Late last night, Congress finally managed to pass a bill to resolve some of the fiscal cliff issues. While this may seem like a major victory for Congress, the President, and the American people, it actually leaves many questions unanswered, and several of the major issues such as the budget ceiling, the extension of the payroll tax deal, and just about any long term issue, still on the table.

However, the fact that any deal was reached is remarkable in itself. Anyone who followed the back and forth of the negotiations this holiday season knows that it was not easy getting to this point. Citizens were outraged, and rightly so, that politicians seemed to be putting their party’s interests before those of the American people, while lawmakers struggled to gain any ground against roadblocks at every turn. Congress managed to create a drama of cinematic proportions before delivering a plan at the absolute last second.

So who were the big winners and losers in the deal? Let’s start with Obama. He was successful in raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans (although not as much as he had originally hoped) and protecting the middle class. This is what he had been promising to do all along, and having claims to validate his support for the average citizen can only help his popularity. The middle class was also a winner in this deal, as they will enjoy permanent Bush tax cuts in 2013. Joe Biden also came out on top. He was critical in making this last minute deal happen, working with McConnell across party lines when it seemed Reid had no further sway.

The losers of the fiscal cliff deal are also becoming apparent. Most obviously, the 1% took a hit with huge tax increases coming their way. While not as high as Obama had originally intended, the estate tax will spike to 40%, and taxes on their dividends will hit 20%. Boehner was also a loser with his “Plan B” failing miserably, and majority leader Reid has little to show for all his effort as well. Interestingly, neither party had a decisive victory over the other, which could point to promising hints of compromise and bipartisan efforts.

Finally, anyone highly concerned with the budget can count this as a loss. The deficit was not decreased and the limit of 16.4 trillion dollars was broken on Monday. Congress plans to address this and other remaining issues in the coming weeks. President Obama has stated they plan to do so “with a little bit less drama, a little less brinksmanship, [so as to] not scare the heck out of folks quite as much.” Yes President Obama, that would be nice.

So here’s to a new year! We can all breathe a little easier knowing that progress has been made, but can expect more drama and deals to come in the next few weeks. In the meantime, even the President returned to Hawaii. We all deserve a little break.

By Ian Rosoff

The Olympic charter forbids any kind of ‘demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda,’ but the Olympic charter was written before television, and during this Olympics the images changed from the fight for gold in London to the fight for president in D.C. faster than Usain Bolt.

President Obama purchased $5.5 million of airtime during these Olympics, and according to the New York Times, NBC told both candidates that negative ads don’t work well during the Olympics.  NBC wanted commercials during the games to be upbeat and complement the positive nature of the Olympics. We applaud their Aaron Sorkin idealism, but the supposedly optimistic Olympic audience found John McCain’s now infamous “celebrity” ad memorable and effective during the Beijing games. With everyone’s eyes on London these last few weeks plenty of people were also viewing negative ads against both Romney and Obama.

The Olympics has the largest demographic reach of any event prior to the election and the candidates could not pass up this opportunity to go negative, especially because it appears that a majority of the President’s ads will be derogatory throughout the campaign. Furthermore, Obama has attacked Romney over his Olympic credentials by going after him during the Olympics.

Perhaps the biggest reason that the Olympics saw so much political frenzy is the incredible amount of money spent on television ads. The number between Romney and Obama might reach $3 billion this presidential run. While Romney and Obama are on an unprecedented spending spree, they aren’t alone. Linda Lingle is running for Senate in Hawaii, and she is changing the game of political advertising.  She isn’t just running ads on popular networks, she created her own cable campaign channel.  Imagine 24/7 channels that show nothing but political advertising.  

The closing ceremony was the kind of grand, positive spectacle that NBC loves, but political advertising is only going to get worse. Political ads are going to set a tone fit more for reality television than the Olympic games. Obviously the spirit of the Olympic charter doesn’t extend to political discourse during Olympic coverage, but Presidential races and the Olympics are once every four-year spectacles, and one engenders fair competition and shuns propaganda, the other well, let’s just say it wouldn’t impress Mckayla.

By Sam Pauken

The veteran vote will prove to be one of the important swing constituencies in the 2012 race and both campaigns. When recent polls showed some pretty significant differences in approval ratings for President Obama and Mitt Romney among veterans, we had to dig a little deeper to figure out what was going on.

 What do the polls say?

According to a recent Gallup poll released two weeks ago of 3,300 U.S. veterans, veterans favor Romney 58 percent to 34 percent. If you consider non-veterans though, both candidates are tied 46 percent to 46 percent.

A Reuters/Ipsos online poll of “Gen at war” individuals indicated different results.  This one states that post-Gulf War veterans and their families favor the President over Romney 44 percent to 37 percent, while non-veterans favored the President 42 percent to 35 percent.  These results are very similar when compared with those of all registered voters, with the President leading 45 percent to 39 percent.  (Reuters/Ipsos did not provide any analysis of their results.) 

What’s going on here?

The Gallup results may be linked to two factors.  As those in the military become socialized to military life and military views, they become more politically conservative.  Additionally, within the past decade, many of those who have enlisted are believed to have been Republican before enlisting.

Part of the disparity between these two polls is the samples are completely different.  The Gallup poll was a survey of veterans, regardless of which war(s) they served in, while the Reuters/Ipsos poll was of post-Gulf War veterans and non-veterans.  Both of the Reuters/Ipsos groups are from the “Gen at war” group, and there is no explanation in the poll report as to what this group is.  As demographics are far less diverse among post-Gulf War vets with respect to age, we can expect these polls to yield differing results.  Additionally, the vast majority of living veterans served in Vietnam, and older generations generally lean more conservative, explaining the overwhelming support for Romney over the President in the Gallup poll.

Read More

By Matt Hill

Political campaigning has incorporated a new form of outreach to potential constituents – mobile technology. With the rise of mobile applications and global positioning systems (GPS’s), President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney will attempt to attract voters as well as encourage them to vote on election day through their location aware mobile devices.

In 2008, the Obama campaign excelled in utilizing technology in order to connect with young voters. For example, he announced his Vice Presidential nominee, Joe Biden, via text message to those who had signed up on his website to receive mobile alerts. Obama supporters were “in the know” before even the mainstream media had been informed. By doing this, the Obama campaign told its supporters how much it values the relationship and the importance of keeping in touch.

Leveraging the handheld devices of Americans is one of the holy grails of political campaigns. The ever hard to reach 18-29 demographic is more mobile than anyone else. Both the Obama and Romney campaigns realize this as they accelerate their bids for President in 2012. Although there are a number of restrictions on how campaigns can send text messages to mobile devices, in general, American voters can expect their cell phones to be targeted by political campaigns this year.

So how exactly will mobile devices and new technologies alter the political campaign landscape?

First, candidates will be able to send text messages outlining their positions on issues as well as encouraging their supporters to vote. However, campaign media specialists have yet to discover the best way to appeal to Americans using only a 160-word SMS (Short Message Service). During Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s run for the Democrat nomination in 2008, chief media strategists bluntly texted voters, “Hello, will you please vote for me?” This failed approach has evolved into much more subtle and emotionally laced pleas. During the 2012 Republican Primary, Newt Gingrich’s campaign used a combination of conservative themed-ads and attacks on President Obama in hopes of gaining popular support in Alabama.

Secondly, access to personal cellular devices gives campaigns yet another platform to ask for donations and sell merchandise. With their Smartphone, constituents and fundraisers can now easily pay or collect money, using devices like Square.  Downloading ringtones, such as this Presidential song, http://www.barackobama.com/ringtone remains a popular way for the public to show their support for their favorite brands or teams, which in this case are the campaigns themselves. 

Read More