The Heights
Thursday, November 8, 2012
D3
Democrats reclaim MA Senate seat from Brown Obama clear
From the Golden State
Senate, from D1
Jordan Pentaleri \ Heights Staff
Romney concedes race President, from D1 same states in the 2012 election that he won in the 2008 election, Governor Romney won North Carolina, which supported Obama in 2008, by a margin of 50.6 percent to 48.4 percent. The other state that switched from blue to red in the 2012 election was Indiana, which Romney also won by a sizable margin of 10.5 percent. With 11 electoral votes, it did not make a significant impact on the outcome of the race. The Romney/Ryan ticket did not win either of the states that the candidates currently reside in, Massachusetts and Wisconsin, respectively. Romney was not hasty in conceding the race to Obama, and didn’t deliver his concession speech until Wednesday morning at approximately 1 a.m., though most had projected Obama as the winner since about 11:30 p.m. on Tuesday evening. Under a large “Believe in America” banner at the Boston Convention Center, Romney offered a short response in which he thanked his supporters, campaign team, running mate Paul Ryan, and wife, Ann Romney. He called for bipartisanship in the United States, saying, “The nation, as you know, is at a critical point. At a time like this, we can’t risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle and do the people’s work.” This sentiment was met by large cheers from his crowd of supporters. He solemnly expressed his disappointment in not winning the election, saying, “I so wish—I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes to lead the country in a different direction, but the nation chose
another leader.” Obama offered his victory speech about an hour later to a spirited crowd at his election headquarters in Chicago, Ill. He thanked all those who campaigned for him, voters on both sides for getting involved in the election, Vice President Joe Biden, and his wife, Michelle Obama. Like Romney, Obama advocated for bipartisanship in his speech, saying, “I look forward to sitting down with Gov. Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward.” Bipartisan messages were met with large cheers from supporters on both sides after a particularly harsh election. He spoke about a unified country that works together for a common goal, and not a separation of red and blue states. He also was hopeful for the future of the United States, saying, “We are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation. We know in our hearts that for the United States of America, the best is yet to come.” Early figures show that fewer Americans voted in the 2012 presidential election than did in the 2008 presidential election. This could be attributed to the recent Hurricane Sandy, the aftermath of which kept many voters in New York and New Jersey from making it to the polls. Every effort was made to ensure that voters in affected areas were able to vote, including early voting. Although the Democratic Party retained control of the presidency, the GOP kept their majority in the House of Representatives. The Senate remained Democratic with many notable Democratic senators elected, including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. n
ideology in a pitch that took into account Massachusetts’ general negative attitude toward the national GOP. As of Oct. 30, Brown had not crossed the 48 percent mark in any polls since the middle of September, with three of the four latest polls showing Warren over 50 percent. Brown humbly conceded defeat and subdued dissatisfied supporters with the affirmation, “She won it fair and square, folks.” Adding to the historical precedent set by Warren was the record $75 million spent between the two candidates on their campaigns, deeming the race the most expensive political contest in Massachusetts history. In a pact made to prevent the outside money of super PACs from endorsing the candidates through campaign ads, Brown and Warren agreed to stand behind their own attacks against one another in television ads. Both candidates complied with the agreement through the end of the campaign, with Brown remarking to The Boston Globe, “Can you imagine another $30 million of negative ads on the air?”
Warren, who entered the Massachusetts political scene about a year ago and quickly created a following with her development of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, will bring to Washington her critical stance on Wall Street, and with it, the possibility of further regulatory efforts aimed at the financial sector. These criticisms and the push for more regulation won the heart of liberals, and helped win the vote for Warren. Secretary of State William Galvin predicted that 3 million to 3.2 million Massachusetts voters came out to cast ballots on Tuesday, and faced unprecedented long lines. Even after the polls closed at 8 p.m., people were still waiting in line to vote. Although it is typical to expect crowds at peak times before and after work, many voters placed the blame on lack of election workers and the length of the three ballot questions, which totaled to 1,800 words. Brown waited in line with his family Tuesday morning to vote at Wrentham Middle School, while Warren voted at the Graham Parks School in Cambridge alongside her husband and several family members. n
has now joined the ranks of political machines with so many people keeping up with information on Facebook and Twitter. Polling in the national perspective can give a terrifying numerical value to voters. For instance, if statisticians in New York suddenly had began reporting that the state was close to flipping to being taken by Romney (an aberation from their usually liberal leaning) voters would have voted frantically for their “side” without realizing that these numbers might not be accurate. The same goes with a conservative state like Mississippi or Alabama where the majority voting block could be confused by polls and the underdog given unreasonable hope. Alternatively, because with the electoral college it seems almost useless to vote for Obama in Mississippi or Romney in New York, polling actually decreases the motivation for one to vote at all if one disagrees with the majority. This decreases the minority party of a state even more. Polling doesn’t give voters a sense of passion toward politics if their votes do not seem to “count.” Christian Mora is a writer for The Heights. He can be reached at metro@ bcheights.com.
Clara Kim is a senior staff writer for The Heights. She can be reached at metro@ bcheights.com.
Courtesy of Google images
Warren was elected over incumbent Scott Brown and became the first female senator from Mass.
From percentage points, to electoral votes, to demographic analysis, political polls seem to know it all. Ever since Gallup correctly predicted the 1936 presidential election and almost every election since, the love of polling has become cemented in the American mind. Today, Americans watch polls religiously to find out who has the lead. While the accuracy of polls such as Gallup’s cannot be refuted, one ought to explore the positive and negative effects of living in a nation where polls are a major part of elections, including the most recent presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
Photo Courtesy of GooglE images
Polls provide new perspective Polls obscure voter decisions Before the 2012 election, Huffington Post was my best friend. With graphics depicting the Electoral College outlook and the percentage of the popular vote projected for Obama and Romney, I looked at presidential election polls on a daily basis. That is not to say, however, that I was a puppet of the polls. I am an individual who has my own views and opinions. It is a common worry that polls will cause people to go with the crowd, or that an electoral outlook in the polls will cause people to feel that their vote does not matter. People who worry about this are using polls in the wrong manner. Polls are not designed to tell voters which candidate is right or wrong, or whether or not their votes will be able to sway an election. Instead, polls should serve to show how the election is being perceived. If used in this way, polls can be a great tool. Individuals are often trapped within their own political perceptions during an election. Polls can help people to transcend these perceptions. For example, it may sometimes be difficult for males to understand how females perceive certain women’s issues in an election. By examining polls in the 2012 election, one could see that a larger percentage of women
supported Obama for a fair amount of the presidential race. This could have helped an individual understand which candidate is better appealing to women’s issues. If one is a voter for whom women’s issues are particularly important, a vote might be better informed. The same idea can apply to a candidate’s perspective. Who is not supporting him, and what can he do to send a positive message to different groups? A candidate, of course, should not change what he believes based solely on what is popular, but knowledge of the electorate is integral in order to be a successful voice for the people. A voter, too, cannot allow polls to dictate beliefs. Even if a candidate is leading in the polls, he still may not be what is best for the country. Polls do, however, invite one to think about why people in certain regions or demographics support different candidates. This can help one to be a more informed voter, even if not a reformed one. Voters should be firm in their beliefs while allowing polls to offer viewpoints that they may otherwise have missed. Ryan Towey is a staff writer for The Heights. He can be reached at metro@ bcheights.com.
Christian Mora Quantity always seems to be of great value to Americans. This love for numbers spills over into the political world in the form of polling, which has become very influential, especially in this year’s presidential election. Even though we are mainly a two party country, there are many people in the voting population that side with neither party. These undecided voters value these numbers and statistics extensively. However, polling is so influential that it actually hinders the personal interests of those undecided voters. From MSNBC, to FOX, to CNN, every news outlet now gives a general poll of presidential candidates standing in the country, breaking it down into specific voting population such as by ethnic groups, geographic location, and income group. With such constant manipulation of numbers, broadcastsers have incredible power to exaggerate these poll results not by lying about the numerical value, but simply adjusting their interpretation of what those numbers mean in the greater scheme of the election. Using such tactics, television shows gain the power to influence voters in a way that is destructive rather than informative. Beyond this, social media
Clara Kim To many countries around the world, we are considered to be the most powerful ally a country could possibly have. However, as easy as it is to say that we are powerful, by default, it makes us incredibly formidable. Perhaps, one could call it a blessing and a curse. It’s no secret that America is an influential player in the international community. Our policies, our economy, and even who we elect as president, significantly affect dozens of other international players. What we do, what we say, and how we act can make the slightest difference in the very fickle world of international affairs. To demonstrate America’s influence on others, a recent Gallup International poll, which surveyed 26,000 men and women in 32 countries, found that “62 percent of respondents said that the U.S. president has a high or very high impact on their lives, and 42 percent felt they should have the right to vote in this year’s contest for that very reason.” That being said, on Tuesday, people around the world watched and held their breath as nearly 118 million Americans came out to cast their ballot for their presidential candidate of choice. In what was anticipated as the closest presidential election in U.S. history, Americans were split down the middle as to which candidate they preferred, while the rest of the world had already made up its mind. But what exactly does the international community think of our presidential election and its candidates? According to a recent BBC poll conducted by GlobeScan/PIPA, nearly 21,000 people in 21 countries during the months of July, August, and September were asked which candidate they preferred. The results showed that Obama was the preferred candidate in 20 of the 21 countries. With a margin of error approximated at somewhere between 2.0 and 3.7 percent, the same poll taken four years ago in 2008 placed Obama as having the favor of only 14 countries. This time around, as the highly favored candidate, he garnered most of his support from France with 72 percent, and the bulk of the rest of his support from countries like the Netherlands, Portugal, Ireland, and Iceland. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, gained most of his support from Pakistan, the only country who had a majority favoring him over Obama. Georgia, Macedonia, and China were next in giving Romney their support, but also behind Obama. But Pakistan wouldn’t have been his lone supporter. Interestingly, The Huffington Post reported that, had Israel been included in this poll, they would have given Romney their support: According to a poll taken by the University of Tel Aviv, Romney was favored with a 3 to 1 margin. As a side note, The Wall Street Journal recently published an article revealing, to no one’s surprise, that North Korea didn’t like either candidate. A North Korean newspaper reported, “It appears that the U.S. seeks to step up the moves of isolating and stifling the [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] … and wait for the ‘change’ in the DPRK … but it is a foolish dream.” (Thanks for that, I guess?) Nevertheless, other polls suggested the same results as those from BBC. A UPI survey found that 51 percent of international respondents said that they would vote for Obama, while 18 percent said neither candidate, and only 12 percent would vote for Romney. GlobeScan Director of Global Insights Sam Mountford hit the nail on the head when he commented that, “While the presidential race in America look[ed] like it [was] going down to the wire, global public opinion appears to be firmly behind Barack Obama’s re-election—even if two in five express no preference between the candidates.” Now, more than ever, all eyes will be on America. We picked a president on Tuesday night—but the fight doesn’t stop there. With a divided Congress, the world will be watching and critiquing our every move. It’s one thing to urge people to put bipartisanship aside. It’s another to act upon it. The ball is in our court—it’s just a matter of what we do with it.
THE ISSUE:
Ryan Towey
favorite in global politics