Author: bvw5371

In honor of the last blog post I will go over a couple hypotheticals of how this election may end. We have a Presidential elect, who has been called victorious by all major media outlets, and multiple major Republican figures. But we have a President who thinks he is really the winner and that the only reason he has not is because of illegal votes… that are only prevalent in key swing sates.

---

Trump Wins!

Got you… no he has not, remember these are hypotheticals. There have been reported accounts of fraud across the country (but as previously mentioned  this happens every year just not in numbers that matter.) Here is a link to a white house report of examples of fraud: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf Notice the numbers that they give of proven fraud, realistically thinking, it is not even close to making a difference.

Here are Trumps current tweets about fraud. Oh yeah, they are hidden by twitter. As he claims, this is a sign there is fraud as big tech and big media is working with the Democrats and Joe Biden. Which to an un partisan viewer seems like conspiracy. But let’s just put that all a side for a second and assume he is right.

1 month from now… it is taken to the courts and is proven that their is mass fraud and the Democratic Party is responsible for it. This is the biggest attack on American Democracy (if/ or if not true) even more so than Watergate or Snowden. Trump is declared winner and issues a harsh and strong statement against the Democratic Party, but most likely the Democrats will deny it. There is outrage across the country and violence ensues as Democrats believe the election has been stolen. We have a more divided and violent next four years than the last four and all trust in our democracy is all but gone. (Pretty dark huh?)

Biden Holds on!

At the moment this looks as if it is the most likely outcome, but who knows. Biden has been declared victory by all main media platforms and major Republican figures such as President Bush and Senator Mitt Romney. (This is true not hypothetical, but now comes the hypothetical) After the recounts and court battles it is undoubtedly proven that Joe Biden is our next President. Majority of the rest of the major Republicans will concede as well as a large amount of the Republican voters. Maybe just maybe, Trump will concede after seeing defeat and will have a concession speech that brings peace and union to America.

But Maybe not.

Biden is still proven to be our next President but Trump does not concede. Trump continues to insist that their is a deep sate and that the Democrats stole the election. He holds on to a lot of his voting base which gives him a lot of power. Nearly half of the country still listens and believes him leading to multiple Republican politicians remaining on his side in hope for his support. Until January 20 Trump will still have the power of the President. Joe Biden (which he has already done) creates the office of the “Presidential Elect”

Biden begins using this platform to give out his own message and sates his own cabinet. (Which he is already in the process of doing.) So now we have two leaders with two separate followings that will only listen to their leader. We have a divided union, and there are a multiple of dark possible outcomes. But our founding fathers were smart, they made it so that the next in line, not including the Vice President, would become the President on January 20th if there was no consensus President. This person would be the Speaker of The House, which is Nancy Pelosi. (I would like to think that the Republicans would rather have Biden as President than Pelosi, but who knows.)

But I am more than confident we will prevail and the union will hold. We are the gold standard of Democracy, lets start acting like it. I have enjoyed writing these posts I hope any of you still reading enjoyed as well.

As I am writing this there has yet to be a winner declared. The votes are still being counted… and will continue to be counted. It is appearing that Biden will come out victorious but that will not be the end.

---

This year has been a year like no other, and likewise this has been an election like no other.  Trump vs. Biden has already been called one of the most consequential elections in recent history. As I have discussed in previous posts we are experiencing more partisanship than ever before and the election is the boiling point.

Recounts

Trump has began to recognize that his chances are slimming and is planning to take any action to stay in power. One action he has proposed is recounts. Recounts refer to a recounting of the votes that have been reported. This is not unusual and is actually a common occurrence during elections. Here is an attached link to see what the recounts are in the key swing states: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/recount-laws-key-states-presidential-race-n1246618 So even if this may be unfair this is common and their are laws that allow it. I would bet that if Georgia goes back to Trump that Biden would request a recount.

The issue the Trump campaign is running into is that it cost money to recount, which his campaign is running out of. They have been sending emails out to supporters requesting more money.

Legal Action

The other proposals the Trump campaign has put out are legal law suits. Trump has stated a list of accusations with so far little backing. As damaging as it is for him to do so he is given the right to investigate anything he wants. This has also happened before in Florida in the election of 2000.  But much like the recount this costs money, which is becoming sparse. Trump has now filed law suits in; Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin. I would not be surprised if we were to see more.

Trumps hope is that these suits will be taken to the highest court, The Supreme Court. As most of you are aware the court has now been granted a six to three majority in the favor of Republicans with the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It is not a guarantee that it will even make it to the court as so far there has not been much evidence of fraud. In the cases that there is fraud, the numbers are too small to matter especially in a state like Michigan where Biden has an extensive lead. Assuming it does go to the court, although they are Republicans, many of them are traditional Republicans. They often take their beliefs from Federalism and value states rights. This would mean that since how states count votes is left up to the states, the court may rule against Trump.

Lastly, here are the two candidates most recent speeches. I will let you compare the tone of the two and come to your own conclusion.

 

The next time I will be posting we may know who has one. Or we may not but may have a good idea of who will win. Maybe we will have no idea, maybe we wont until as late as January 20 for reasons previously mentioned. Do we have an idea of who is going to win at the moment? The polls seem to think so.

---

Polls, a controversial subject as their are many different kinds of polls, polls from different sources, and polls of different areas. There are multiple different kinds of polls so lets begin there.

Main Types of Polls

• An opinion poll is one of the most common polls given out through different forms of media. These polls can be given through phone interviews, surveys, SMS, etc. They are designed to survey the opinion of multiple topics of a general population.
• Some polls that are used by a campaign are benchmark polls, bushfire polls and a tracking poll .  These are used to track how much money a campaign will need to spend and how completive the race is. Benchmark polls are often the first set of polls released after a candidate chooses to enter the race. Bushfire polls are then sets of polls released between the benchmark and tracking polls. These are polls to see what messages are most popular and where they need to spend more money. Tracking polls are rolling polls which means they are constantly being updated and discard older data.
• Entrance and exit polls are polls that are taken at the actual polling locations. Entrance polls are taken at the door before one comes in to vote. Exit polls are taken as voters… well exit the voting place. These two polls have the lowest margin of error as they are taken at the polling place and are used by news outlets to track how an election is going.

Margin of Error

The margin of error is a statistical term to calculate how many percentage points your results will differ from the real value of a population. The margin of error is a part of polls that many seem to forget about. Usually in the bottom of a poll you will see a listed margin of error.

Here is an example poll here ^ you can notice where the margin of error is located. This means from their calculations that the results will only very by +2.5 percentage points or -2.5 percentage points.

Research from Pew Research Center has shown that actually the margin of error is typically double of what they report. They use a smaller number of usually 3 to make their poll seem more accurate. This shows that most polls pre-election are not as accurate at predicting the winner. This is part of the reason that explains Hilary’s loss in 2016, despite the polls giving her a large lead. When look at the polls take it with a grain of salt and make sure to observe this number and then double it. If a candidate has a lead larger than double the margin of error it would be safe to assume they will win that given population.

It is also important to keep in mind swing states. When look at polls it will be more beneficial to look at the polls of key states instead of the national poll. The national poll can predict the popular vote, but as we saw in 2016 this does not decide an election. The electoral college is what counts so make sure to check if the candidate you want has a lead in key states.

The Marist Poll is often regarded as a trustworthy poll: http://maristpoll.marist.edu/#sthash.Yt4BKPpw.dpbs

I am pausing my normal discussions as we are nearing the one week mark from election 2020!

---

Whether you are interested in politics or not we are witnessing history. This year has been a year like no other and our country is more divided than it has been for decades. For the first time in history we are voting with large scale mail in ballots. This has led to controversy as their is fear of voter fraud and ballots not being counted.

Let’s talk about voter fraud…

Voter fraud has been an issue for years and has lead to controversy across states. One of the biggest controversies has always been over ID laws and how strict they are. Photo ID laws are often favored by Republicans, as they state that these are laws to prevent voter fraud. Here is a list of the states with photo ID laws and what they are.

From the map above you can see the trend that southern states typically have stricter laws. The controversy is that many believe that these laws are actually just a way to suppress voters, mainly minorities. The simple fact is that having to obtain a photo ID can be difficult for some and is a longer process, making voting more difficult. But in a more cynical view (with a large amount of history and fact backing it) it is a way to keep minorities from voting. But there is often a correlation with border states and strict photo IDs as immigrants often do not have photo ID as well as people of the lower class.

So the threat of voter fraud has often been away to limit people from voting by making it more difficult or discouraging them. Repeated research has shown how rare voter fraud is, although it is present but never high enough to make a difference. Republicans have always used this as a way to suppress voters and this year is no exception.

Mail Voting

Mail in voting is has been used plenty of years before Covid-19. The concerns come with the fact that it will be a higher load of mail ins than ever before. The truth is that some mail will go missing and there will be some instances of fraud. But for one there won’t be nearly enough to make a difference (hopefully) and for two there is the assumption that it is only going to help the Democrats, which is just silly.

Historically mail in voting has been used since the Civil War where soldiers were allowed to vote absentee. Then in the late 1800s, people who were away from home or seriously ill were permitted to vote absentee. It has been used by the military and people such as college students ever since. It was then permitted for any registered voter to vote by mail in California (the first state to do so).

So like the ID laws this is just another tactic to try to discourage people from voting, don’t let it fool you… Vote! The fear is that Trump will contest the results no matter what and we will not know our next President until as late as January, 20th. So stay tuned for a historic couple of months, I’ll be hear to update you along the way.

When it is election time and you are asked to cast your vote, you will see candidates from the two parties that we all know, or maybe one or two from a third party such as the Libertarian party. As I discussed in an earlier post it is only possible for there to be two main parties, but this does not mean there is only two possible platforms of perspectives.

---

The Political Compass

There was a tool created to measure where your perspective falls in a two by two chart. This demonstrates the variety of individual perspectives within each party. This tool can also be used to measure leaders of our government or others. It is broken down into two dimensions, one measuring your economic view (closer to socialism or free market), and the other dimension being your social dimension (ranging from libertarian to authoritarian). 

Here is the link to take the test yourself: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test 

Authoritarian Right and Left

Believe it or not there are a good amount of people of each party who want more of a authoritarian government. There are also the individuals who whether they know it or not support this kind of government, with the ideals of a stronger and bigger federal or state government. Some extreme examples of people who represented the authoritarian right would be Hitler and Mussolini. Some extreme examples who represented the authoritarian left would be Stalin and Mao. Today you can see these views represented in individuals of the right in the shape of projecting their faith onto others and a strong sense of egocentrism involved in nationalism and militarization. In contrast you can see these views in individuals of the left today with strong views of socialism, extreme re-distribution of wealth, and government sanctions on speech.

Libertarian Right and Left

The other side of the social dimension is libertarian. The libertarian perspective of these two parties is the opposite of the authoritarian. It is safe to assume that this perspective is were majority of Americans fall as majority of the principles are similar to the foundation of our democracy. This perspective in both parties is a concentration on individualism and individual rights. Extremes of this perspective on either side would represent the idea of anarchy, where individuals are able to do as they pleased without any consequence. But a commonality of this perspective would be rule of law opposed to the rule of a single individual. Variation from parties can take shape in the way in which people perceive the boundaries of individualism or the freedoms an individual has with their money.

---

The economic dimension pretty much consists of some of the ideas I touched up on above about how much money an individual can have, what one can do with their money, how one should be able to obtain money, and in what ways should money be distributed. If any of you would like to know more on this subject I could write a separate blog on the issue.

The news from all outlets often consist of headlines talking about the “new right” or the “new left”. They are referencing new and old movements of extremism in the parties, referencing groups such as ANTIFA and white supremacist groups such as the KKK, proud boys, etc. Each party loves to say how the other sponsors or supports one of these groups. Or just simply talking about growing extreme views in each party, and trying to frame these ideas as the parties platform as a whole. You will often hear accusations thrown around such as Republicans calling Democrats communists (referring to the growing movement for socialism) or Democrats calling Republicans racists (referring to alt right groups and immigration policy). But where is this all coming from?

How far off are these accusations?

You don't have to look far to see the partisanship present in our country and the anger present in both our parties. But have party platforms really gone as extreme as the media suggests?

Yes and no, as I discussed in an earlier post modern media does a really good job at keeping us in a bubble of sorts. You are often exposed to headlines or posts talking about these extreme views to make you agree more with your own party and disagree more with your opposition, and this is not accidental.

• Three-quarters (74%) of Americans believe the killing of Floyd is part of a broader problem in the treatment of African Americans by police.
  • Virtually all Democrats (92%) and African Americans (94%) believe this killing is part of a broader problem.
  • Republicans are split with 55% saying it’s part of a broader problem and 45% saying it is an isolated incident.

This is from a poll by ABC news and Ipos. It shows that although some do not, majority of Republicans recognize that George Floyds death is part of a bigger problem. Also keep in mind that 54% of people in rural counties vote Republican compared to 38% Democrats, according to the pew research center. (often rural counties do not have a lot of diversity) But the data above contradicts the accusations that all republicans are racist.

• Overall, a much larger share of Americans have a positive impression of capitalism (65%) than socialism (42%), according to a new survey by Pew Research Center.
  • Nearly two-thirds of Democrats (65%) have a positive view of socialism, but only 14% have a very positive view.

This comes from another Pew Research poll. This data shows how that although a majority of democrats support socialism (a relatively new part of the platform) only 14% have a very positive view of it. This contradicts the Republican’s accusations that the democratic party is becoming a socialist party and calling them communists. This also goes against President Trumps slandering of Biden comparing him to Bernie and is socialist agenda, when in reality Biden has a much more moderate view

Below is a video of Trump making such accusations (For some reason it won’t let me add media)

https://globalnews.ca/video/rd/a773e9e4-c2e9-11ea-9755-0242ac110004/?jwsource=cl

In the end the parties are changing but they are not as extreme as the media may want to portray, most American people have more common ground then we are told to believe.

I know I had said I was going to discuss more on the differing perspectives of the two parties this week. But with the debate we just witnessed this week I had no choice but to write about it.

---

The Presidential debates, a chance for the American people to hear our two candidate’s plans for when they take office, a historic part of our democracy, a chance to hear the words straight out of the candidates mouths with out any media bias, this time we got none of that. This debate was a historic moment as it demonstrated how far we have fallen, and showed how divided our country really is. Neither candidate was able to really say anything beneficial or address real problems and their plans to solve them. This debate resembled more of two children arguing on a playground than a presidential debate. It consisted of constant interruptions, from both sides, and relentless personal attacks.

Chris Wallace, the moderator, spent most of the debate battling with the two candidates for order and for them to follow the agreed upon rules. This has never happened before in the history of debates. For instance refer to the Bush vs. Gore debates, two candidates who greatly disagreed, but were still able to show respect to each other and discuss policies and issues that affected the American people. The results of this election were also greatly contested, with results that could have gone either way as there were legal battles over the counting of results in Florida that would of determined the election. Gore decided to instead concede the election (although reluctantly) as he valued the unity of our country and democracy over his own ego.

“And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.”

-Vice President Al Gore

This brings me to what was the most disturbing aspect of the debate in my eyes, which was when Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the results come in. He uses the presence of mail voting fraud as his excuse for such a statement. What he is insinuating is the biggest threat we have seen to our union and democracy in decades.

All in all this debate was a catastrophe, it showed the state that our two party system is in and our inability to compromise.  This is not the way the party system was intended to work, as I have talked about in a previous post. We should not be more interested in our side “winning” over our democracy. Parties are not meant to be enemies, we should not resort to insults and name calling (as both candidates did). We are the United States of America lets act that way. This is no longer about which party you are affiliated with, this is now about our democracy and restoring our union.

I would recommend reading on the Lincoln Douglas debates, a great example of how debates should work and their ability to compromise over an issue as serious as slavery. I will also attach the link to the full debate if you had missed it.

For the record before I begin, there may be some opinion or bias present in this post. I will state that I try to have a middle ground perspective and see both sides. I am for the record a Republican but not one that will be voting for Trump and what I will discuss in this post is a large reason why.

---

We are currently living in a time that will be in history books for centuries. We are going through a pandemic as well as protests and riots over the racial inequalities still present in our country. In times like these it is all the more important to have strong leadership that is able to unify rather than divide.

The most beautiful thing about our country is the vast variety of cultures and perspectives present within our borders. As the President of the United States it is your job to best represent the country as a whole including all differing perspectives and cultures. At the moment we have a President whose rhetoric does not represent this idea.

Trump often refers to this “Us versus them rhetoric” This type of speech can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Often when he uses this sort of rhetoric he is making reference to the “extreme left” as he puts it or referring to protestors fighting for equality. This type of speech whether you agree with his sentiment or not is divisive at it’s core, it is further dividing our parties and our country as a whole.

“In a Pew Research Center survey published in June, 55% of those surveyed say Trump has changed the tone of political debate for the worse, while only 24% say he has changed it for the better.”

The survey- https://www.people-press.org/2019/06/19/trumps-impact-on-the-tone-of-political-debate-important-characteristics-for-elected-officials/

Here are some statements he has made and you can interpret them yourself

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” – Trump tweeted.

He is referring to democratic congressmen and women.

“You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible.”

-Trump referring to his supporters as “my people”

These kind of statements have become an accepted part of the President, and that is not a good thing.

Rhetoric can do a lot more than policy, because although I am a republican and agree with a good amount of his policies I can not support a leader who feeds off of further dividing our country. Even some of our most respected military leaders (the military being largely a republican infrastructure) have come out and sated their disapproval with some of his statements.

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who…tries to divide us.”

– General James Mattis

This is coming from Trumps currents secretary of defense (although he has still shown support for Trump) he sates that Trump is the first President in his lifetime who has not tried to unite the American people.

“It is imperative that we stop Trump’s assault on our nation’s values and institutions and reinstate the moral foundations of our democracy.”

– General Michael Hayden

Although this division of our parties and country is not just on the hands of Trump, he has used the division and anger present in our country to fuel his campaign. He is an example of how powerful rhetoric can be. Getting him out of office won’t solve our countries division but hopefully we can start brining people back together. I will also discuss next week more on the differing perspectives fueling the changes in our party. Although you may disagree with them, Trumps supporters have a perspective too and as a country we need to address the needs of all our citizens even ones with a different perspective.

When you watch the news which channel do you watch? When you read the news paper which publication do you choose? When on social media what views does your feed consist of?

In the modern age of media and technology it is quite easy to surround yourself with only one point of view. It is much easier to just hear from sources that agree with your perspective, or that make you feel better about what’s going on in the world. The mainstream media outlets benefit from this and use it to their advantage. Programs such as MSNBC or FOX News even lately CNN, choose to report only one side of a story that often aligns with their political affiliation. This is because these companies benefit from constant viewership and try to maintain their base by providing information that confirms their viewers beliefs. Not only by doing this are these companies making money, but it also allows them to push their chosen parties agenda. I believe that the modern media is a huge factor for the new extremism we are seeing  in the two parties. This is most likely due to the fact that people are only being exposed to what they want to hear limiting individuals ability of critical thinking.

This image is a visual representation of the bias present in different sources.

Furthermore, social media may be even more guilty in the aspect of promoting bias. If you are part of any form of social media you have most likely seen the constant reposting  or retweeting of small snippets of information or data on a given issue. Often people are guilty (especially on apps that only give you a brief amount of information or just a visual) of taking information at face value. Someone will see a post that agrees with ones opinion or that seems shocking and will repost it on their own page. More often than not (specifically among younger audiences) this information does not come from anywhere credible and is quickly spread. Another symptom of social media is that people often tend to only follow people with similar views and backgrounds. This is another example of how people only tend to get their information from one side or perspective.

This new age of media is the newest factor in our forever changing political parties. There are plenty of benefits of this new age and ability to receive information in seconds, but if one is not careful they can limit themselves from getting accurate information as well as limit their ability to see others perspectives. I’ll attach two links below that can help with recognizing misinformation in the news and social media.

• https://library.elmhurst.edu/c.php?g=627849&p=4405950
• https://guides.library.jhu.edu/evaluate/social-media

 

 

 

The Origins

The first american election to include candidates running for an organized political party took place in 1796.  The two original parties created were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (more commonly referred to as republicans). These two parties had set in motion a new system that modern politics today is based off of. This was the two party system, in this system a candidate (now multiple, after the creation of the primaries) runs under one of two opposing political organizations of people who share similar ideology, known as parties. This system had the purpose of increasing the idea of popular sovereignty, as the people now felt as if they had more influence in electing officials by being apart of one of these parties. There were outspoken critics of this new system such as John Adams.

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

-John Adams

A New Purpose

As the years moved on there would be new parties as old ones would fade in popularity, or old ones would change to keep up with a forever changing agenda in our country. Issues of importance are always changing as our country develops, and the parties must change with them in order to appeal to the general public. Every four years both parties release their platform (which is the parties agreed on set of goals) to the public, allowing voters to see which party is addressing the issues that are of most importance to them.

• Democrats platform
• Republicans platform (Carried over from 2016)

The issue that has arisen in modern politics is that people in the vast majority only vote along party lines. We have began to move away from the originally intended purpose of the parties, which was for parties to create separate platforms where candidates would express their intentions for the next four years to address the issues they see as most important. Voters where intended to use this platform as a way to see the general intentions of a specific candidate. But what we see in voters today is that they rarely switch which party they vote for, and the ones that do don’t make much of a difference in the results. This new trend can have detrimental affects such as a not being open to being persuaded which as we have discussed makes it harder to address issues and come to a compromise. You can see the parties and the powerful people who influence them using this to their advantage, by making more of an extreme agenda. This may of been what early adopters such as John Adams, were concerned about.

Great video to explain why there end up only being two parties