Good Publicity vs. Bad Publicity

With the primary election in full swing the media always has something to write about, whether it is good or bad. They can cover stories on what each candidate said, what they didn't say, what happened at their rallies, how many delegates they have received and the list goes on and on. Sometimes the media can give good publicity or bad publicity to a candidate, but does either publicity dramatically change the progress a candidate is making? Whether it is good publicity or bad publicity the candidate is still getting attention. They are still getting more media coverage over other candidates and they are getting more people to take notice in them.  A lot of times in these elections people already have their minds made up on who they are voting (that is not the case for all) and the media isn't going to change this. Not only do the news stations and reporters factor into this, but social media plays a big role in the good publicity vs. bad publicity. From Twitter to Facebook many people are giving the candidates they do not like more attention than the ones they actually like. They are sharing obnoxious videos or pictures of candidates they are opposed to for the simple reason of it being obnoxious. Yet, in doing this they are giving more attention to this candidate than they should be. Sometimes the information they are sharing isn't even true! Some posts that they share have false information that they did not know was false. Instead they should be sharing posts, pictures, or videos of candidates they want to win. Jonah Berger a professor from Wharton School did research on whether bad publicity can actually effect a product negatively. In his research he used the publicity surrounding the GAP logo being changed. Berger found out that when this new logo was introduced to the public tit received very bad critics. he found that although the public did not like the new logo it had little effects on whether people still shopped their or not. Berger also found that all this attention seemed to give the GAP more attention, which led to more people shopping there,  "Evidently this boils down to increased awareness: the mere act of introducing something to a broader public — even by saying that it stinks — increases the chances that more members of that public will want it anyway." This directly relates to the candidates in an election. People continuously talking about a candidate they do not like rather than the one they do like is only promoting that candidate even more. This bad publicity does not directly have an effect on how well the candidate is going to do when it comes time to voting. Berger also learned through his research that sometimes when bad publicity is being put out there it gets changed as time goes on. Sometimes what is being said is misunderstood by some of the public and the bad publicity now becomes false information. When bad news is being spread through thousands of people, the information is sometimes changed.  

For example if I were to just scroll through my Facebook feed, not reading what the content actually says, I would assume that many of my Facebook friends are in favor of Donald Trump, but that is not the case when I take a closer look. Many friends are sharing pictures, articles, or videos or things Trump said that they don't agree with. They share these posts they do not like because they want their friends to disagree with these statements also. They hope that by sharing these posts it will somehow change their friends opinion to take the stand that they do as well. Some of these posts that they are sharing are not even accurate information, which is very misleading. By sharing these posts they are only giving more attention to candidates like Trump who they do not even like. An example of a post that has been shared multiple times on many social media site would be this picture (below) of Trump talking about Republican voters in an interview with People Magazine in 1998. This post went viral a little while back only to learn that Trump never actually said this. It was a made up post to try and get Republican voters, angry enough with him to not vote for him. This post gave Trump so much attention because people could not believe that he said this and some were angry. When this post turned out to be false, Trump was still getting attention and people realized they no longer could be angry because of this post.

Now there is the other hand when it comes to a political election bad publicity is going to have an effect on the candidates. You can say that they need a good reputation to gain voters and the bad publicity will do nothing but hurt them. There is two sides to good publicity and bad publicity and whether you want to argue if they're both good or not, but when it comes down to it and publicity these candidates are getting is giving them more attention and name recognition. People will start taking interests in these candidates because they hear lots of news about them. And in this tricky system of trying to become president, getting attention from the people is an important part. 

Sources:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0b/28/3a/0b283a5a331d8fec94b3ffdd94e658ba.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/magazine/31fob-consumed-t.html?_r=0

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/when-bad-publicity-good

Third Party Candidates - Yea or Nay?

It's coming from both sides - the idea of  a candidate missing out on their initial bid for the nomination and branching out to continue their campaign as an independent candidate. It's not completely unheard of to have someone running other than the Democratic and Republican nominee (Cue Ralph Nader). However, in the case of a Trump or Bernie third-party bid, the result could have the absolute opposite desired effect on either end of the spectrum.

While both Bernie and Hillary have promised to support whichever candidate wins the nomination, independents from all over the country are calling for Bernie to make an independent bid for the White House if he gets beaten out by Hillary (which, of course, would only be because of super delegates because they're unconstitutional and not at all because Bernie is running as a Democrat strictly because it would give him more media coverage and not because he actually shares all of the same beliefs as the Democratic establishment). However, at this point it would appear that Bernie is going to keep his promise. This may or may not be a result of his strong moral desire to do the right thing and keep his word - while that probably plays a part, I think Bernie knows that splitting the vote of the Democratic party would only benefit whatever ends up obtaining the nomination for the Republicans, and even he can agree that that candidate would do far more damage than Hillary could.

And then there's Trump. Ooooh, the Donald, a man of his word (the only catch is said word is subject to change at any given time). Back in the beginning of March, Trump was quite pragmatic about suggestions that the Republican establishment would try to run another candidate if he secured the nomination. "'If they run a third party or an independent party, if they do that, it will make it impossible for the Republican candidate, on the assumption it's me, to win,' Trump said. 'The Democrats would have an absolute free run. Probably you wouldn't even campaign because it would be impossible to win.'" (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/donald-trump-third-party-consequences-220317)
Seems pretty reasonable, right? In his Trump way, he also added that the Republicans should stop their "foolishness" and get on board with the idea he could be leading the party into the general election. 

Now, fast forward to a week ago. An article from USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/03/three-way-presidential-race-late-independent-trump-cruz-republican/82509732/) states that Trump has not given up on the idea of launching his own third party campaign if he does not receive the RNC nomination. Interesting, considering he already stated that doing something like this would do nothing but ensure putting another Democrat in the White House, but that's none of my business.











Sources used:
http://www.votenader.org/about/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/donald-trump-third-party-consequences-220317
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/03/three-way-presidential-race-late-independent-trump-cruz-republican/82509732/

This years election "an Embarrassment"

Much of this years election has been highlighted by the racially biased antics displayed by many of the Republican candidates specifically Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The chaos of this years election has caused many top officials to speak out against candidates saying this years election is a poor showing of the American Political system. Secretary of State John Kerry specifically was highlighted this week for commenting on the President race saying " It upsets peoples sense of equilibrium about our steadiness, about our reliability" the target of his opinion was the rhetoric behind Trump and Cruz's approach on how they would deal with Muslims in America and worldwide. Secretary Kerry talked about how many world leaders he meets with outside of the United States are bewildered by the support they see coming from American Citizens who wish to elect either Trump or Cruz.  Although Secretary Kerry may not have directly stated Trump or Cruz's name in his comments, it was very apparent his comments were alluding to the Republican candidates.





When you look at and listen to the things both men are saying about Muslims not only in America but globally its scary to think people support them. Time after time we hear supporters at rallies or conventions talk about how they want Muslims gone because they are our enemy and because they hate America. These same people have absolutely no idea whom they are talking about because Muslims come in all shapes, sizes and colors. The depiction they have of Muslims is what the media and other people have created which depicts a man with a long beard and carries an AK-47. This is not all Muslims and its honestly ludicrous to think this is how Muslims are viewed in America. Donald trump proposed banning Muslims from coming to the United States if he were to get elected. How to plan to carry this out? Banning people whom look like the media depicted Muslim? There are not all Muslims look the same so how would you plan to carry this policy out? The same with ted Cruz who talked about creating surveillance units and putting them in Muslims populated areas in America to monitor Muslims. That would infringe upon So many Americans basic human rights and would push people to want to join extremist groups solely because they government is abusing their basic human rights. There are well over a billion Muslims with about 1% actually being radical extremists. Do you really think monitoring Muslim Americans is going to do us any justice or get us results in the war on terror? Absolutely not because the Muslim Americans we have living here are as moderate as it gets, they separate themselves from the radicals because they know radical Islam in the form of extremism is insane. So why push the people to join something we fight day and night to stop?  

Sources
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/27/john-kerry-presidential-campaign-embarrassment-cruz-trump
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-defends-police-us-muslim-neighborhoods/

Political cartoons, 4/5/16

Just doing a short post on the recent political cartoons for today, tell me what you think! These posts were my "funnier" of the many that were published. These cartoons were published by US news, world & report.



http://www.usnews.com/cartoons

More news about Donald Trump, surprise surprise.

Donald Trump is rushing to clear up his position and view in regards to abortions after the upheaval that started after his remark last Wednesday. Donald Trump mentioned his support for bans on abortions, even stating that “there has to be some form of punishment” for women who have abortions. This comment, as expected, caused an uproar by the people of the United States, especially when abortion is such a large and problematic topic. 

Yet, less than three hours later Donald Trump scrambled to correct himself stating that not women, but doctors who perform abortions (if congress outlaws it) would be punished. Donald Trump then continued, stating “The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed — like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”

Ronald Reagan in 1967, signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act, after only a few months as governor within California (he believed that these abortions would only be allowed under certain circumstances). Immediately after this Act was signed the number of abortions within California rose greatly. This caused Reagan not only regret, but a sense of guilt, resulting in Reagan recognizing a mistake in major legislation. Reagan then soon after became strictly pro-life stating that abortion was wrong in every instance (except very rare occasions when it might be necessary to save the mother’s life). He even wrote "Abortion and the Conscience of Nation" a book regarding  pro-life views. Donald Trump in 1999 stated to the Press “I believe it is a personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors”, while today he mentions his disgust and hate towards it. To sum it up, Ronald Reagan never agreed with abortion regardless of the act that was signed (everyone makes mistakes), while Donald Trump at one point strongly believed in pro-choice.

Now I am not saying that Donald Trump is not allowed to change his views after many years, he can of course, but he mentions how abortion is “disgusting” one moment, and then states how great planned parenthood is for other aspects the next. How can someone who hates abortion so much say anything good regarding planned parenthood and ignore that, in 2014 they performed 327,653 abortions, the equivalence to one every 90 seconds (so much for abortions being a tiny part of it huh, Donald?). Donald Trump then continues on how wonderful planned parenthood is but that he also wants to defund it. In regards to this topic, personally I believe that Donald Trump is just lost and confused. He mentions one thing and then states the other and in regards to Wednesday's comment, it shows exactly how he jumps into saying things and soon recants and says something different.

Sources Used:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/us/politics/donald-trump-abortion.html?_r=0

http://www.lifenews.com/2008/03/11/nat-3790/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/1/planned-parenthood-327k-abortions-fiscal-2014/

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/02/donald-trump-really-doesnt-understand-how-federal-funding-works-planned-parenthood-0

19th-century Belgian Law Allowed Bombing Suspects To Go Free

 

(USA Today)

A law that dates back to 1888 allowed the two Brussels bombing suspects to be released from prison earlier. Ibrahim El Bakraoui was sentenced to 10 years for shooting at a police officer in 2010. He served four years and nine months before being let go. And Khalid El Bakraoui served three years of a five-year sentence for a 2011 armed robbery before he was set free in 2013. They both violated the terms of their release but by that time the police couldn't find them. The brothers would still be serving their sentences were it not for the law Lejeune, named for Belgian justice minister Jules Le Jeune, who introduced it in 1888. The law allows inmates to be released from prison after they served a third of their sentence.

It’s sad that one political decision made in the 1800s may have cost a couple hundred lives today. If those guys are still locked up like they should be, they would still be alive and so would everyone at the airport that day. Now about the law, i know it was in the 1800s and they thought differently and things were different but it still sounds like a very stupid law. If you rape someone and get thrown away for 30 years but serve a third of that sentence they let you out? Doesn't seem right. It makes me think about our constitution, drafted in 1787 may have some flaws that could hurt us tremendously, you could argue it has already happened with guns. Many people believe if that wasn't written in the constitution then guns would be outlawed and no one would have a problem with it.

Utah's New Abortion Bill (reaction by Olyvia van Loon)

The new abortion bill signed by Utah's major pro-life advocate governor states that women receiving abortions later than 20 weeks gestation require anesthesia. This law is not based on sound scientific evidence, but rather on political values. Despite no scientific evidence that a fetus at 20 weeks can feel pain, the reasoning behind the bill is that it is inhumane to put a fetus through the pain of an abortion. Many people are also complaining that the bill is just a back-door way of banning abortion. Requiring anesthesia would not only raise the cost of an abortion, it also puts the woman's health in danger by giving her unnecessary medication (no respectable doctor should be okay with putting their patient at unnecessary risk).

I am pro-choice; that is no mystery among my peers. I believe, as the Supreme Court has stated, that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body. By denying a woman that right, not only is it unconstitutional, it is also saying that a human being does not have a right to their own body. Women have the right to any method of birth control they choose, without a specific reason for why they choose that method, and they definitely do NOT need to explain their decision to the rest of the world. I personally would never have an abortion because I believe any life I create is special and beautiful, but I would never tell someone else how to feel. Everyone has a right to make decisions for their own bodies and who am I to tell them they can't abort a fetus, especially when I don't know their circumstance? If a person is not mentally ready for a child, or for birth, they should not be forced to go through the trauma of giving birth or carrying a child they don't want, or even attempting to take care of a child they don't want. Having a child without wanting that child makes for a very hard and tragic life for the child. That is why I believe in a woman's right to choose abortion.

Now, you can probably guess my reaction to this new Utah bill. That's right: I hate it. Not only is Utah promoting unsupported scientific research and exposing women to unnecessary (and dangerous) medical treatment, the state is also taking its people back many decades to when women had few to no rights to their own bodies. While I am not a medical professional and I have no experience with abortions, I find it hard to understand the state's reasoning for intertwining political values into scientific medical treatment. You would think that with the Supreme Court's decision upholding a woman's right to abortion would deter legislation banning abortion or making it extremely difficult to get an abortion, but apparently there are still people out there that will not accept that decision and still try to take women's rights away.

I hope other states do not follow in Utah's footsteps, but I'm not very optimistic. When states find loopholes around federal laws, they run with it. With so many pro-lifers in the United States, I can see similar bills being passed across the nation, but I hope they don't. If more bills requiring anesthesia for abortions later than 20 weeks, the United States will be thrown back in social progress to the mid-1900s. The United States must continue to progress and not let one group regress medical treatment based on political values.

CNN article on Utah's new 'fetal pain' abortion bill
NY Times article on fetal pain research
The Journal of the American Medical Association research on fetal pain *actual research conducted about fetal pain*