T H E
E L E C T I O N
S E C T I O N
NOVEMBER 1 ISSUE 8
VS. YOUR COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO THE 2012 ELECTION
The year of the Hashtag Election: How Twitter is revolutionizing political campaigns SEE PAGE 6
5
Ways we decide who to vote for
SEE PAGE 5
Why the President is the one person you shouldn’t like on Facebook
SEE PAGE 3
A SUMMARY OF EACH CANDIDATE’S PLATFORM: BARACK
MITT
OBAMA
ROMNEY EDUCATION
Make education accessible and provide more collegiate opportunities for all Increase funding for grants and create a college tax credit Improve and reform the education system Assist with the job search after college
Eliminate limits on charter and digital schools Reform teacher unions that he believes “do not fight for children” Cap Pell grants to increase only at rate of inflation Fix the “educational crisis” that has occured under President Obama
TAXES
Cut taxes for the middle class Make income taxes fair; millionaires will pay higher taxes
Give everyone in the country a 20-percent tax cut Be “revenue neutral” (raise as much tax revenue as the current system) Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent Switch to a territorial tax system
ECONOMY Save the auto industry and promote jobs Bring back jobs by reviving the manufacturing industry and create incentives for companies who stop outsourcing Reform Wall Street: keep big banks and big companies in check
Repeal Obamacare and Dodd-Frank and replace with modern framework Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements Cap spending at 20 percent of GDP Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies
NATIONAL SECURITY End the war in Afghanistan; bring home the troops Reduce the threat of war, especially in regards to Iran and North Korea, Strengthen international ties
Reverse Obama-era defense cuts Impose new sanctions and tighten existing ones to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons Reaffirm historic ties to Israel Champion free trade in the Middle east and across the globe Work with allies to support Syrian rebels
HEALTHCARE Uphold the Affordable Care Act Continue working on Medicare Make healthcare charges fair and not gender-based
Eliminate Title X Family Planning funding Restore $716B in Medicare cuts Provide no change to near-retirees; Medicare vouchers for young Give young people a choice of Medicare or private insurer
ABORTION Expand Obamacare insurance coverages to birth control and other preventative care while also reducing or even eliminating deductibles Protect women’s rights; women should be the only ones to make personal health choices
Eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood Under “Human Life Amendment” oppose all abortions, except those under cases of rape and incest
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
Double fuel efficiency standards, which will reduce carbon pollution Increase domestic natural gas and oil production Increase clean energy production, including clean coal Reduce dependence on foreign energy Reduce toxic emissions from power plants Preserve natural outdoor heritage
*Information compiled from candidates’ campaign websites
Plan for North American energy independence in 8 years, according to his Five-Point Plan Encourage the FDA to collaborate with businesses they monitor Update the Clean Air & Water Acts
November 1, 2012
E3
ELECTION SECTION
Vote for ability, not likeability By Madison Leonard Contributor
During the last year of grueling campaigning for the upcoming presidential election, the word “likeability” has been thrown around countless times as a way to distinguish the prospects of presidential hopefuls. Strangely enough, this undefined term remains fairly ambiguous, even three weeks away from Election Day. Ranging from facial expressions, voice and body language to tie color, the basis of a candidate’s “likeability” seems as connected to the individual’s competence as much as a Facebook “like” denotes the genuine value of some puppy photo. Various Gallup polls over the past few months asking about the two presidential candidates show Obama trumping Romney in the “likeability” area, despite relatively low job approval ratings for the current president. More likely than not, these obscure discussions are just highly effective ways to fill hours of airtime. After all, what is the validity in discussing subjective “likeability” on shows with political pundits like Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity, where conclusions about candidates at this state in the game are more polarized than the two sides of the Five Guys or In-N-Out debate? What remains unknown is the level at which voters are reacting to these poll numbers and hearsay about “likeability.” Are they actually affecting voters’ deci-
in the Caf are surely “likeable,” but if all the students are drowning when it comes down to final exams, there’s a real problem. In this era of cataclysmic national debt, dismally high unemployment and an erupting Middle East, maybe there should be less time spent gabbing about who would be the most fun to invite to our upcoming “Vampire Diaries” party. Widening the scope from just the presidential realm, it seems pretty clear that we as a nation have been voting in this style for a long time. Our Congress has reached the nadir of satisfaction and respect levels since such things have been measured. Maybe we as a nation have spent too much time lifting up polished speakers and telegenic Teletubbies and not those actually capable of hefting the weighty goverAlexandra Rangel /ASSISTANT ART EDITOR nance of this present time. The president should not sion-making? have to be able to “work a room” — unless it’s the Oval Despite lower numbers, the Romney campaign says Office. The president doesn’t need to be bubbly — but it’s not concerned. But that doesn’t add up, with the instead, bubbling over with character and resolve. The well-crafted strategy that has popped up over the last president doesn’t have to have a perfectly warm, attraccouple weeks to help “humanize” their candidate. His tive expression during a debate — just answer the dang family members, running mate and other advocates questions. have all touted the catch phrase, “the Mitt Romney I “Like” Mumford & Sons. “Like” Ryan Gosling. You know,” most likely with the hopes of boosting the vague can even “like” Taylor Swift. But don’t vote them to “likeability” factor. Clearly, Romney is doing his best to fill the most powerful seat on the planet. Be a credit to step up to the popularity plate, but will it matter? yourself and vote someone into office who can actually It shouldn’t. fix our ailing nation. It is splendid if I can make nice small talk with my dentist, but I really just need my cavity filled. Fun promadison.leonard@pepperdine.edu fessors who show movie clips during class and eat lunch g
Move off Wall Street and occupy tomorrow By Allegra Hobbs Perspectives Assistant
As we recently observed the one-year anniversary of the genesis of the Occupy movement, a sea of protesters took to Wall Street to rage once more against the corruption and greed they see as inherent within our current economic system. The spirit of activism washed over New York, and the national landscape was disturbed by societal unrest. At least, that was more than likely the reaction the protesters were hoping to elicit. It was most likely the reaction they would have projected onto the anniversary one year ago, when the movement began. The reality is, the youthful fervor that seemingly backed the cries against corporate greed a little more than a year ago has fizzled out, and may even be nearing a decidedly unromantic death at the hands of either apathy or ambiva-
Forty-seven percent of young people would rather work on Wall Street than protest against it, while only 26 percent would choose protesting over employment on Wall Street. lence (it’s difficult to tell which). Yet beyond apathy (or ambivalence), there is the question of whether or not we would be better served working on Wall Street — within the system, or the “machine,” or whatever you kids call it — than we would be protesting against it. Generation Opportunity, a non-profit that seeks to mobilize young Americans to face the country’s most important economic issues, recently released new polling data gauging the attitudes of young people toward Wall Street. The results demonstrate the relative scarcity of Millennials who view holding a sign or shouting through a megaphone
as viable solutions to the problems we face, namely, unemployment and the shrinking middle class. A study by the Harvard Institute of Politics showed that a mere 2 percent of young people between the ages of 18 and 29 had participated in the Occupy Wall Street movement. The results of the Generation Opportunity polls were consistent with these incredibly small numbers: 47 percent of young people would rather work on Wall Street than protest against it, while only 26 percent would choose protesting over employment on Wall Street.
»See OCCUPY, E6
E4
ELECTION SECTION
College campus challenge fights int’l trafficking
By Halli Spraggins
November 1, 2012
In a poll of random Pepperdine students, we asked, “Which issues discussed during the 2012 Presidential campaign do you think are most important?” Below are the results. Energy (nuclear, oil drilling) Education Healthcare Taxes Birth control/abortion
Assistant Sports Editor
War on Terror
Stances on human trafficking taken by Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama will impact more than just voters in the United States. A report published by the International Labor Organization estimates that approximately 2.5 million people around the world are in forced labor as a result of human trafficking. In order to combat this injustice, the Combating Trafficking in Persons (CTIP) office of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has initiated a cross-country college campus challenge. The organization launched its website for its challenge at Pepperdine in Elkins Auditorium on Thursday, Oct. 11. Pepperdine’s Director of the International Human Rights Program Jay Milbrandt praised Pepperdine, saying, “so many students have been active in this field with innovative ideas, so they chose Pepperdine to launch this event.” The goal of the website is to “present ideas and solutions [to human trafficking] and discuss them.” This new movement in combating trafficking has been directed at universities specifically because “global movements work when students are involved.” Increased involvement with social networking on college campuses has enabled American students to connect and communicate with other students around the world. As more people become involved in preventing human trafficking, more people become aware: “awareness is prevention; awareness is rescue,” one individual said in a panel discussion. In addition to raising awareness on college campuses, the organization aims to raise awareness to consumers. “What we choose to buy and how we choose to spend our money” can be very important. Companies are starting to use technology to create more transparency on their products, leaving the consumer responsible for purchasing the most ethical option. Technology plays an even bigger role in combating human trafficking. Social networks have helped raise awareness and support; smartphones have made it more convenient for people to report incidents of trafficking and it has become easier for people to trace the manufacturing process of the products they purchase. The way you vote in November will not determine whether or not America becomes involved with combating human trafficking. As this is an issue of human rights, both parties agree that human trafficking is a problem that needs to be addressed. Obama and Romney both spoke at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York from Sept. 23 to 25, expressing their concern on the matter. Now it is up to you, the voter, to decide which candidate you think will be the most involved in the fight. g
halli.spraggins@pepperdine.edu
Foreign relations Gun control Immigration Environment *Bars based on relative importance
America at risk of dependency By Ayden Smalling Contributor
This election presents America with a stark choice between two very different directions for this country. One path finds us increasing our reliance upon the government while we are ambivalent to its ever-increasing involvement in our lives; the other looks to create as many opportunities as it can and relies upon the drive and hope of hard-working Americans. Americans should not be relying on the government to help them out; instead, they should be working and relying on themselves. Americans on food stamps more than doubled in Obama’s first four years, but it’s more than just food stamps: Frankly, this reminds me of some of the problems European countries like Greece, Spain and Italy are facing. European citizens have developed this reliance on their governments through numerous entitlement programs. This mindset is so strong that Socialist parties are common throughout the continent. The recent difficulties concerning the euro and the troubles Greece, Spain and Italy are facing can be seen as results of the current European system. This system is not right for America. This handout culture, however, is beginning to permeate American society, and it is being catered to happily by the Obama administration. I believe in an America that takes care of people who can’t take care of themselves, but I don’t believe in an America that provides for people who just don’t want to. Rather than relying upon Uncle Sam to foot most of their bills, Americans should have jobs that provide them enough money to get by on their own. This is the kind of
economic vision we need. The past four years have seen economic stagnation, increased unemployment, greater numbers of discouraged workers leaving the workforce and an economic growth that isn’t bringing new workers in. The solution isn’t to continue adding people to welfare and unemployment; the solution is an economy that encourages small businesses and corporations alike to create jobs. The greatest social service the American people can receive is jobs. Increasing taxes and regulation will not help get people back to work; it will only grow the size of the government and perpetuate the path of dependence. Mitt Romney wants to steer America down this path of opportunity. Americans should be working, creating, innovating and leading in every field. Mitt Romney wants an America that provides opportunity in the form of jobs, so each person can decide what to do with his or her opportunity. It requires responsibility instead of the path of reliance, and its outcome leads us to growth. Rather than blend into the background like some of the European countries, dragging ourselves down with high taxes and dependence on a welfare state, Americans need to remain independent, hard-working and strong. This is the history of America, and it successfully brought us to global prominence in just a few hundred years. It is these same ideals that will continue to set America apart. America is a collection of exceptional individuals who simply need opportunities in order to thrive. It is not the government that will turn around the economy, but individual Americans becoming successful. Our government didn’t make America the greatest country in the world — our people did. g
ayden.smalling@pepperdine.edu
According to the Humane Society, there are at least 3,500 animal shelters in our nation rescuing those animals ... in the same United States of America there are five shelters — five — for minor sextrafficked victims in this country. --See Perspectives, page A9
5
November 1, 2012
E5
ELECTION SECTION
WAYS WE DECIDE HOW TO VOTE By Shane Tayloe Contributor
The election has already been decided in the minds of many voters based on just a few factors. Although we consider ourselves free-thinking and objective decision makers, when it comes to choosing a president, the statistics from the Pew Research Center demonstrate otherwise.
PARTY AFFILIATION
GENERATION
“ATMOSPHERICS”
Chief among the factors that will indicate how someone will vote is their party affiliation. Data sets compiled by the Pew Research Center show that approximately 58 percent of people identify as either a Democrat or Republican, and most will vote along party lines. Independents are not as easily categorized. In 2008, 90 percent of Democratic-leaning Independents voted for Barack Obama, while 80 percent of Republican-leaning independents voted for John McCain, according to Gallup figures. Although the latest numbers from Gallup polls indicate that Independents have ballooned to around 40 percent of the electorate, they have not managed to rise above the partisan fray to chip away at the influence of the established political parties.
When we were born and our experiences since that date influence how we vote. Polls conducted by the Pew Research Center demonstrate that our generation, the Millennial Generation (1985+), leans heavily toward the Democratic Party while the Silent Generation (1928 to 1945), leans toward the Republican Party. Over half of Millennials want government to become larger. By roughly the same proportion, Baby Boomers (1946 to 1964) want government to get smaller. There have historically been far more conservatives in the Baby Boom generation, a trend that has been accentuated over the last decade. Only 40 percent of the nation now approve of the job President Obama is doing.
Most of what results in a candidate ascending to the presidency is outside the control of his campaign or anything he says or does. This “other” category includes major current events and systemic gripes on the part of the American populace. This year it is the economy — to such an extent that virtually all talk of social issues has been droned out. According to the most recent Gallup poll, 72 percent of Americans view economic issues as the most important issue facing the nation.
THE CAMPAIGN
“Personalismo” is the phenomenon in which the force of a politician’s personality rises above all other factors, resulting in his election and defining the extent of his influence on policy outcomes. In short, it is the idea that the sheer force of the candidate could surpass all other factors bearing upon the electorate in the voting booth. Many believe that “personalismo” exists in American politics, but it does not. Likeability, or force of personality, is only a small factor when it comes to mobilizing the party base. More likeability will generate greater enthusiasm, which will result in marginally more of the base turning out to vote. Perhaps 10 to 20 percent of the outcome of a presidential election is influenced by the campaigns. The mission of a campaign is twofold: to persuade the marginal group of undecided voters and to mobilize the party’s base. This is achieved through an “air” and “ground” campaign. The air campaign encompasses TV, radio, newspaper, Internet and direct-mail advertisements. As the first presidential election after the “Citizens United” Supreme Court ruling, we are now a “brave new world” of unlimited political financing by outside groups. This has accounted for the unprecedented flooding of the airwaves with political advertising. The ground campaign is far more effective but can be more costly. It involves interpersonal communication with voters. Voters are located and categorized, and campaign volunteers and staff are dispatched. Voters are confronted at their front doors or on their telephones, and the campaign pitch is tailored based upon the targeted voter’s age, gender, party affiliation and location. Those confronted are reminded to vote and, in some cases, are even offered a ride to the polling station.
RACE & RELIGION Many of us fall into demographic categories that can predict with great accuracy the way we will vote. This is especially true when it comes to race and religion. The Pew Research Center has conducted some of the highest quality research into how race and religion interact with politics. Historically, more than 90 percent of blacks have described themselves as Democrats, while 87 percent of Republicans are non-Hispanic whites, according to the Pew Reserach Center. Certainly religion factors into this as well. In 2008, 72 percent of Jewish voters aligned with the Democratic Party, while this year 79 percent of Mormons sided with the Republican Party. Black Protestants have achieved influence beyond their numbers by voting as a bloc. Although only accounting for 6.9 percent of the population, this group makes up a sizeable portion of the Democratic Party.
E6
ELECTION SECTION
HARNESSING THE #HASHTAG:
November 1, 2012
How Twitter revolutionized By Heather Manes
Twitter’s Trending Topics, located on the left-hand side of a user’s Twitter page, indicate spikes in mentions about any and all topics and represent the closest thing to a national dialogue. This year, Twitter users have During the 2008 election, President Barack Obama especially enjoyed hashtagging the candidates’ memochanneled the grassroots power of social media through rable pieces of dialogue from the infamous #47percent Facebook and YouTube campaigns, resulting in a comment, to the other more humorous ones such as landslide victory (66 percent compared to McCain’s 31 #malarkey and #savebigbird. percent) with youth voters. He, The news media have caught on to this much more than McCain, national dialogue and constantly consult understood the strength “During Obama’s speech at the Twitter to gauge what the public is talking of social media platforms, Democratic National Convention, about. All the major newspapers and news which inevitably played a 52,756 tweets were sent per stations have reported on Twitter trends, esdecisive role in his victory. minute, breaking the record for pecially during the debates and the RepubliThis year’s campaign, tweets sent per minute about a can and Democratic National Conventions however, has featured a political event.” because now, when thousands of tweets new media authority. It’s are sent per minute, it’s newsworthy. quick-witted, calls out However, only 15 percent of online adults have a candidates’ every bluff, constantly streams any and all Twitter account. Though a small minority, it is clear that opinions and — its most challenging and destructive it is one of the loudest. And, as the oddly-fitting old characteristic — circulates scathing satire like wildfire. saying goes, the squeaky bird gets the worm (OK, this Twitter is this year’s eccentric political pundit (and likely may be a new saying). So whatever hashtag the Twitterwill be for years to come), laying the foundation for verse squawks about, it is circulated en masse to the rest critical campaign reform and repaving the path to 1600 of the American public — a fact not lost on either of the Pennsylvania Avenue. candidates. Twitter was launched in 2006, so its influence in the Obama’s presence on Twitter has been much more 2008 election was negligible — only 1.8 million tweets active than Romney’s (@BarackObama has nearly were sent on Election Day in 2008. Four years later, 21.5 million followers and 7,400 tweets compared to the same number of tweets is sent every six minutes on @MittRomney’s 1.6 million followers and 1,300 tweets), Twitter. To say the least, the social media platform has but Romney was the first to purchase a promoted hashed out its own sphere of influence online, drawing hashtag. At the estimated cost of $120,000 per day, prothe attention of both the media and the candidates for moted tweets and Trending Topics can be some of the America’s first Hashtag Election. Graduate Assistamt
priciest advertising campaigns not only in terms of cost, but also in terms of negative backlash. Understanding the Twitter culture is crucial for a presidential campaign today, as has been better illustrated by the Obama camp than Romney’s. Romney, though first to purchase a Promoted Trending Topic, likely did not anticipate how it could be used against his campaign. For example, the promoted hashtag #AreYouBetterOff purchased by Romney’s campaign was later used by Obama’s, which responded with a tweet (from @4More account) that stated, “When Republicans ask #AreYouBetterOff they aren’t COMPARING to when Obama took office. Funny” and an attached image showing the downward economic trajectory of Bush’s era and the upward trajectory of Obama’s:
OCCUPY: Youth to be agent of financial change FROM E3 Meanwhile, 76 percent of young people believe that the lack of job opportunities is causing the middle class to continue to dwindle. There is an overwhelming sentiment among our generation that the disconcerting unemployment rate must be brought down. And, as these recent studies suggest, the majority of our generation does not believe that the demonstrations of the Occupy movement contain the answers we need. Where, then, are the answers? It seems fair to say that we are better off pinning our hopes on job creation than on any bitterness directed toward the obscenely wealthy. Perhaps that is why the Occupy movement turned out to be such a colossal disappointment. It is easy enough to take to the streets and scream our many grievances against the government and the elite, but if screaming offered any palpable solution to our grievanc-
es, they would have been taken care of long ago. Change requires positive action and the generation of ideas that could realistically reform the current system. A visit to the official Occupy website shows a bullet-point list of mismatched complaints, directed vaguely at those in power, whomever they may be. I recently had a conversation with a good friend during which she explained her reasons for joining the Obama campaign. “There’s no real point in standing on the sidelines shouting at the ref play after play,” she said of political activism. “If you want to see the sport get better, if you want the rules to change, you have to play the game.” The Occupy movement has been largely characterized by the screaming from the sidelines. Our generation seems to be awakening to the fact that they too must play the game. g
allegra.hobbs@pepperdine.edu
THE HASHTAG The hashtag, represented by the pound sign, is used by Twitter users to signify a topic of conversation, such as #election2012. Twitter users can click on any “hashtagged” word or phrase to read the stream of tweets that include it.
E7
ELECTION SECTION
November 1, 2012
political campaigns The Obama campaign continued to twist Romney’s promoted hashtags such as #cantafford4more and #failingagenda — only 19.6 percent of tweets containing the latter hashtag mentioned Obama. Romney’s campaign has not been as successful in twisting Obama’s hashtags, as they (presumably on purpose) created hashtags that are unable to be twisted as easily, such as #forward2012 and, most recently, #americaForward. Of the three big hashtags that came out of the three presidential debates, (#bigbird, #bindersfullofwomen and #horsesandbayonets), the first two were from Romney’s dialogue and the last was from Obama’s. #bigbird, which refers to Romney’s support to cut funding for PBS, and #bindersfullofwomen, which refers to Romney’s comment regarding his search to hire women for his cabinet while governor of Massachusetts, drew mostly negative satire and parody accounts such as @FiredBigBird and @RomneyBinders. Obama’s “hashtaggable” #horsesandbayonets phrase, however, refers to his sentiment that Romney doesn’t understand the modern needs of military and reflected on Obama much more positively than Romney’s hashtagged phrases. Obama’s more successful use of the medium likely contributes to why Twitter’s Political Index shows Obama leading Romney by six points as of Oct. 28. The Political Index was launched by Twitter in August to track overall sentiment toward each of the candidates and provides a unique if not predictive portrait of the campaign. Only Election Day can illustrate if Twitter has the power the news media believe it to have, but it is clear that harnessing the hashtag will be a critical concern of future elections. g
EVOLUTION EVOLUTION EVOLUTION THE THE
THE OF the OF the
OF the
er
pap
ws Ne far
If you
read
can
ing
re eith you’
this,
far
too
look
e or clos go
o. I’ll
rher supe
you
can
you
with
read
are the
this,
rher
a supe
can
you
read ing
er look
re eith you’
you
clos
too
look
o. I’ll
rher supe
ing
re eith you’
this,
e or
far
too
look
are
you
go
far
with
go
o. I’ll
with
rher
the
you
can
read
this,
latte
e
o. I’ll
go
rher
supe
ing
far
er look
read
can
ing
re eith you’
this,
e or
far
too
look
you
are
you
go
can
with
read ing
the
this,
far
the
latte
e or
can
go
r. If
ing
you
o. I’ll
go
with
are
you
with
read
the
this,
the
you
you
can
with
read
ing
go
can
you
are
you
with
read
are
you
a r. If
the
this,
latte
er
re eith you’ e or
you
clos
too
far
er look
o. I’ll
go
with
are
a
the
r.
latte
rher
a supe
are
clos
this,
are
this,
e or
far
r. If
read
can
ing
re eith you’
you
are
o. I’ll
go
with
read
can
ing
too
o. I’ll
go
e or
you
with
rher
you
latte
can
read ing
e or
you
go
er
you with
are
a
the
r.
latte
are
a r. If
the
this,
latte
er
re eith you’ e or
you
clos
too
far
er look
re eith you’
too
r. If
clos
o. I’ll
are
clos
a supe
the
this,
far
a latte
re eith you’
too rher
er
e or
far
are the
this,
far
a supe
are
re eith you’
this,
r. If
clos
you
with
read
er look
you
clos
er look
rher
go
can
ing
e or
you
you
clos
o. I’ll
you
re eith you’
too
latte
latte
too
rher
latte
the
this,
far
re eith you’
a supe
r. If
with
ing
e or
too
far
read
can
ing
you
read
can
er look
a supe
the
this,
go
can
ing
er look
go
r
the
r. If
with
read
r. If
clos
you
re eith you’
er look
e or
clos
o. I’ll
r. If
too
latte
re eith you’
o. I’ll
latte
go
o. I’ll
r. If
latte
re eith you’
too
rher
latte
the
this,
a supe
the
this,
far
a supe
you
clos
o. I’ll
you
e or
far
rher
r. If
with
read
can
e or
too
rher
r. If
latte
re eith you’
er
e or
too
far
a supe
are
you
rher
are
you
with
read
er look
look
can
ing
go
o. I’ll
clos
o. I’ll
you
clos
too
far
with
too
ing
er look
e or clos
a supe
rher
latte
re eith you’ e or
you
latte
re eith you’
too
rher
are
a supe
r. If
clos
o. I’ll
rher
supe
r. If
this,
read
can
er
go
o. I’ll
a supe
the
you
re eith you’
this,
far
a supe
the
this,
re eith you’
this,
rher
are
you
with
ing
are
with
er look
pap
read ing
or you
clos
too
far
ing
look
If you
can
er look
re eith you’
read
can
read
can
er look
go
latte
the
pe spa
you
w Ne
supe
go
o. I’ll
you
you
clos
o. I’ll
r. If
with
er
r. If
latte
re eith you’ e or
too
a supe
are
you
the
this,
far
rher
latte
go
with
read
ing
clos
you r. If
the
o. I’ll
can
er look
e or
too
clos
too
rher
a supe
r. If
clos
this,
far
you
re eith you’
a supe
e or
ing
er look
read
can
r. If
latte
rher
are
ws Ne If you
a supe
the
with
go
latte
e or
far
ing
o. I’ll
r. If
are
you
clos
too
go
o. I’ll
rher
e or
ing
er look
o. I’ll
go
with
are
a r.
the
latte
rher
a supe
clos
er look
re eith you’
rher
supe
53% of those fa
53% of those fa 58% of voters learn campaign information from social media 53% of those fa 58% of voters learn campaign information from social media n l omedia a t 58% of voters learn campaign information from social o Daily average of t day ion
Daily average of TweetsDaily & YouTube average Uploads of
ry 6 eve tes u mirny 6 2 e ev 2te0s1 Inu6 veirny es12 em ut 0 mIinn 2 2
heather.manes@pepperdine.edu
0
In 2
new tweet
21m 21m 1m21m 1 tweets
1 video
1m 1 tweets
1 video
1 tweets
1 video
Top Issues Based on Facebook shares Top Issues AND Twitter retweets Based on Facebook shares Top Issues AND retweetsshares BasedTwitter on Facebook AND Twitter retweets
1m
Obama Obama Romney Obama Romney Romney
Social Media Following 63% 31m Media Following videos shared Social likes
followers followers
10m31m
followers
31m likes 10m
.5m
10m
.5m
likes
.5m
1m 1m 1m
followers followers followers
Romney
Obama
Romney
Obama
Romney
Obama
37%63%
2 million a week 2tweets million mentioning a week candidates 2tweets million new tweet
01 In 2 Social Media Following
10 favorite hashtags of the 2012 campaign #clinteastwoodschair #bindersfullofwomen #47percent #horsesandbayonets #savebigbird #legitimaterape #malarkey #etchasketch #whereismolly #poorjim
1.8 million tweets 1.8 million tweets 1.8 million tweets
Tweets & YouTube Uploads
THE GRAPHIC’S
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
t eloetcal on 0a0y8 t n nn2d tIlioo etloetca n d0a0y8 tio 2 elecIn 08
Tweets & YouTube Uploads
new tweet
mentioning tweets a week candidates mentioning candidates
videos shared
63% 37% videos shared 37%
Immigration Women’s Rights
Veterans
Economy
Immigration Women’s Rights Rights Immigration Women’s Healthcare Veterans
Veterans
Economy
Veterans Economy
Economy
Healthcare
Veterans
Economy
Healthcare
Veterans
Economy
E8
ELECTION SECTION
November 1, 2012
Ben Holcomb / STAFF WRITER
Dream Act threatens legal citizens By Whitney Irick Assistant News Editor
While college tuition costs have increased for most California college students, illegal immigrants seeking a college education need not worry. In October 2011, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Dream Act (the acronym stands for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors). By signing the bill, Brown granted illegal immigrants access to state-funded financial aid at public universities and community colleges. This includes application waivers, private scholarships, Cal Grants and other state financial aid. The act forces legal citizens to compete with undocumented college applicants for acceptance into colleges and for state-funded grants. In addition, illegal immigrants would have access to in-state tuition rates. These so-called “Dreamers” — 1.8 million who could qualify for temporary legal status, according to Fox News — would be on a path to citizenship. To reap the benefits of the Dream Act, applicants must prove that they arrived in the U.S. before they were 16, that they are enrolled in college or vocational training or have a high school degree and that they have good moral standing. The Dream Act has received support from the Democratic Party; many Republicans, however, oppose it.
State Rep. Gil Cedillo, a Democrat from Los Angeles Proponents of the Dream Act say that children who sponsored the 2012 measure, told ABC News should not be punished for their parents’ actions. This affiliate KABC-TV, “The future of California’s economy argument holds no merit because illegal immigrants depends on the ability of these students to graduate, to were never entitled to the benefits of legal residency and perform well and to contribute.” Supporters have said college tuition subsidies in the first place. they will next push for illegal On the surface, the immigrants to receive eligibiliDream Act may seem The future of California’s ty for driver licenses. like an equal opportunity economy depends on the Therein lies the problem for educational beneability of these students to fits for students in the with the Dream Act. Mark Krikorian, executive director state illegally. However, graduate, to perform well of the Center for Immigrant Studies, called upon deeper inspection, the Dream Act “an attempt to legitimize and to contribute.” the Dream Act is just the presence of illegal immigrants.” In his another way for Wash — State Rep. Gil Cedillo eyes, the Dream Act could potentially “creington to grant amnesty ate political momentum in Washington for to illegal aliens up to the amnesty for all illegal immigrants.” age of 35 who arrived in the U.S. as minors. The Dream Gov. Brown and those who support the Dream Act Act creates an exception in our already unenforced are putting illegal immigrants’ needs ahead of their immigration policies. If the Dream Act is upheld, it own citizens’ needs. Republican presidential candidate will surely increase the number of people who come to Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are at the U.S. illegally. It not only encourages illegal immiodds concerning the Dream Act. Romney said during gration, but also rewards it. The Dream Act takes spots a campaign event in December that he will veto the and financial assistance away from American students. Dream Act if elected. “It makes no sense,” Romney said. Wake up, America, and face reality. The Dream Act is a On the other hand, President Obama urged Congress nightmare. whitney.irick@pepperdine.edu to pass the Dream Act in 2010. g
E9
November 1, 2012
ELECTION SECTION
Is God traveling the election trail? By Nate Barton News Assistant
For the first time in American history, there is not a single White Protestant on the presidential ballot, and God forbid the candidates mention religion at the podium. According to Dr. Robin Perrin, a Pepperdine sociology professor and Democrat, religion has hardly been a speaking point in this election. “Religion hasn’t really been in politics this time,” Perrin said. “Occasionally they’ll make reference to their convictions, but that’s more what we sociologists call ‘civic religion.’ Every president makes reference to faith and God — it’s standard 101 stuff.” In the 2008 election, the media focused on then-Senator Obama’s association with a controversial pastor, as well as fringe groups who believed Obama was a Muslim. This year, however, the focus is elsewhere. But according to Dr. Ron Cox, a Pepperdine religion professor and Republican, the notion that actually, with a Mormon candidate.” voters cared more about religion than politics in How voters view the LDS Church could have the past isn’t necessarily true. an enormous impact on voting turnout November “I think that politics has always trumped reli6th. gion,” Cox said. “And I think that it should — it “If you think about it, [some] evangelicals reject creates common cause as a I think that politics has always Mormonism with people who discult, but they’re agree with [religion]. willing to forgive trumped religion. And I think I think this will help because of that it should — it creates com- that surface that.” the stance on Many trace this sengay marriage or mon cause with people who timent back to the 80s under Presiwhatever.” dent Reagan, who had Catholic roots disagree with [other voters.] According to through his father. —Ron Cox, religion professor Perrin, Gov. Rom“I think there is something that ney’s faith could changed in the Reagan era,” Cox said. have a direct influence on his politics, as certain “After the Reagan era, you begin to see more diaMormon tendencies line up with the values of the logue and more sympathy between many Catholics Republican Party. and many evangelicals.” “In general, Mormons expect people to be Similar to the increased diversity during the personally responsible [with] individual responsiReagan administration, Gov. Romney’s involvebility being key,” Perrin said. “From what I’ve read, ment in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day there’s sort of a knee-jerk reaction to any sort of Saints (LDS) would also be a first in the oval government involvement — that the church takes office. care of its own. The church should fill in the void.” “If Gov. Romney wins, this creates the sort of President of Outreach for Pepperdine Young space because a lot of people perceive the LatCollege Democrats Lana Shaindlin agrees that ter Day Saints as not in the context of mainline while religion is often not the focus of debates or Christianity,” Cox said. “So my understanding is advertisements, many voters still cling to religion that since the very beginning most people have when choosing a candidate. been associated with what we would call ‘mainline “Many would attest that the parties are beChristianity’ who have been president. I think it coming more and more devoted to their religious could be a seed change where we see more diversiideals,” Shaindlin said. “Personally, I would not say ty in the office of the president.” that party trumps religion, but rather that one’s Even with the potential controversy surroundreligion defines their party.” ing Mormonism and the unique nature of a MorCox agrees that faith does impact public policy. mon candidate, few pundits seem to comment on “I think that [with] faith commitments, because the faith of either candidate. they are all-encompassing, it is not possible for “In some ways the actual role of religion often them to exist without impacting the public arena,” doesn’t come up at all,” Perrin said. “It’s shocking, Cox said. “I would rather they talk about their
Alexandra Rangel / ASSISTANT ART EDITOR
faith and how their faith impacts their choices. I think the more they talk about their faith (or lack thereof ), the better.” Furthermore, both Cox and Perrin said there is an overall cultural change within the voting bloc that is starting to present itself. For example, there is an increasing number of voters who are comfortable with the notion of gay marriage. “There is a shift going on in the general population where the assumptions we make and the commonality of our beliefs no longer is at play,” Cox said. “And I think, frankly, people are more comfortable with that.” According to Shaindlin, President Obama is the least impacted by his religion when it comes to policy decisions. “While both main candidates believe in God, it could be argued that Obama does a better job of keeping his personal viewpoints out of his policies,” Shaindlin said. “Of course, there are also those who would say that this very fact makes him less moral and less qualified to be president.” The reason for this could be the shrinking number of Protestants and mainline Christians in the U.S. “I think that it’s probably not a coincidence that Protestants are not the majority anymore. I believe they are still the plurality, but they are not the majority.” According to Cox, the way in which we discuss religion in the political sphere is flawed. “Nobody knows how to address religion, because if you address it in a certain way it makes it sound like you’re attacking the person’s faith,” Cox said. “And that would put either candidate at a disadvantage.”
g
nathaniel.barton@pepperdine.edu
T H E
E L E C T I O N
S E C T I O N
California Propositions Prop 37-Mandatory Labeling of
Prop 32-Ban on Corporate and Union
Prop 35-Increased Penalties for
Prop 37 requires there to be a label on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if the food is made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. It also prohibits the advertising of modified foods as “natural.” Foods that are unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material and that are not genetically engineered themselves are exempt from this requirement.
Prop 32 is intended to stop special interest money from being used for campaign spending. If passed, it would ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates, contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them and automatic deductions by corporations, unions and government of employees’ wages to be used for politics.
Prop 35 is intended to help stop human trafficking by increasing prison terms for human traffickers, requiring convicted sex traffickers to register as sex offenders, requiring all registered sex offenders to disclose their internet accounts, requiring criminal fines for convicted human traffickers to pay for services to help victims and mandating law enforcement training on human trafficking.
Genetically Engineered Food
Contributions to State and Local Candidates
Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery
Prop 31-Two-Year Budget Cycle
Prop 34- “End the Death Penalty”
Prop 36-Modification of the “Three
Prop 31 will establish a two-year state budget cycle. It will prohibit the California State Legislature from “creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified.” Along with permitting the Governor of California to cut the budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if the state legislature fails to act, it will also require performance reviews of all state programs. It will also require performance goals in state and local budgets.
Prop 34 will eliminate the death penalty in California and replace it with life in prison without the possibility of parole. The bill would apply retroactively to persons already sentenced to death. It would also require persons found guilty of murder to work while in prison and have the money earned be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them as well as create a $100 million fund to be distributed to law enforcement agencies to help solve more homicide and rape cases.
Prop 36 will revise the “Three Strikes” Law to impose a life sentence to felons only when the new felony conviction is “serious or violent.” If Proposition 36 is approved by voters, approximately 3,000 convicted felons whose third stike conviction was for a nonviolent crime and who are currently serving life terms under the “Three Strikes” Law, will be able to petition the court for a new, reduced sentence. Reduced sentences could save the state somewhere between $150 and $200 million a year.
Strikes” Law
California Props and Education Supporters:
Prop 38-Molly Munger’s
Prop 30-Jerry Brown’s Tax
Supporters:
-Carol Kocivar, president of the California State Parent Teacher Association -Edward James Olmos, actor -Arun Ramanathan, executive director of Education Trust-West -Celia Jaffe, president of the 4th District PTA, Orange County -Alex Kajitani, 2009 California Teacher of the Year -Tini Repetti-Renzullom, 2010-11 LA County Teacher of the Year
Prop 38 will increase state income tax rates for most Californians, resulting in increased revenues to the state of about $10 billion a year. For those who earn $17,346 or more per year in taxable income, taxes could increase up to 21 percent. The state increase would end after 12 years and the bill states that most of the new revenue of $10 billion would be given to public school districts and early childhood development programs.
Prop 30 increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by one-fourth cent for four years to fund schools. The bill allocates 89 percent of tax revenues to K-12 schools and 11 percent to community colleges. Local school governing boards would decide how funds are to be spent. Those who oppose the bill argue that there is no guarantee the money would be spent on education.
-Jerry Brown -League of Women Voters of California -California Democratic Party -California Teachers Association -California State Council of Service Employees -California School Employees Association -American Federation of Teachers -California Federation of Teachers
Tax Increase for Education
Increase for Education