Debate Post #2
My candidate’s strongest answer during the debate was that we are spending 700 billion dollars in Iraq every year. What made it so strong is the sheer amount of money that we spend on this and the taxes we pay. What also makes it strong is that the emphasis that it put on it that makes it pop out farther than the rest of the answer. It also makes the listener look at the economic problem and how all the money would work, and just by mentioning the war against terror they think of the soldiers which also provides emphasis for that answer. It just stacks things on top of each other so it really packs a punch when you only mentioned a statistic.
McCain
I thought that the best answer for McCain was that we had troops and still have troops in Japan and Germany and they have become world leaders. What made this example so strong is that it gives you a taste of what might happen if we stay in Iraq. What I would work on with my candidate based on this is to spot out imperfections in this or maybe point out differences so that it can be doubted.
Barrack Obama
I thought that the best answer for Obama was that the U.S. has the highest car ownership. This was a strong example because it shows that U.S. citizens have enough money to afford cars and that they are a necessity in the U.S. What I would on with my candidate would be to make the facts really specific so that they can not be disputed and gain more votes or opinions.
Ralph Nader
I thought the best answer for Nader was if we move away from oil that foreign oil follows. This was a strong opinion because it’s kind of like an “if…then…” statement like a hypothesis. This is good but it’s still only an educated guess. What I would work on with my candidate based on this is to make everything sound definitive in tone so it sounds real even if it may not be.
Cynthia McKinney
I thought the best answer for McKinney was that we spend 92.4 billion dollars on the war in Iraq that was stolen from Barr. This was a strong answer when Barr used it and it didn’t work so well here because Barr already mentioned it but it is strong that it’s a statistic. What I would work on with my candidate based on this is protecting the information that we have so other candidates can’t use it so we remain on top.
Brian Moore
I thought the best answer for Moore was that we spend 255 million dollars everyday in Iraq. This was a strong answer because it shows you the average daily spending and shows you day to day spending and how much money that is. If you were to take 255 million dollars and multiply it by the days in the year you end up with a lot of money and even by itself it’s a lot of money and creates a sense of awe because of the large amount. This is like a wow factor and makes people stand back and think about it. What I would work on with my candidate based on this is using more statistics like this to really drive the point home and that should make the party more popular with a theme that they speak the truth.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Debate Post #1 - Domestic Issues
My candidate’s strongest answer was that we are 10.5 trillion dollars in debt. What made this answer so strong was that it had a lot of impact with our economic crisis and problems in the United States currently. Saying that then saying what the Bob Barr campaign would do to fix that definitely put the point home so that would make someone think that it was a good plan. He also put emphasis on the point that we are “10.5 trillion dollars in debt” so that also put more importance on the Bob Barr plan. Emphasizing his plan as well really made this answer the best with making the most impact to the audience.
The best answer for McCain was if the government was paying for rehabilitation there would be an overwhelming amount of people so it is better to keep going with the drug war because it would save money. What made this example so strong is that it examined the problem from another angle and explained it reasonably and it made sense. A technique that I would want to work on based on this is reasonable arguments and looking at the issue from both sides.
The best answer for Obama was to stop getting oil from Venezuela and the Middle East. That was the best answer because everything else didn’t have any base to rely on. A technique that I would want to work on based on this would be attacking the other candidates on their weak arguments that don’t have strong support.
The best answer for Nader was that we are spending 50 million annually for the drug war. This was the strongest because it was a statistic and that it showed that the drug war is an important money spending area. A technique that I would want to work on based on this would be clarifying a little. Who is this war between?
The best answer from McKinney was that we spend 700 billion on defense but only 300 billion on kindergartens. That comparison makes it seem that kindergartens aren’t really that important in the eyes of the government so it makes it stand out more and have an impact on the audience. A technique that I would want to work on based on this would be is comparisons between things that are really important and things that aren’t within government spending.
The best answer for McCain was if the government was paying for rehabilitation there would be an overwhelming amount of people so it is better to keep going with the drug war because it would save money. What made this example so strong is that it examined the problem from another angle and explained it reasonably and it made sense. A technique that I would want to work on based on this is reasonable arguments and looking at the issue from both sides.
The best answer for Obama was to stop getting oil from Venezuela and the Middle East. That was the best answer because everything else didn’t have any base to rely on. A technique that I would want to work on based on this would be attacking the other candidates on their weak arguments that don’t have strong support.
The best answer for Nader was that we are spending 50 million annually for the drug war. This was the strongest because it was a statistic and that it showed that the drug war is an important money spending area. A technique that I would want to work on based on this would be clarifying a little. Who is this war between?
The best answer from McKinney was that we spend 700 billion on defense but only 300 billion on kindergartens. That comparison makes it seem that kindergartens aren’t really that important in the eyes of the government so it makes it stand out more and have an impact on the audience. A technique that I would want to work on based on this would be is comparisons between things that are really important and things that aren’t within government spending.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Current Events Blog
Follow this link to my Current Events Blog: http://cassie-currentevents.blogspot.com/
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Post #2: Campaign Simulation
Describe the activity we did in class today, and what your role was.
1. The activity we did in class was a simulated fundraiser for two campaigns, the Nation party and the America party. My group and I had to run against the America party because we were the Nation party. Like any election, we needed the most votes and the most money to support and win the campaign. We had to make our decisions on what the groups wanted so that way we would win the most votes and money. There was the youth voting group, the women’s rights group, big businesses and little businesses that we had to do well in. These groups held the power over the parties because they had votes and money that they could spend on the campaign, but to get to these the parties my group and I had to pass or refuse certain laws or issues so we would get those votes and/or money.
What did you learn about campaign fundraising?
2. What I learned about campaign fundraising is that you don’t have to appeal to everybody to win a campaign and that the campaign is greatly influenced by the candidates own opinion, because if they choose too many things that the voters don’t agree with, that might drive away more groups and businesses than attract them. I also learned that you need to take input from some groups because you need their votes and those can clash with some of the other groups and that you need to compromise so that you can do the most for most of the groups. That way you get the most voters and money. My group chose too many issues that many groups, mainly big businesses, didn’t like so we lost. You also have to get some of the smaller businesses too because if you only go for the big groups you can still lose.
How do you think this system impacts our government? What are the pros and cons to this system?
3. I think this system impacts our government by ruling by the majority. That’s why all the politicians are trying to appeal to the average person so that they get more votes because they know that by doing that they can get more votes while still appealing to all the big businesses. You can also get the issues from the candidates and decide who you want to vote for. They can make two groups happy by splitting some of the issues and that way they get both groups. It’s not just white and black there’s some gray shades in there. Some of the pros of this is that the candidate really gets to choose his or hers position on the issues and laws they chose. Some of the cons are that they really can drive away people if you don’t get the right balance of appeasing the people and choosing for the good of the people.
Who wins and loses in this system? Why?
4. I think that the people that lose is the party that doesn’t cater to most of the people because without the people they don’t have money or votes and then they can’t cover campaign costs and without campaigning they don’t get votes so they cant run. The people who pay for the campaign also lose because there goes their money. The person who gives the most consideration to the people wins because they get the most votes and money so they can run a successful campaign.
1. The activity we did in class was a simulated fundraiser for two campaigns, the Nation party and the America party. My group and I had to run against the America party because we were the Nation party. Like any election, we needed the most votes and the most money to support and win the campaign. We had to make our decisions on what the groups wanted so that way we would win the most votes and money. There was the youth voting group, the women’s rights group, big businesses and little businesses that we had to do well in. These groups held the power over the parties because they had votes and money that they could spend on the campaign, but to get to these the parties my group and I had to pass or refuse certain laws or issues so we would get those votes and/or money.
What did you learn about campaign fundraising?
2. What I learned about campaign fundraising is that you don’t have to appeal to everybody to win a campaign and that the campaign is greatly influenced by the candidates own opinion, because if they choose too many things that the voters don’t agree with, that might drive away more groups and businesses than attract them. I also learned that you need to take input from some groups because you need their votes and those can clash with some of the other groups and that you need to compromise so that you can do the most for most of the groups. That way you get the most voters and money. My group chose too many issues that many groups, mainly big businesses, didn’t like so we lost. You also have to get some of the smaller businesses too because if you only go for the big groups you can still lose.
How do you think this system impacts our government? What are the pros and cons to this system?
3. I think this system impacts our government by ruling by the majority. That’s why all the politicians are trying to appeal to the average person so that they get more votes because they know that by doing that they can get more votes while still appealing to all the big businesses. You can also get the issues from the candidates and decide who you want to vote for. They can make two groups happy by splitting some of the issues and that way they get both groups. It’s not just white and black there’s some gray shades in there. Some of the pros of this is that the candidate really gets to choose his or hers position on the issues and laws they chose. Some of the cons are that they really can drive away people if you don’t get the right balance of appeasing the people and choosing for the good of the people.
Who wins and loses in this system? Why?
4. I think that the people that lose is the party that doesn’t cater to most of the people because without the people they don’t have money or votes and then they can’t cover campaign costs and without campaigning they don’t get votes so they cant run. The people who pay for the campaign also lose because there goes their money. The person who gives the most consideration to the people wins because they get the most votes and money so they can run a successful campaign.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Post #1 : Presidential Debate
Who do you think won? Why?
1. I don’t think that either McCain or Obama won because a lot of the debate was attacking the opposing candidate with things they supposedly did and some of the facts were not correct. I thought that Obama was more prepared to answer things but he did copy McCain when he gave the soldier thanks. McCain really didn’t have any energy in this debate and Obama beat him in that sense. McCain really was attacking Obama upfront and then Obama would respond in kind so it was more like an argument than a debate even though there was some actual talking about the issues. It was really confusing and they talked in circles answering a little part of the question and veering off and then returning to it and changing the topic.
What new information did you get that helps you to understand these candidates better?
2. I didn’t learn anything new about the candidates because they have already said much of what they are going to do if they become the next POTUS. They were both strong on their issues even though they swerved by them. McCain is really passionate about clean energy and tax cuts and Obama is really passionate about healthcare and taxing the rich. I don’t think they really persuaded anybody with this debate. They were only restating that which they had already talked about.
What surprised you about the debate? Explain.
3. What surprised me was that John McCain spoke very softly. I thought he would be a little bit louder but I guess he caught a cold or had the sniffles. I also thought that the candidates were going to talk straight but it was really hard to follow them. I also thought it was weird that Obama tossed the last question to his wife as if she was allowed to answer it. I thought it would have been better if he had answered the questions by himself.
Free Write
4. What really made me angry is that they keep repeating their life stories over and over and over again. It’s really getting old. They also really need to get their facts straight and speak directly. Wasn’t it the republicans that said that they were going to talk directly to the people of America?
1. I don’t think that either McCain or Obama won because a lot of the debate was attacking the opposing candidate with things they supposedly did and some of the facts were not correct. I thought that Obama was more prepared to answer things but he did copy McCain when he gave the soldier thanks. McCain really didn’t have any energy in this debate and Obama beat him in that sense. McCain really was attacking Obama upfront and then Obama would respond in kind so it was more like an argument than a debate even though there was some actual talking about the issues. It was really confusing and they talked in circles answering a little part of the question and veering off and then returning to it and changing the topic.
What new information did you get that helps you to understand these candidates better?
2. I didn’t learn anything new about the candidates because they have already said much of what they are going to do if they become the next POTUS. They were both strong on their issues even though they swerved by them. McCain is really passionate about clean energy and tax cuts and Obama is really passionate about healthcare and taxing the rich. I don’t think they really persuaded anybody with this debate. They were only restating that which they had already talked about.
What surprised you about the debate? Explain.
3. What surprised me was that John McCain spoke very softly. I thought he would be a little bit louder but I guess he caught a cold or had the sniffles. I also thought that the candidates were going to talk straight but it was really hard to follow them. I also thought it was weird that Obama tossed the last question to his wife as if she was allowed to answer it. I thought it would have been better if he had answered the questions by himself.
Free Write
4. What really made me angry is that they keep repeating their life stories over and over and over again. It’s really getting old. They also really need to get their facts straight and speak directly. Wasn’t it the republicans that said that they were going to talk directly to the people of America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
