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.

Us vs. Us: Elite Pit Poor Against Each Other

Pictured: Donald Trump who argues minimum wage is too high

Wages in America have fallen far behind the rate of inflation and the cost of living. The last time minimum wage was raised was in 2009 when the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) raised it to $7.25 an hour. Some states and other localities such as cities have raised their minimum wage levels higher than this, but not to level it once was.

Many argue against it including Donald Trump who said on MSNBC's Morning Joe, "But I think having a low minimum wage is not a bad thing for this country." He argued that most people wouldn't have to worry about it if they just did a good job working hard.

Others argue against Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' proposal to eventually raise it to $15 over multiple years. In these arguments, they use fast food workers as the example of a minimum wage worker. Out of the 3.3 million workers making the federal minimum wage or lower in America (tipped employees, student-employees, and more make under the federal level), 1.5 million are in the food industry according the Bureau of Labor. This doesn't take account for those that are making minimum wage in areas that are above the federal level, but pay a higher minimum wage due to cost of living in those particular regions (e.g. California is $10 an hour). Approximately 35 percent of food industry workers in total in American make minimum wage or less.

The strawman argument made is that if minimum wage is raised to $15, the majority of those that will benefit will be teenage kids working for an employer such as McDonalds. The average minimum wage employee is 35 years old according to John Schmitt, the senior economist with the Center of Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC. Just over 88 percent are over 20 years old and over 50 percent are over 30 years old. Fifty-four percent of minimum wage employees work full-time and another 32 percent work half-time (up to 34 hours a week). This also doesn't take account of those making just over minimum wage, but under the $15 an hour. This includes retail store managers such as Gamestop who pay head store managers $12 an hour to run businesses that make $2 million a year and carry a low payroll percentage already. They too would benefit from the raise.

Those that utilize the strawman argument online often make comparisons with teenage fast food workers to professions such as EMT's and military people who make under $15 an hour as well. This is a false argument though. To start, EMT's and other medical professionals making under $15 would benefit from a minimum that is raised to $15. Second, there is no scenario saying that fast food workers deserve it more or that they would receive the pay raise, but not those in the life saving professions. Thirdly, they too have been the victims over the years of not receiving raises that correlate with the cost of living.

Instead of people pitting fast food employees against these noble professions, why are they not banding together to fight those who have benefitted from their hard work? The average CEO makes 350 times more than their average employee, let alone one that makes minimum wage for that company. The average CEO in America makes $12.3 million a year which is almost $5 million a year ahead of the second highest paying country in the world to CEO's, Switzerland. Walmart's CEO, Doug McMillon makes $25.6 million a year not counting his company paid cars, paid air travel, and other benefits. This is 1,133 times higher than the average full-time Walmart employee who makes $22,591, or about $10.86 an hour.

This has ballooned from the 20-1 CEO to average pay ratio from 1950. This also doesn't account for other board members and top brass within these companies who also saw their incomes balloon higher than the average employee. While CEO's saw their pay rate rise as high as 1,750 percent since 1950, the average worker hasn't seen the same pay hike.

In 1968, the minimum wage was $1.60 which doesn't sound like a great deal, but when adjusted for inflation, has as much buying power as someone who make over $21 an hour today. That means if you make under $21 an hour today, you are no better off than a minimum wage employee was 48 years ago. You would have to make $41,680 a year ($21 an hour at full-time) to have the equal buying power of a minimum wage employee in 1968.

Today, 63 percent of Americans make under $41,680. That is 63 percent of Americans who make wages that have not kept up with inflation and the cost of living. There are teachers, first responders, business managers, and many other professions that make less than that. This means the face of person that has knocked down by the elite shouldn't be a fast food employee, but instead should be someone such as a soldier, teach, or EMT, for they too have been gypped.

While those who the strawman argue against minimum wage being raised to $15 an hour love posting pictures of fast food employees as the face of their argument, those who make less than $21 should ban together and counter this argument.

It's not one or another when it comes to fast food employees versus someone such as an EMT. The elite use this example to pit the poor against the poor. This takes the heat off what they themselves make. If you make under $15 an hour, you should direct your anger at those who run your place of business and not those who make around the same amount.