past.

Fifthly, get rid of Super Pacs. They muddle up the process and make people with money count more than the average American. They also lead to bribery when they buy delegates votes in contested conventions. As CNN reported, Super Pacs are working on delegates now, offering them vacations, money, and other gifts if they cast a ballot for the nominee that the Super Pac wants if the conventions are contested. This year both the Democrats and Republicans could easily have contested conventions. Plus Super Pacs buy so much media that they can sway an election if their commercials reach the voters the way they want them to, once again meaning the voice of those with money mean more than the average voter.

Lastly, get rid of the electoral college. College Political Science professors let alone high school teachers have trouble explaining the process and why the district lines are the way they are. With gerrymandering rigging the whole process as it is, district lines are completely unfair. Of course you won't be able to ignore districts as a whole because they are needed to determine the members of the House of Representatives, but draw the lines cleanly and fairly, and leave the Presidential process open to an overall popular vote by the entire state.

In a time when globalization is now taking place, the electoral college process finds itself antiquated.

Make the elections more "user-friendly". Every American should be able to have their vote count just as much as the next person. Make every state a popular vote state that has an all-day long Primary. Get rid of 99 percent of superdelegates. Shuffle the states every election year so all states feel as their votes count as much as those in other states.

Taking these steps will help simplify the process and get more people personally invested in the process. Voter turnout in 2012 was at 57.5 percent for those who were eligible to vote, but other countries in the world have 80 plus percent turnouts. Americans are so jaded in the process that they believe that their individual votes no longer count. Get them re-involved in the process and let every possible voice be heard.

Superdelegates Carry too Much Power

Photo from Bernie Sanders' Facebook page

Now that it's primary season, the contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders intensifies. Clinton was supposed to be the lockdown favorite to win the Democratic Party's nomination, but thanks to social media and a message that reaches the first class, Sanders has become a serious contender to Clinton. This isn't too dissimilar to President Barack Obama's campaign in 2008 when he defeated Clinton through social media and his grassroots campaign. The problem for Sanders in 2016 is the superdelegates.

For those of you who don't know what a superdelegate is, they are a party leaders and distinguished elected officials that can choose whomever they want to endorse instead of being beholden to the voters' wishes of their state.

The problem with this is that their single vote could be equal to thousands of regular citizens' votes. This is unfair. In America, every vote should be counted as equal. The superdelegates have enough power to swing a primary election in the favor of a candidate that the general public did not choose to represent them.

Sanders has this problem currently. Already fighting an uphill battle with the media that gives him little airtime despite selling out rally venues up to the size of Madison Square Garden, Clinton has been presumed the party nominee from day one by the media, disrespecting the Senator from Vermont. Sanders has reached more people through social media than any other candidate for either party yet he is presumed to be a fringe candidate.

If you look at the delegate count as of March 4, Clinton has a modest lead with a count of 601 delegates compared to Sanders' 409. With the early southern states that have already held their primaries, this is not a surprise since Clinton polled better in the south. Sanders on the other hand polls better in western and northern states and if you look at the difference of the regular delegates, Sanders would be far from being knocked out of the race and would carry a certain momentum with him as states such as California and Oregon would hold their primaries in the future.

The monkey wrench is that Clinton dominates with the superdelegates. Instead of being a close race, when the superdelegates are factored in, Clinton is winning 1,058 to Sanders' 431. When future voters who have yet to participate in a primary look at this, it would appear that Clinton is destroying Sanders. This is only because she has 457 superdelegates compared to Sanders' 22. The 457 superdelegates she has have more power than the thousands of regular, everyday people that have voted for Sanders already. This is by far unfair.

On CNN, Jake Tapper asked the Democratic National Committee chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it's all rigged?" Schultz responded, "Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists."

This sounds awfully bad. So campaigns that gain their power from the everyday person instead of those already in power are considered to be not as important in Schultz's eyes. Power remains in power. The will of the people is thwarted by those already in power. Maybe she feels this way since she was in charge of Clinton's first campaign for President in 2008 which fell to the grass-roots campaign run by Barack Obama.

With the appearance that Clinton is destroying Sanders this badly so far, many undecided voters find themselves swayed to vote for Clinton because she is winning instead of voting for who they think is really the best candidate.

Because of the existence of superdelegates, Sanders could beat Clinton by 711 delegate votes, effectively winning the majority of the United States by far and still lose the Democratic nomination if all 712 superdelegates voted for Clinton. Once again, extremely unfair and against the will of the regular everyday Democratic voter.

Neither party should have superdelegates. It's not fair to those who are not considered the front runner for their party's nomination at the beginning of the primary process. Sanders has proven that instead of being a fringe candidate, he is a real threat to win the majority of the regular everyday person's votes, but without the support of the superdelegates, it wouldn't matter.

Power keeps power.