Who won the debate?

By THOMAS HARTWELL

Thursday's debate harbored one of the first true opportunities for Republican presidential candidates to voice their stances on debated issues, sans Trump, after his decision to boycott. I think it important to mention that Fox's moderators and the candidates themselves, for the most part, did a good job of not mentioning Trump -- thank you, Fox. The network also broke new ground by teaming up with Google for the sake of analytics. The debate included stats and graphics showing the top search results and increased percentage of certain keywords on Google during the airing of the debate.

As we all know, of all the candidates on stage, Cruz was the leader going into Thursday's airing. The debate opened with a quick mention of Trump by Megyn Kelly, the moderator with whom Trump had "beef." Let's all take a moment to address "the elephant not in the room," said Kelly. Shortly thereafter, Cruz opened by calling "everyone on this stage... stupid, fat and ugly." He did well to hold his composure and his punchline to let what he had said stun viewers before concluding, "Now that we've gotten the Donald Trump portion out of the way..." (see the video here).

Claims of "winners" of the Iowa debate are scattered throughout the Internet, and every candidate's official Twitter page claims "so-and-so won the debate, so here's a discount on so-and-so merchandise." That being said, here's my take on each candidate's strong points as well as who won the debate -- I'll understand if you take it with a grain of salt, and no discounts... sorry.

TED CRUZ:

Cruz did just okay in Thursday's debate. He was attacked on changes of stance and policy quite a bit, as expected, but handled himself well, for the most part. Cruz did well to give the conservative audience what they wanted to hear as far as his healthcare plan saying, should he be elected to office, he would "repeal every word of ObamaCare." His discussion of immigration was smart, too; he cited his collaboration with Iowa's own Rep. Steve King for the brainstorming of the plan. His strongest point in the night, and the one that seemed to score him the most points with the crowd, was his promise to rebuild the military and "utterly crush" the Islamic State, a point he revisited in his closing statements. The election boils down to one question, he said, who do you trust to defend America?

What he didn't seem to have enough of Thursday night was confidence. His stance on ethanol subsidies had been one of much attention in Iowa -- many farmers are unhappy with the idea of no more subsidies -- and he was given a chance to clarify. While I believe he clarified the "why," I still don't know how much Iowan farmers like the idea of giving up the extra cash on their already pretty "cash-bringing" crop. He participated in a rather heated skirmish with moderator Chris Wallace, which didn't really go his way, made some jokes that didn't really seem to connect with the audience and was even booed once. At times he looked panicked and was all-around, just outshone. Overall, Ted, 6/10.

BEN CARSON:

While Carson was quite relevant at the start of the 2016 campaign, his popularity has waned vastly. It was Carson's religious basis and stories of his road to salvation that won many conservatives over early on, but as his campaign road has become more and more rocky, including the recent death of one of his volunteers, his spotlight and his support have dwindled.

His night on the debate stage seemed to speak to his difficult few weeks. Carson did not receive many direct questions, challenges or other opportunities to speak. When he was asked questions, they seemed, in my opinion, more challenging to answer than the other candidates'. He did, however, touch on a couple of popular conservative notions, which I will applaud him for: the need for less political correctness and the importance of powerful military action. His strongest point in the debate came toward the end, when he expressed America's need for military exercises all around Russia in response to Putin's aggressive tendencies. For your push for a bigger military and your patience with lack of talking time, Carson, 5/10.

JOHN KASICH:

Kasich seemed the most wholesome of the bunch Thursday night. He slung no ill words and seemed to have no ill will toward any of the other candidates, but that may have been his problem. Kasich hasn't really been aggressive enough this campaign season -- I suppose that comes with never having been a front-runner. For what it's worth, though, I believe his level head and his patience for a debate that didn't seem to welcome him was refreshing, and I think he surprised some people -- not nearly enough, but some.

Kasich didn't get to talk much either, but when he did, he spoke with confidence. His high points were a little moderate-sounding -- maybe that's why he's not hitting it too big with the conservatives. One of the best quotes of the night, I think, was his: "The mentally ill and drug addicted of this country have been stepped on for too long." He also scored some extra points with a call to action to the leaders of Flint, Michigan. All-around, your demeanor and holistic approach to Thursday's debate gets you a 5/10, Kasich.

RAND PAUL:

Is it just me, or are even Republicans leaning a little more to the middle these days? Rand Paul rallied quite a bit of talk with his many calls for racial equality and justice reform. He was calm, cool, collected and very well-spoken and well-prepared. He was first to go on the offense, attacking Ted Cruz on his voting against the "Audit the Fed Bill," which called for more transparency in the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. Paul also pointed out the much larger percentage of young African-American males in prison versus young white males for similar crimes, citing many of the country's hot spots for racial cases against the state over the past decade. While he struggled to answer the question of abortion in a way that satisfied both the typical conservative response, "pro-life in all cases," and what opinion I think is his own, (more pro-choice leaning), I think this was his best debate performance, and I think he'll see a slight rise in his poll numbers. For your confidence, your sticking to your own beliefs and your call for equality and justice reform, Paul, 7/10.

CHRIS CHRISTIE:

Christie didn't win, but he scored lots of points in my book with his use of humor (the points are imaginary, they don't really count for anything). He poked fun at the other candidates, at Donald Trump, at times, himself and even seemed to stand smugly at the podium. His main focus was letting the crowd know that he, and only he, could and would beat Hillary and that terrorism was the number one threat to Americans. He fended off the occasional, "Well, what about the bridge thing?" from the other candidates and closed with a promise of "crushing ISIS," a common theme of the night. His best moment, though, was when he was asked if he could name one thing the government did right now that it shouldn't do at all. He stood at the podium leaning heavily to one side on his elbow, he paused and said, "Yes... You want one?" The crowd loved it. His example, funding of Planned Parenthood, also scored him some points with the pro-lifers.

Christie didn't impress me with his answer to a question about racial profiling, though. He stumbled, stuttered and came up with an answer that sounded a bit like, "well it just isn't" when asked whether calling the authorities on "suspicious-acting Muslims" was an example of profiling. So, his humor couldn't totally save him, but I would say Christie gave the viewers a good time and did well to represent himself as a candidate -- so, Christie, 7/10 for you.

JEB(!) BUSH:

Jeb has been called low-energy, a loser and a nobody (most of these by Trump), he's had to settle for an endorsement from only his mother and his numbers continue to drop -- nationally he's at about 2% -- but Thursday night, he came prepared. I wish more of you out there liked him, but anyway, this isn't about that.

Bush was friendly when he should have been, aggressive when appropriate and worked in just the right amount of humor, even saying at one point, "I actually miss Donald Trump." Bush called for better care for veterans, laid out his immigration plan and addressed and offered a solution to Islamic extremism without playing into the fear-based "ban all Muslims" stance, for which more than a few have been calling. His highlights were his suggestion of focus on "Islamic terrorism" instead of "all Muslim-Americans" and his stance, though he had to defend a change over the years, on immigrants' path to citizenship. Maybe it's because he knows he's out of the race at this point, maybe it's because he has a fool's hope, but it seemed nothing could faze Jeb on that stage. Though I don't think his poll numbers will climb, I believe Bush was one of the winners of Thursday's debate. 9/10, Jeb.


MARCO RUBIO:

What can I say? Rubio surprised me. There's been a lot of talk about Rubio's looks, his charisma, his charm and his age (even though he's 44, only a year younger than Ted Cruz), and how all those things could work to his advantage in his campaign if he just really turned them on -- well, he turned them on. Rubio came out swinging, Thursday. He was aggressive, confident, consistent and fearless in his responses. He was quick to "expose the lies" in the other candidates' attacks on his policies, something many other candidates seemed to forget they could do, and in many cases, he turned the question of consistency on his attackers. The majority of his policy strengths for the night came on the topic of religion and the military (I would say, the two smartest choices for a conservative crowd). But one of the strongest quotes of the night came from him too: "Hillary doesn't want to run against me, but I can't wait to run against her."

Thursday night showcased a Rubio the likes of which voters have never seen. I would say Rubio was easily the other winner of the debate, and with a front-runner spot still sort of in reach for him, I wouldn't be surprised if his campaign caught some wind. Good job Rubio, 9/10.

New media is about more than just you

By THOMAS HARTWELL

The emergence of social media and its growth over the past decade have done well to forward many people's careers and social lives, but as it continues to grow, mainstream social media is expanding its reach into even humanitarian efforts. The Guardian reports in a recent article, that Facebook and Twitter have aided in finding missing children through the use of their respective platforms. The change has been described as improvement from "milk cartons, posters, flyers, meetings and traditional news reports" to television and radio broadcasts to modern-day mass media attention, word-of-mouth and world-of-mouth.

In 2015, Child Rescue Alert in the U.K. partnered with Facebook to expand the reach of the goals of the organization. The use of Facebook, and later Twitter, increased viewership of the missing child ads as well as drew attention to the appearance of the suspect(s) in the cases. Millions, sometimes even tens of millions, saw the ads.

So, besides the obvious, simply viewership of the post, what benefits could the development of social media for virtually everything have on this type of use? Recognition and traffic of a post like this one would obviously need traffic and attention, but equally important, if not more, is speed -- immediacy. If tens of millions of people see a "missing child" ad just a day or two too late, it could mean the difference between finding and not finding that missing child.

In an age of "having to know right now," it may seem that constant, overwhelming updates are riddled with unnecessary and useless information. I would argue that it is a necessary evil to endure and filter through the "junk mail" of social media to receive important, timely and reliable information. This, as a result, will create a more streamlined and reliable social community. Where does that start? The answer: with each Facebook-er, Twitter-er and blogger worldwide. The ability to recognize and utilize social media as both a social outlet and a tool to improve one's own life and, potentially, the lives of others is imperative to the use and future growth of social media.

Twitter, tough talk and (sorry) Trump again

By THOMAS HARTWELL

As there is an abundance of attention on Trump and his various campaigning techniques, I wanted to avoid talking about him for a while -- I was going to talk Clinton this time. In light of his recent "Fox debate boycott," however, I cannot ignore -- for the purpose of discussing the mobilization of followers -- his decision. 

Sorry Hillary, you'll have to wait.

Picture from humanevents.com

Trump does two things very well: Make waves and -- for lack of a better term -- sling poo. He does these two things well in two ways: Tweets and speeches.

Using his debate boycott as an example, let's discuss the "make waves" and "speech" points. Trump has, no doubt, been quite a ratings booster for many news media outlets. He has made statements that have been made into headlines, made claims that have sparked impassioned debates and, for some, boosted debates' entertainment value. His lack of political correctness has appealed to the masses, who feel that Americans have become "soft" and who want to hear that extreme change will come about, right now. Trump gives his followers these extreme statements and gives them a call to action, which his slogan, "Make America Great Again" embodies. His latest call to action was sparked by his refusal to participate in Thursday's Fox debate over long-standing disagreements with network officials. He challenged after announcing his absence, "Let's see how the ratings do."

Many Trump supporters have taken this call to action to heart and are boycotting the debate themselves. Trump has doubled-down on his call by announcing the creation of a fundraiser for veterans and the Wounded Warrior Project to be put on during the debate -- Trump's goal seems to be to pull more attention away from Fox. Such seemingly irrational moves on a candidate's part have been consistently benefiting Trump, proving that he has created a high-spirited, highly impressionable and highly mobilized follower base.

In Joseph Tuman's, "Political Communication in American Campaigns," Tuman suggests, "[Speech] effectiveness will depend on the audience; we are not all affected by ethos, pathos, and logos in the same ways." Tuman also suggests that a speaker/candidate has to know his/her audience -- something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth to have to admit, Trump does well.

In the case of "slinging poo" on Twitter -- well, see for yourself. Trump, as I have mentioned before, does well to make himself more desirable by making other candidates less desirable. The content of his tweets are not the only part of his Twitter usage that has, thus far, benefited him. The amount of tweets that Trump puts out daily, praising himself, attacking others and relaying plans is stifling compared to the other candidates' pages. Typically, the candidate with the most coverage will receive the most support. 

So, a recap: Trump captures media coverage for free by making outrageous claims and statements, puts doubt in voters minds as to the reliability and ability of other candidates and mobilizes his followers with calls to action.

While Trump may have benefited immensely from his wild claims in the campaign season, I have to believe that voters will come to the conclusion that the same candidate who so skillfully "slings poo" at other candidates may not be the best choice to win the whole thing. 

So, Mr. Trump, my advice to you is this: Unless you can handle quite a bit of global backlash, maybe you should quit while you're ahead -- some foreign leaders may not be so afraid to sling more than just "poo" back.

See the Bern: A quick visual analysis of the Sanders campaign

From the Bernie Sanders campaign Facebook page

By THOMAS HARTWELL

The Bernie Sanders campaign has been something that I have been closely following both as a necessity for classes and for my own personal curiosity and desire. I have been analyzing the campaigns of many presidential candidates and found a couple, namely Sanders and Trump, to be the most intriguing.

Bernie Sanders has been considered a “revolution” campaigner and is turning the policy of most prior democratic candidates on its head. I remembered this particular ad because when I hear the term “revolution” in reference to the Sanders campaign, I now think of this visual. A few things in particular come to mind when I look at this ad and other ads like this one:

First, the use of the text reading, “Roll up your sleeves…” paired with the visual of Sanders actually rolling up his sleeves is, I suppose, to send a “working man” message to potential viewers and supporters. This, paired with the continued use of his buzz word, “revolution,” has won him quite a bit of public recognition, despite the initial negatively-connotated “Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist” ads (they sort of died when his policies started to pick up a follower base). So his, originally socialist, now “for the people” campaign has been dependent on his “roll up your sleeves,” “it’s us, not me,” “political revolution” campaign.

Second, everything in this ad looks so clean and straight and organized – down to the pens in Sanders’ pocket. I mean, look at them. Yes, it might seem that his wearing a suit would contradict his claim of being a “working man” who is going to “roll up his sleeves” and get down and dirty, but I have to believe that any viewer of a presidential campaign ad would expect this attire from a candidate no matter what the ad actually said (it could say, “Look at me, I’m not wearing a suit.” And he’d probably still be wearing a suit). I think the “clean” look for his ads attempts to speak to his: 1. Trustworthiness and 2. Simplicity. His trustworthiness in part because he seems organized, like he has his stuff together, and his simplicity because, again, he is working with the image of an “everyday guy,” “us, not me” campaign.

Finally, the use of Sanders’ first name on his ads continues his down-to-earth and personable feel. He seems to aim to be approachable with a sort of “please, call me Bernie” message.

[It is worth mentioning that Sanders’ hair has become a staple as well. Yes, his hair. It has become a signature in many of his ads (you can’t see it as well in this one, so I’ve included another example below). I feel that finding something unique or quirky in a public figure can make them more personable and real – I don’t just feel that way myself, but I’ve observed it in others as well.]

Political Communication: Let's Talk Trump

By THOMAS HARTWELL

The most intriguing definition of political communication that I happened across in several readings included several comments about a collaboration between political science and communication/media studies professionals. The collaboration, said the authors, is a result of these professionals working together on topics of mutual interest instead of “ignoring their colleagues” and conducting their own studies. In regards to the transmission of messages or opinions in “policom,” political communication can be described as how a candidate communicates, verbally or otherwise, through many channels and media outlets to get a message to the public and vice versa. Channels and media outlets for candidates might include their campaign website, social media pages or campaign ads. The public and press may use those same channels to interact with or report on candidates as well as take to their own social media accounts and other public channels to express opinions and communicate with people of similar, and many times varying, political opinion. The press, like the public, may interact with candidates or campaign officials via social media, but the press has a leg up on the public with its ability, in many cases, to reach the candidate personally as well as has a responsibility to report factual and accurate information to the public.

A rather colorful example of the practice of policom concepts is Donald Trump’s use of Twitter this campaign season. Trump has, undoubtedly, been the most outspoken illustrator of many candidate goals, namely, attempting to make himself more desirable to potential voters by making other candidates less desirable. Trump, while more animated than other candidates, exhibits policom marketing techniques that most candidates, especially in national elections, strive for. Trump has derived much of his success in national polls this season by catering to the other two players’ roles – public and press. When he makes “shocker statements,” like his idea to deport 11 million people and build a border wall, the press picks it up, gives Trump free publicity and steals spotlight potential from others. As far as catering to the public, Trump has capitalized on the nation’s yearning for firm action by making general, attractive statements that strike up conversation among voters. It makes sense as a marketing and campaigning tactic – I mean, who wouldn’t want to “make America great again”?