Money raised for campaigns

It has come out about how much both Romney and Obama have raised for their campaign in April. Obama is leading with raising $43.6 million, and Romney raised a close $40.1 million dollars. I think that is is ridiculous for one month because that money could go to better things. Some of this money could be going towards helping the poor, or other programs that need financial help. You could make $1 or $2 million dollars and be alright with campaigning. I understand that it costs money to run your campaign, but does it really need to cost that much. No, matter how much money you spend on commercials, pamphlets, buttons, or anything like that if people do not like you, people don't like you.

What I want to know is why is there so many people that pay all of this money to a candidate?  It goes the same with them they should be donating their money to other causes that could help out the community as a whole, rather then to candidates. When looking at the open secrets website that showed how much money each candidate has spent so far it amazes me. 1 million dollars here $500,000 here. What i want to know is what goes into these campaigns that cost so much.?



http://www.opensecrets.org/

GROUP	POSITION	SPENT
Campaign To Defeat Barack Obama	AGAINST: Obama, Barack	$10,558
Campaign To Defeat Barack Obama	AGAINST: Obama, Barack	$23,577
Priorities USA Action	AGAINST: Romney, Mitt	$2,248,132
Priorities USA Action	AGAINST: Romney, Mitt	$1,232,625
Priorities USA Action	AGAINST: Romney, Mitt	$50,000

Analysis of Huntsman's Campaign in NH

One of the most sought after states for a presidential candidate to win over during the presidential primaries every four years is that of our own state, the state of New Hampshire. It is a win in New Hampshire that can potentially lead to a surge in the polls in other state primaries that follow New Hampshire (South Carolina, Florida, Michigan, etc.), as seen this year with former governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney’s win in New Hampshire, and his subsequent title as the current front-runner over fellow Republican candidates Rick Santorum; a former senator of Pennsylvania, Newt Gingrich; the former Speaker of the House, and Ron Paul; a Congressman from Texas. During the presidential primaries in New Hampshire, the Republican hopefuls also included two other major candidates, Rick Perry; the current governor of the state of Texas, and Jon Huntsman; the former governor of Utah and the former Ambassador to China. Other minor Republican candidates include Buddy Roehmer, Fred Karger and Gary Johnson.

In this particular round of the New Hampshire presidential primaries, according to results posted from the New York Times, Mitt Romney won over the most New Hampshire voters with 97,532 votes (39.3%) (New Hampshire). In second and third are Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, with 56,848 (22.9%) and 41,945 (16.9%), respectively (New Hampshire). The top five was rounded out with Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich tied at around 9.4% and Rick Perry at 0.7% (New Hampshire). While he ranked third in the state, this was not the ideal rank of presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman, and despite making commitments to do well in the next presidential primary, South Carolina, he eventually pulled out of the race for president on January 15th, 2012, and endorsed front-runner Mitt Romney. This paper will explore the idea of, had he won the state of New Hampshire and placed first as opposed to third, would Jon Huntsman still be in the race for the Republican nomination, and would he be performing 

Jon Huntsman entered the race for the Republican presidential nominee in 2011 (Jon Huntsman Campaign). It was highly speculated that Huntsman would run for the Republican presidential bid against President Obama in 2012, particularly after he had resigned as the Ambassador to China in early 2011 under the Obama Administration (Jon Huntsman Campaign). In tribute to former President Reagan, whom entered the race at the same location, Huntsman formally entered the race in June of 2011 at Liberty State Park with the Statue of Liberty in the background. At the event, he spoke,

“Now, behind me is our most famous symbol of the promise of America. President Reagan launched the 1980 general election campaign from this very spot. It was a time of trouble, worry and difficulty. He assured us we could "make America great again," and through his leadership, he did. Today, I stand in his shadow as well as the shadow of this magnificent monument to our liberty … This is the hour when we choose our future. I'm Jon Huntsman, and I'm running for President of the United States (Jon Huntsman 2012).”

One of Huntsman’s strategies was to parallel himself and his views with that of President Reagan, after having served the Reagan Administration in the past and considering himself and his views to be very similar to his. This technique has often been used by Republican candidates successfully due to Reagan’s relatively positive appeal to conservative voters.

Jon Huntsman often claimed himself to be the most experienced candidate on the field, in with a focus on experience within foreign policy, in which no other presidential candidate truly possessed. In a statement to students at George Washington University, he said, “You're not going to find any other candidate who has spent any time overseas -- maybe, you know, a trip here or there -- who has been a practitioner of foreign policy (Foreign).” Huntsman’s past experiences include having been governor of Utah from January 2005 to 2009 (elected twice), the Ambassador to China from 2009 to 2011 under the Obama Administration, and Ambassador to Singapore from 1992 to 1993 under the Bush Sr. Administration. (Summers). He had also formerly served as a CEO in his father’s, Jon Huntsman Sr., company, the Huntsman Corporation, worked an as assistant to the Reagan Administration, was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce under George H. W. Bush, and Deputy United States Trade Representative under George W. Bush (Summers).

Out of all candidates who campaigned in New Hampshire (which includes all those candidates aforementioned within this paper), it is clear that Jon Huntsman practically held center stage. After claiming to have held more than one-hundred-twenty events in New Hampshire alone, Huntsman became the candidate who had the most focus on New Hampshire. It was in his mindset that by winning over the voters in the state of New Hampshire, he could eventually win the entire nation and ultimately the Republican presidential nomination. He would often tell the audiences that came to his events that, “We're going to win New Hampshire (Amira),” or "I'm just going to tell you right now, we're going to win this primary. I like our chances right here (Amira)."

And while yes, it could have been possible for him to have won over the state, but could winning over the entire nation and becoming the Republican presidential nominee had been an attainable goal for him, though, given the circumstances? Huntsman was heavily criticized by political analysts because, while he did perform very well in New Hampshire in comparison to his fellow candidates, he hardly campaigned much at all in any other states, and barely held overall national ratings above 3% (RealClearPolitics). In particular, he did not participate in campaigning in the state of Iowa, a state where the caucuses are held prior to the New Hampshire presidential primaries. In response to this, he said, “The spotlight is going to be on you [New Hampshire]. And you always rise up to the occasion – having done your due diligence, having looked at all the candidates – and you upend conventional wisdom … I’m excited about what lies around the corner (Reston).”

His decision to stick to New Hampshire only was an interesting tactic and choice of campaign route, to say the least. It is similar to the last Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s strategy, although unlike Huntsman, McCain also campaigned in states other than New Hampshire. It worked well for McCain, but for Huntsman? The turnout probably was not what he was expecting. So would Jon Huntsman have been the right candidate to win the New Hampshire presidential primaries, would he still be in the race, and if so, would he be performing well? It really depends on your point of view. Huntsman supports would say yes, while skeptics may have a different point of view entirely.

Experience wise, you could go out and say that Huntsman had the most diverse experience of any candidate out on the field. Most of all the other candidates (Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, etc.) have only been governors, senators or congressmen, while Huntsman was a successful governor elected twice, ambassador to both China and Singapore, CEO of his father’s company, and had worked under several president’s administrations (Reagan, the Bushes’, etc.).

In terms of political stance, one could say that Huntsman was the ideal candidate; conservative, while still maintaining a lot of values that moderates and liberals can appreciate. Considering the fact that he even worked for our current president, President Barack Obama, it is clear that he would be able to cross party lines efficiently. He also has experience in foreign policy that no other candidate could truly compete against. Also, if you included all of his personal connections with other well-known politicians (Sarah Palin, Tom Ridge and Barack Obama, as examples), you might go as far to say that he’d be the ideal candidate, and therefore should have won New Hampshire, and would at this very moment, be campaigning in Missouri, Illinois and Louisiana.

On the other hand, many could say that Huntsman would not have been the right candidate to win New Hampshire, much less the Republican presidential bid. Perhaps the biggest issue with extreme conservatives is Huntsman’s political stances. Despite stating numerous times that he is a true conservative Republican, Huntsman does have many liberal political stances. For example, Huntsman supports equal rights to same-sex couples, believes in global warming and evolution, and wishes to seek alternative energy sources.

Many conservatives are also weary of Huntsman becoming president after him having worked under our president now. Who is to say that Huntsman could be exactly like President Obama? However, the biggest issue would be his overall popularity and how well known he was, or lack thereof. Huntsman’s strategy of singularly performing in New Hampshire was, essentially, a flop. While yes, he did perform well in New Hampshire, many voters outside of New Hampshire did not even know his name, and considering the 10,000 signature requirement to make it into a ballot, would he have even been able to do so in states like South Carolina, Florida or Michigan?

There is truly no surefire way to figure out if Huntsman would have been the ideal candidate to win the New Hampshire presidential primaries because, the fact is, he ultimately lost first place to Mitt Romney. As a former supporter of Jon Huntsman, in my own opinion, I feel that Huntsman deserved to win New Hampshire after having campaigned so much within the state. I can agree with most skeptics, though, that his decision to focus solely on New Hampshire and no other state ultimately led to his downfall. So, to answer the question I stated previously in this paper, yes, Huntsman should have won New Hampshire, but no, he would not be performing well. The win in New Hampshire could have slightly boosted his numbers up national, but when you look at the statistics, Mitt Romney practically owns the Northeast and West, Santorum the mid-west and south, and Newt Gingrich the Deep South. Huntsman (along with Ron Paul for that matter) would have no true home court to complete well in.

Unfortunately because of his decision to back out of the presidential bid, I have significantly lost interest in the presidential election overall, having no other interesting candidate to look forward to, although if I had to make a decision, it would be Ron Paul, (although I have always been secretly been a Sarah Palin supporter).

SOURCES

Amira, Dan. "New York Magazine." Daily Intel. 6 Jan. 2012. Web. 08 Mar. 2012.

<http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/01/huntsmans-market-expectations-wont-fly.html>.

"Foreign Policy Magazine." Foreign Policy. 16 Nov. 2011. Web. 09 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/jon_huntsman/profile>.

Haq, Husna. "Election 101: Ten Facts about Jon Huntsman and His Presidential Campaign."The

Christian Science Monitor. Web. 8 Mar. 2012. <http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/0621/Election-101-Ten-facts-about-Jon-Huntsman-and-his-presidential-campaign/Who-is-he>.

"Jon Huntsman 2012 Presidential Campaign Announcement Speech, June 21, 2011."Presidential

Campaigns and Candidates. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. <http://www.4president.org/speeches/2012/jonhuntsman2012announcement.htm>.

"Jon Huntsman Campaign Timeline." The Daily Pennsylvanian. 17 Jan. 2012. Web. 08 Mar.

2012. <http://thedp.com/index.php/multimedia/23502>.

"New Hampshire Primary Results." The New York Times. 11 Jan. 2012. Web. 08 Mar. 2012.

<http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/results/live/2012-01-10>.

"RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination."

RealClearPolitics. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html>.

Reston, Maeve. "Jon Huntsman to New Hampshire Voters: 'Upend Conventional Wisdom'"Los

Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 03 Jan. 2012. Web. 09 Mar. 2012. <http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/03/news/la-pn-jon-huntsman-to-new-hampshire-voters-upend-conventional-wisdom-20120103>.

Summers, Juana. "POLITICO." Politics, Political News. 9 Jan. 2012. Web. 08 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71261.html>.

As the Republican National Convention draws closer, we wonder; Who's it going to be Mitt?

Many have been wondering who Romney and the Republican Party is going to announce their as his Vice Presidential candidate. The answer will be announced at the Republican National Convention on August 27th. This year there is no obvious choice for Mitt, and there is no doubt the party is going to take a lot into consideration because of the 2008 Presidential election, when Sarah Palin turned out to be rather
underqualified for the undertaking. It does not seem like a female candidate is a likely choice for Mitt this year.

If Mitt were to choose a female Kelly Ayotte, the New Hampshire state Senator, would be a good fit, however since Romney served a governor of Massachusetts they could run into geographic problems.

Somebody who would help Romney geographically would be Marco Rubio, the Florida state Senator. Rubio is very popular among Hispanics.

I don't see a few promising candidates being worthwhile considerations such as Chris Christie, the New Jersey Governor. If Romney's ticket is going to win he is going to have to grab the votes in the middle of the aisle, Chris Christie does not give that to Romney. Chris Christie would assure Romney conservative votes who think that Romney is too far left. However, those people are going to vote for Romney anyways in fear of Obama. In addition Chris Christie is unapologeticly bold, which some people might call arrogant. When the stiff and robotic Romney goes up against the extremely popular, and likable Obama he is going to need his Vice President to be a likable guy. A Joe Biden like attitude would help Romney.

Also I see Jeb Bushbeing overlooked as a Vice Presidential candidate. Although he is extremely popular in Florida, and would probably be a number two for Romney, I still think the republican party is trying to distance themselves from George W. Bush. And although if he had a different family Jeb Bush might get the nod, I don't see it happening this election. This does not mean that he is not qualified for, most people had considered Jeb to be more likely to run for President than he brother George.

I can't imagine Romney teaming up with Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Senator. DeMint is a tea-party leader and I believe is Romney is going to seek any support from the tea-party, he's going to do it discreetly, due to their negative image.

Other possibilities include Rob Portman, the Ohio state Senator, who has probably the most experience out of the other hopefuls. Another candidate is Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana. Both of these men worked under W. Bush on under Office of the Management of the Budget, but the budget didn't turn out so good under Bush, so I am sure that might get brought up.

Other candidates to look out for are Time Pawlenty, and John Thume, or who knows maybe the Republicans will roll the dice like in 2008 and pick an unknown, we shall wait and see.

How Obama and Romney Stack Up on the Second Amendment

As with every election cycle certain issues take center stage; however, one issue that has remained a near constant hot button topic is that of gun ownership and the right to keep and bear arms. Typically speaking Republican's tend to vote for pro-gun legislation that protects the individual's rights staunchly. Democrats on the other hand seem to favor policy that, while preserving the citizen's Second Amendment rights, calls for increased regulation, restrictions, and background checks. This is seen as encroaching and overbearing by the Republican camp who typically advocate for the least possible restrictions.

Republican Candidate Mitt Romney has worked hard to portray himself as die hard supporter despite several anti-gun bills he voted on at the onset of his career in politics. He now feels that there is sufficient legislation already within current policy to address the majority of gun ownership problems, and that the focus should be not on what new legislation to incorporate but rather designing policy that will help to effectively enforce current laws. His remarks on the National Rifle Association's "Celebration of American Values" boast unequivocal support:

  "Let me speak very directly and candidly about where I stand. I support the Second Amendment as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of every American. It's essential to our functioning as a free society, as are all the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights..."

 A year later in an interview with The Washington Post, Romney unveils his revised stance, Not as black and white as his statement to the NRA, he proposes enforcement of old policies, which could be seen as some gun enthusiasts as clever terminology for more restrictive legislation, here is the statement from January of 2008:

 
"I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. I believe in safe and responsible gun ownership and that anyone who exercises the right to keep and bear arms must do so lawfully and properly. I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. Law-abiding citizens have a right to protect their homes and their families and as President, I will vigorously defend that right."

President Obama's views on the Second Amendment are relatively moderate considering several of his fellow Democrats stances. He recognizes that gun ownership, for its various uses, has remained a multifaceted issue. While many American's identify the right to keep and bear arms as an issue of heritage and cultural identity, there is a significant number of unlawful citizens who abuse this right and use firearms for criminal enterprise. At the 2008 Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Obama vocalizes his belief in individual communities right to work to combat this threat:


“I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.”

 His stance has changed little since then, still advocating for responsible ownership with stricter laws and enforcement in crime ravaged areas more prone to gun related crime and violence.

While both candidates take largely different stances on the issue, both recognize it as an intrinsic part of American heritage, something passed down from generation to generation to be revered by those lawfully embracing it. Many opponents of Romney's view see it as too extreme and narrow minded in his view of universal ownership. Obama's stance is seen as more moderate, embracing heritage and culture while addressing the issues surrounding the diverse usage of firearms, especially handguns, in inner city communities.  As with every other election it will be interesting to see how the issue of gun ownership plays into the election and whether or not the candidates' will hold steadfast in their views.

Student Loans Likely to be Focal Point Among Young Voters

Today's society is far different than that of our parents and grandparents, today's youth are coming of age and entering the work force in one of the most competitive job markets in our history. Today's market places an enormous focus on being well educated, and well rounded so that we may integrate into the workforce seamlessly.
 
 These standards place a much larger emphasis on formal education than on generations past, to the point where if a young man or woman wishes to have a successful career they had better have some form of higher education, whether that be a vocational school, an associates degree, or a bachelor's degree. These standards have led to an enormous spike in enrollment rates across the country and American universities are just oh so willing to accommodate these changes. With more prospective students than ever before, the demand for enrollment has increased while the number of universities has stayed largely the same. following the standard business model of supply and demand, the increased demand for college means that the price to attend increases as well, the greater the demand, the more the demanding are willing to pay for such a service. This has led America to a time of rapidly increasing college tuition rates, largely outside the general means of the family to foot the bill. Virtually all students today receive some sort of loan, be it private or federally funded, and the issue of paying these loans back is becoming a hot button issue during the upcoming election.
  
 The issue of repaying federally funded loans, or forgiving them entirely, has been an issued covered by the candidates because of the huge number of potential voters this effects. During the 2008 campaign sixty-six percent of voters aged 18-29 supported incumbent President Obama. This is a significant portion of the electorate, and it also happens to be one of the most politically active age groups as well. Rough estimates put the figure of student loan debt post graduation at around 25,000 dollars, a conservative estimation by many economists. In addition to these numbers keep in mind that the majority of student's need their parents to co-sign loans with them, which makes this issue hugely important among middle aged and older voters as well. Given the current economic problems within the country many American's, student and parent alike, are increasingly concerned with heightened interest rates.
 
What this means for the candidates, is a significant portion of the electorate will be focused on this issue and it is in the presidential hopefuls best interests to campaign on a platform that will work to reduce,  or stabilize the rate at which student loan interest rises and the amount of time given to graduates to repay their debt. In an age where most graduates are underemployed their first few years post graduation this issue could seriously sway undecided voters or cement their loyalties within their party.
  As of recent both presidential candidates have voiced their support for a freeze on interest rate increases. While President Obama has been tenative on the practice of forgiving student debt he has entertained the idea for certain fields and for those who are economically underprivallaged. Former Governor Romney on the other hand, in a recent appearance in Ohio, voiced his disdain for the practice saying, "Don't expect the government to pay for a debt that you took on" in response to a question raised by a current college student.
 It is clear that this issue is going to be a hot topic and a large portion of the undecided vote rests on the actions taken by both candidates.

For more information on student loan debt and the role it will play in elections visit:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/05/03/how-student-debt-became-focus-presidential-campaign

Huntsman Was Too Moderate to Win the Nomination

Of all the candidates who currently are, or previously were, running for the Republican nomination bid for the presidency in 2011 and 2012, there was truly only one candidate whom could be called a Moderate Republican. Of course, one could argue that the views of Mitt Romney are at times moderate, but the true moderate candidate in the race was former governor Jon Huntsman of Utah. In the initial process of the Republican primaries, even before he had officially announced his candidacy for the presidency, Huntsman openly and regularly referred to himself as a moderate conservative whose views often times clash with other well-known Republicans like Newt Gingrich; former speaker of the house, Sarah Palin; former governor of Alaska and ran for the vice presidency along-side Republican John McCain, and Rick Santorum; former senator of Pennsylvania.

Jon Huntsman referred to himself as a Moderate Republican as a way to differentiate himself from the rest of the Republican field, in an attempt to sway the important Independent voters, and potentially sway liberal and Democratic voters whom were not happy with the progress (or lack thereof) of the current president, Barack Obama. He had made the prediction that many would not vote for an ultra-conservative, like Rick Perry; current governor of Texas, or Rick Santorum, but would instead, opt for a candidate whose views were more in the middle of the spectrum, like that of his own.

In a sense, this method that Huntsman initially used ultimately led to his downfall in the race, resulting in his eventual withdrawal in January 2011, shortly after the New Hampshire Primaries, and just before the South Carolina Primaries. Towards the end of his campaign, Huntsman had a difficult time ensuring the public that, despite his significant moderate views, he was still a conservative enough candidate to win the Republican Party, and that he deserved the nomination more than anyone else running. Jon Huntsman and his views were too moderate to win votes from conservatives for the Republican nomination.