Internet Memes and Attack Ads

I wanted to make my first post on the John Oliver video, but I think the video is too old now. Also, I've watched it three times; once by myself, again with my mom, and a third time with a friend. They have very different political views, and I think my analysis/review would be too skewed and ranty now. I will say, I think the video is well put together and its worth the 20 minutes watch time (like I said, I watched it three times, which equals an hour). Although I will also say, I don't know how factual the information is because I didn't fact check. I'm one of those people who recommends a 20-minute without knowing the validity behind it. It's not that I don't want to fact check, it's just... I don't have enough hours in a day to google everything I read on the internet (and okay, maybe I also don't want to... just a little bit). If I don't want to check the facts, as a person in college studying politics, what makes any other average person motivated to check?

With social media playing a bigger role in this election than ever, there is A LOT of information flying around. Facebook LOVES memes. Check out these I found just scrolling through my newsfeed today:

Some of them had over 100,000 shares and thousands of comments. Most found images are targeted at Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Some of these images (not the ones above) are helpful infographics to get information spread quickly but others sadly most informed. It is easy to spot out the false ones if you have been paying attention to the world around you. Others are less obvious and require some research. It is real easy to assume pretty pictures with facts and numbers are true. The question is, are these "memes" hurting the political system?

Attack ads are nothing new to campaigns. Remember the Daisy Girl ad? The Huffington Post in 2014 published an article written by Christopher Lamb, believes these types of ads bring humor to a usually dark subject. Like I said, here in 2016, the internet loves images. While yes, they are funny sometimes, but it's unprofessional and demeaning to how serious the presidential campaign is. On the other hand, are these memes and images bringing more people into the political world? Attack ads on TV are paid for... with money. Making an image then posting it on the internet costs nothing and anyone can do it. Anyone can share or comment on them. Ideas and opinions are spread so rapidly because we can like and share things instantly. Sharing images and ideas allow people to be connected to the campaign. However, those connections are not always beneficial to the knowledge of the voter or the integrity of the candidate. 

Webpages mentioned/inspired by:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5856984

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/272288-study-76-percent-of-attack-ads-target-trump

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0221-mcmanus-ad-report-card-20160221-column.html

http://www.newschannel5.com/news/could-political-memes-impact-election-results

Blog Schedule

Week of March 7

Kelsey 

Week of March 21

Samantha
Sophia
Sean
Brooke
Justin
Rory

Week of March 28

Joseph
Taylor
Kevin
Sophia
Cullen
Olyvia

Week of April 4

Joseph
Taylor
Kevin
Brooke
Stephen
Rory

Week of April 11

Zachary
Sean
Ben
Megan
Ryan
Stephen

Week of April 18

Robert
Trevor
Zachary
Moises
Megan
Olyvia

Week of April 25

Robert
Moises
Nitsa
Haven
Ryan
Cullen
Ben

Week of May 2

Trevor
Nitsa
Haven
Kelsey
Justin
Samantha

Political Party History of New Hampshire

This is from an article Dr. Egbert and I wrote for State Party Profiles: A 50-State Guide to Development, Organization, and Resources, Andrew M. Appleton and Daniel S. Ward, eds. for CQ Press, 1997.

Political Parties in New Hampshire reflect the enduring characteristics of the state: a homogeneous population, a moderately high level of economic prosperity, dominance by a narrow range of political interests, and a traditional and amateur governmental structure. New Hampshire, with a population less than 2% racial minority and ethnic minorities that have tended to be as conservative as the majority white populatioon, has endured few deep and lasting cleavages among its major groups. The state has no large cities, few large employers, and no dominant industry. Interests such as railroads, newspapers, textile manufacturing, lumber, and tourism have been dominant only in alliances with one another rather than individually. The structure of government, especially the amateur nature of the 424 member legislature, has made party organization difficult. Consequently, the state has had a one-party system except during a few transitional periods. Further, dominance by a single party has made strong organization difficult for the minority party and unnecessary for the party in the majority. The recent switch to a Democratic Majority bodes change for the state's party structucture.

PARTY HISTORY

Several themes run through the history of New Hampshire political parties: dominance by a single party, strong party organization and competition only during transitional periods, cycles of corruption and reform, the influence of coalitions of powerful interests, and the impact of strong personalities.

At first, New Hampshire was among the strongest of the Federalist states; the state's Puritan Congregationalism was synonymous with the Federalist Party. Most town charters required that land be set aside to build a church, the state constitution required towns to support a Congregational minister, and public office was restricted to Protestants (Heffernana and Stecher 1981, 103).

Federalists began to lose support in the granite State when their reckless abuse of power became evident in the Union Bank fight of 1800. John Langdon, a Democrat-Republican, organized a new bank which made small loans on easy terms. The state legislature refused to charter Langdon's bank since the state owned a considerable interest in the state's only bank, the New Hampshire Bank. Langdon and the Democratic-Republicans, unable to obtain loans at the New Hampshire Bank, paralyed this into a hard-fought campaign alleging the denial of the charter was just "another piece of Federalist intolerance." (Robinson, 1916, 30).

In 1806 the Democratic-Republican Party became the majority party. New Hampshire's people were ideologically much more closely aligned to the party of Jefferson, so the change is not surprising. During the transitional period after the turn of the century, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans created permanent hierarchical organizations. The latter, still using the legislative caucus for nominations, created a "Grand Committee of Elections and Correspondence" and subordinate local bodies, and the existing New Hampshire Gazette (which continues publishing today) became the party organ. The grand committee appointed and controlled county committees, which in turn appointed and controlled town committees (Robinson 1916, 63).

Bitter conflict between the parties was in evidence when the newly empowered Democratic-Republican legislature took over Dartmouth College as a state university, revising its governance and relieving former Federalist trustees of the property and records of the institution. Daniel Webster represented the trustees in court to reverse what Jager and Jager (1983, 58) referred to as this "novel process of creative theft." The decision against the trustees in the Supreme Court of New Hampshire was reversed by the Federalist-leaning United States Supreme Court (Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518 [1819]), which found the legislature's actions in violation of the impairment of contracts clause of Art. I, sec. 10.

The transfer of power from the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans to the Jacksonian Democrats was complete in New Hampshire by about 1835. Important political figures, of former or later national stature, behind the Democratic Party organization in the state included Isaac Hill, editor, U.S. senator, and governor; Levi Woodbury, governor, U.S. senator, secretary of the navy and the Treasury, and justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; and Franklin Pierce, W.S. senator and later president of the United States. Jacksonian Democrats brought the spirit of reform to the state, and New Hampshire became a leader in the treatment of the insane, prison reform, public education, religious toleration, improved working conditions, and abolition of imprisonment for debt. The Democrats replaced "king caucus" with the state party convention and solidified their power by controlling most newspapers in the state.
The next transitional period began as the Democratic Party split into two conflicting wings in 1842. Independent Democrats, Whigs and abolitionists combined to control the legislature in 1846. Reform efforts continued as railroads and other large interests were subject to state regulation. The issue of slavery unified the remnants of the Whig Party, the Free Soilers, the Know Nothings, rebellious Democrats, and other smaller groups to provide the basis for the Republican Party. In 1853 Amos Tuck called a meeting at his home in Exeter, New Hampshire, where those invited claimed to have conceived and named the Republican Party (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). The Republicans elected their first governor in 1857, and in the 150 years since, only seven Democrats have occupied the New Hampshire executive office.

Following the Civil War, Republican hegemony supported rampant corruption and huge increases in political spending. William Chandler, former owner of the New Hampshire Statesman and Concord Monitor, while serving in the U.S. Senate chronicled the heightened role of political money at the time. he wrote that big money first appeared in 1882, when railroads began to spend "immense" amounts (Chandler 1898, 8). The state party supported candidates directly, and the state committee chair had the discretion to dispense all state party funds (Chadler 1898, 13). Some recipients signed contracts: "In consideration of one hundred dollars, I agree to vote as the maker and prior endorser [party chair, railroad, etc.] of this draft may direct" (Chandler 1898, 15). Free railroad passes and retainers for lawyers were provided openly. By 1907, critic Frank Putnam would write that the man who really governed New Hampshire was "the president of the Boston and Maine Railroad" (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). Republican ascendance in this era did not translate into party government. There was an absence of clear party ideology and organization. Tradition, slogans, "strong personalities, enormous egos and ambitions both broad and narrow fired the political system" (Wright 1987, 53).

New Hampshire joined the progressive movement by passing legislation curbing free railroad passes in 1907. In 1909 the legislature voted to require reporting of legislative concerns and expenditures of lobbyists, to require use of the direct primary to nominate party candidates. Progressives were the first to understand and take advantage of the new nomination process, electing Robert Bass as governor in 1910. Under Bass, the legislature regulated utilties and monopolies and provided for child labor reform, workmen's compensation, factory inspections, and forest protection.

The feud between Roosevelt Bull Moose Progressives and the Taft Republicans spilled into New Hampshire. As the Republicans feuded, New Hampshire Democrats organized to elect Samuel Felker governor in 1912, the Executive Council, a majority of the legislature, and a United States senator. In the first election following ratification of the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913 mandating the direct election of U.S. Senators, the Republicans swept back into power and remained the dominant party, until the 2006 elections.

ReferencesChandler, William E. 1898. The growth in the use of money in politics in New Hampshire. Manchester Union, Dec. 24 and 28 (A reprint, by Rumford Press, Concord, N.H., appeared in 1899.)

Heffernan, Nancy Coffey, and Ann Page Stecker. 1981. New Hampshire: Crosscurrents in its development.Grantham, NH: Tompson and Rutter.

Jager, Ronald, and Grace Jager. 1983. New Hampshire:An illustrated history of the Granite State.
Woodland Hills, Calif.: Windsor.

Robinson, William A. 1916. Jeffersonian democracy in New England. New York: Greenwood Press.

Wright, James. 1987. The Progressive Yankees: Republican reformers in New hampshire: 1906-1916.
Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. 

Welcome to the Spring 2017 Class!

Welcome to our blog! The first step for class members is to set up an account with Blogger if they do not already have a google account. so I can add you to this blog so you can get started posting! You should have received an invitation from me. You do not have to use your name, but please be sure to let me know what it is so that you get credit for your participation.

A few rules to follow:

1. No profanity or obscenities! This Blog will maintain professional standards of discourse!

2. No jerks.

3. No incivility. You are expected to treat one another with respect and offer constructive comments.

4. follow all rules about fair use of material--copyrights etc.

Remember you are expected to comment on your classmate's posts!!

Now....get blogging! 

2016 Presidential Election: Will Name Recognition Give Candidates A Boost?

Running for President is certainty easier when people know your name. This election we see two people, Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton, with famous names squarely in the mix. The lifeblood of politics is money, not ideas, and those with it and those who have donors lined up are in a much better position than those without. Senators and Governors are used to being well know in their home states, and have the ability to raise money for their elections. Running for President is a whole different game, unless you are a political science major most of the candidates are known outside their state of region. Bush and Clinton are in the best position to take advantage of their name and have access to large donors, other candidates need to connect with a portion of America and show they are relevant and hope they attract a few large money donors to raise cash. Cash ultimately decides how far they go in the process. 

http://www.ibtimes.com/2016-presidential-election-will-name-recognition-give-candidates-boost-1880280

New Hampshire Poll

  The saying that in politics, 6 months is a lifetime, 18 months is forever is true here. A lot can change in 18 months, but in that time the nation will select the 45th President of the United States. A new poll shows of a lot of uncertainty in the Republican field. No less than 5 declared candidates are currently announced with another 8-10 looking to get in. Seven of the candidates are polling  with a preference in the 7%-12% range. The Democratic field is dominated by Hilary Clinton, who as of today has only one declared candidate running against her.

In the battleground state of New Hampshire, a small but vitally important state, the race to succeed Obama starts the the primary season. The next nine months the candidates will try and get voters comfortable with them. The biggest challenge will be to attract independents, as New Hampshire allows Independent voters to vote in either primary. A strong showing in New Hampshire allows candidates to build momentum in both public perception and the ultimate driver, campaign contributions. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-10/new-hampshire-poll-republican-field-tightens-hillary-clinton-still-out-in-front-among-democrats%C2%A0

2016: A look Forward

With a new GOP candidate announcing their candidacy every few days it seems, it is hard to hypothesize who is going to win the presidential nominee. Candidates such as Scott Walker, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul all bring new and different ideas to the table. They will also appeal to very different social, economic and religious groups. It also may not be any of these candidates but there are some early predictions. As of now it is thought that Scott Walker has commanded a rough 12-15% of the votes over the course of several months which is very unusual for candidates to do.

There are a few reasons why I believe this is the case. First Scott is an experienced executive as he is the Governor of Wisconsin. Further more his more libertarian-esque fall more into line as to where the party is evolving. The Republican party is experiencing a major shift in ideals from the "old ways" of social conservatism to the new hands off and personal freedoms approach. Gov. Walker is also a major supporter of state over federal rights which is becoming increasingly popular on both sides of the aisle as well as in independent voters. Finally I think that Gov. Walker will be the nominee because he appeals to the classic blue collar working man. He has risen through the political ranks without a college degree through hard work and dedication, a true testament to his spirit and character.