Reflections on 2012 US Presidential Elections, by Jameson Goetz

On November 6^th, Barack Obama was reelected to his second four-year term as President of the United States. President Obama defeated former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney with a final count of 332 to 206 Electoral College votes. Obama also defeated Romney 50% to 48% in the popular vote. As a supporter of President Obama, I was definitely pleased with his reelection. Still, considering what has happened in the past four years, I am certainly surprised. By nearly all standards, President Obama defied political odds by winning reelection to a second term.

This post from Barack Obama quickly became the most “re-tweeted” post in Twitter’s history.

Here are some interesting facts related to President Obama’s reelection:

·      President Obama’s margin of victory was significantly lower than in 2008 (53% to 46%). No president has ever been re-elected by a smaller margin than the previous election.

·      Obama’s popular vote majority was the lowest of any re-elected incumbent in the last century.

·      President Obama’s public approval ratings have averaged below 50%. No other incumbent candidate has ever won a presidential election with such low public approval.

·      Throughout most of President Obama’s first term, fewer than 40% of Americans believed that the country was “moving in the right direction”. The day after the election, only 43% of Americans believed the country was moving in the right direction.

·      Polls indicated that prospective voters favored Mitt Romney “as an economic manager” over President Obama by a margin of roughly 9%.

·      On Election Day, the unemployment rate in the United States had risen to roughly 7.9%, which is far higher than any time in the 25 years before Obama’s Inauguration in January 2009.

These statistics are pretty puzzling, as well as somewhat alarming. Do Americans currently have any confidence in President Obama? They seem to lack confidence in President Obama, yet they reelected him by a fairly convincing margin. Why did a majority of Americans vote for President Obama? Many people, myself included, point to changing demographics. The Sunday before the election, the Pew Research Center released its final prediction on the outcome of the election: President Obama would win, beating Republican Party candidate Mitt Romney, 50 percent to 47 percent. The Pew Research Center described what it called a “demographic transformation”:

·      Women favored Obama over Romney 53 % to 40%

·      Romney’s support among voters age 65 and older dwindled to just 9 percentage points.

·      Nationally, nonwhite voters made up 28% of all voters, up from 26% in 2008. Obama won 80% of these voters, the same as four years ago.

·      In Ohio, African Americans were 15% of the electorate, up from 11% in 2008. In Florida, Hispanics were 17% of the electorate, an increase from 14% in 2008.

·      Nationally, Romney won the white vote, 59% to 39%.

·      Nationally, Obama received “overwhelming” support from African Americans and Latinos.

·      Obama lost the independent vote, 50% to 45%. However, Democrats made up 38% of all voters while Republicans made up just 32%.

·      40% of white Christians voted for Obama.

·      20 % of voters claimed no religious affiliation while roughly one-third of Americans age 18-22 called themselves atheists, agnostics, or “nothing at all”. 70% of this voting bloc voted for Obama.

·      Pointing the future diminishing influence of voters age 65 or older, The Pew Research Center’s indicated that future elections will continue to be increasingly decided by women, young people, and minorities.

Voters in Washington and Colorado legalized the recreational use of marijuana. In Massachusetts, voters legalized the use of marijuana for medical reasons

I consider myself to have liberal views on social issues. However, I describe my views on economic issues as more moderate, not liberal. I believe the political views of my generation as a whole could also be described this way. In the 2012 Presidential Election voters ages 18 to 29 made up 19% percent of voters. 60% of this voting bloc voted for President Obama, while 36% voted for Mitt Romney. The Huffington Post addressed this generation gap in an article titled “Youth Vote Gap Suggests Republicans Risk Losing An ‘Entire Generation’ to Democrats”.

The increasing popularity of Libertarianism, an ideology that generally embraces socially liberal and economically conservative views, has grown increasingly popular with younger voters. This year’s Libertarian Party for President, Gary Johnson enthusiastically expressed his support for equal rights for LGBTQ persons and an end to the prohibition on marijuana.

Voters in Washington, Maine, and Maryland voted in favor of the right to marry for same-sex couples. Voters in Minnesota rejected a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

 I also believe that a significant amount of all voters, not just those from my generation, were alienated by Mitt Romney’s conservative views on a variety of social issues. In general, Americans have begun to view with skepticism the strict laws regulating marijuana. Americans views on civil rights for LGBTQ persons have dramatically changed. Most research indicates that nowadays a majority of Americans reject the idea of withholding basic civil rights (marriage, employment protections, the right to openly serve in the military) from LGBTQ persons. Americans also tend to view favorable granting more rights to undocumented workers, an overwhelming majority of whom are Latino.

This widespread rejection of social conservatism, partly a result of changing demographics in the U.S., may help explain why President Obama was reelected even though Americans favored Mitt Romney “as an economic manager” by a margin of roughly 9%.

I certainly do not see those Americans who embrace social conservatism giving up their fight anytime soon. I am curious to see how this political divide will play out in the future. Is it inevitable that we will grow even more divided politically?

According to recent projections, the amount of money spent on campaign advertising during the 2012 Election increased dramatically to roughly 6 billion dollars. The dramatic increase results directly for Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In the decision, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political spending by corporations and unions. Political junkies expected that an increase in spending on campaign advertising would result from the Supreme Court’s decision. Many also predicted that the increased spending would significantly alter election results; however, those predictions proved to be wrong.

            Major Outcomes of the 2012 Election:

·      The Republican Party still holds a majority in the House of Representatives.

·      The Democratic Party still holds a majority in the Senate.

·      The Democratic Party’s candidate won reelection to a second four-year term as president.

So what changed? Not a whole lot besides a decrease in productive political discourse due to the substantial increase in spending on campaign advertisements. If anything, I think the 2012 Election (specifically the outcome of Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission decision) demonstrates a genuine need for dramatic campaign finance reform. The rise of the so-called Super PACs frustrated many Americans, regardless of political affiliation or ideology. I am hopeful, though somewhat skeptical, that we will soon see bipartisan action to appropriately address the issue. The Huffington Post recently published an article pertaining to the movement towards campaign finance reform. If we as Americans could ever come together, I would have to believe that it would be to address this outrageous spending on campaign advertisements.

“Youth Vote Gap Suggests Republicans Risk Losing An ‘Entire Generation’ to Democrats”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/youth-vote-gap-republican_n_2100155.html

“Campaign Finance Reformers Get Back To Work After Record Election Spending”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/campaign-finance-reform_n_2122811.html

No Interest in Interest Groups, by Christopher Michels

            I am extremely passionate when it comes to United States History. When it comes to the Presidency, wars, or globalization, I am all ears and ready to go. However, some of the more trivial details of our History slide by me as uninteresting. One such topic that recently came up in class is interest groups. Most of what I know about interest groups comes from summer mornings in South Dakota. Every commercial break during the Price is Right on CBS would have commercials dedicated to A.A.R.P. This is probably because the Price is Right is traditionally for an older audience, but I still loved it. Though I had no idea what interests groups were at the time, I was, however, able to use deductive reasoning to see that it was some sort of assembly of older people. I now know that it is the American Association for Retired Persons. So even when uneducated on the topic, interest groups were still part of my daily life.

            I now know more on the subject, and I see just how important they are. I believe in a free country such as the United States, interest groups are the one of the cornerstones of freedom.  Interests groups are perhaps the best examples of our basic rights of speech and assembly. However, just because interest groups have the rights to speak out does not mean they always get their way. A big example that comes to mind is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a.k.a PETA. These people are able to air commercials, gather in large groups, and let their voice be heard. However, if it were up to them, no one would be able to eat meat, or even swat at a housefly. More people than not believe that PETA is too extreme. And even with the freedom of speech, there are still restrictions PETA has faced. I say this because again, I have a particular example in mind. It was for a super bowl in the mid 2000’s. A PETA commercial was actually banned from airing on national television, and for good reason. The PETA commercial started with a bathtub. There was a woman inside the tub, and her private parts were only slightly covered with bubbles. The woman proceeded to take a large pumpkin and lick it and caress it as if it were her lover. One can still find the commercial online if they would like. The point PETA was trying to get across is that vegetables can be just as delicious as meat…at least I think that was the reason. However, even if the message was good, it was way too odd and risky to be a commercial of the super bowl, especially after the Janet Jackson incident a year or two before.

            Another example of interest groups not always getting their way is the National Rifle Association. The NRA is a pretty basic group, they want to keep the right to bear arms. However, with high crime rates in the country, many are questioning whether or not this should be a basic right and if there should be more strict laws. Personally, I do not give a crap about guns. I do not think guns and the crime rate exactly go hand in hand. I believe even if there were strict gun laws, if a criminal truly wanted a gun, they would find a way to have one. It is not a bad idea to have a gun in the house for the safety of a family, as long as people are smart about it.

            Another problem with interest groups is their competitive nature. Even with the two examples I gave, there is hostility. PETA must hate the NRA because of hunting animals. Interest groups are important in democracy, but they are also a contributor in the two party system. Parties absorb an interest group to take a side and gain votes. I know now how important interest groups are, but they can still be a difficult topic to tackle.