Polls show Democrats Slipping Among Young Voters

Chapter 4 and 7- Culture War/ Political Polls

Regarding the new poll from the Institute of Politics at Harvard University; shows that young voters are moving towards a Republican vote. This is alarming for Democrats regarding next week's midterm elections. "Slightly more than half a young Americans who say they will 'definitely be voting' in the midterm elections would prefer a Republican-controlled Congress'. Back in the 2008 Presidential Election about 55% of young voters were in favor of the Democratic Party. However this surge in voting percent might have been a result of Bush's role in politics. Hence, many voters may have viewed Obama as the Democratic solution to a Republican problem. But now with the upcoming midterm elections about 51% to 47% of voters are in favor of Republicans. The results of this survey were obtained via 2,029 adults ages 18-29, between Sept. 26th and Oct. 9th with an error of 3+/-.

As we talked in class I found this article very controversial. Many news articles argue that Americans, as a whole, have gravitated towards the "left". Yet this article clearly states, especially young American voters are gravitating towards the "right". I find this to be peculiar because the higher the education one has, the more liberal they tend to be. In addition there has been a shift in American values regarding marriage, reproductive rights, and other social issues. Personally, I identify with the independent party and the idea that the government must put aside it's differences to make a change. This is truly alarming for younger generations to come.

Stolberg, Sheryl. "Poll Shows Democrats Slipping Among Young Voters." Nytimes.com. © 2014 The New York Times Company, 29 Oct. 2014. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.

Obama puts off campaigning, focuses on aggressive Ebola response

Chapter 4- American Political Culture

Due to the recent outbreak of the Ebola virus, President Obama, unfortunately, cancelled all of his campaign tours. President Obama's reasoning for this was that "that monitoring of Ebola must be done in a "much more aggressive way". This is true. With the constant panic rising in this country it is wise of Obama to stay behind. The only negative aspect of this action are the Democratic candidates running for Senate. With ignored support from President Obama these candidates are in danger of losing. In fact this is another reason why the Republican rates for Senate are so high. For some states it is a matter of retaining Democrats in office. But for states (specifically Georgia) it is a matter of obtaining a Democratic position in office. As of now Michelle Nunn gains the respect of Georgia's demographic. However with the lack of support from Obama and her opponent, Perdue's, support (Republicans have held governor, senator, legislature positions for the past 14 years) of the Republican party.

This race reminds me of the article that we read for homework "Red vs. Blue America". In that reading the author talked about the Bush and Gore race. This correlates with Perdue vs. Nunn because Perdue and Bush are both old white men that have a relatable aspect with the Republican party. As for Nunn and Gore they are both esteemed by their actions and accomplishments. Potentially I think Michelle Nunn and all of the other democratic candidates have a chance at winning. Even though President Obama has put midterm elections on the back burner, he is setting an example for the country. Sometimes it is necessary to take care of bigger ordeals and come back to smaller issues. As for Michelle Nunn, I believe that she has good values and is working excessively on her campaign. For example, when exploring her views on issues, her campaign page was fantastic. For each topic she clearly explained the problem, the reason why, and the solution in detail. As for Perdue his campaign page was rather lacking. On the issue of immigration and border control he only stated his opinion as to why it is "dangerous" to let "others" in. Yet through the four sentenced paragraph, Perdue failed to state a solution to what needs to be done. Sadly, enough elections are based off of popularity, therefore Nunn has a good chance of losing. 

Liptak, Kevin, Jim Acosta, and Jeremy Diamond. "Obama Puts off Campaigning, Focuses on Aggressive Ebola Response." CNN. Cable News Network, 1 Jan. 1970. Web. 18 Oct. 2014. <http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/politics/obama-campaign-stop/index.html?iref=allsearch>.

"Election 2014 - Georgia Senate - Perdue vs. Nunn." RealClearPolitics -. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.

Connecticut health department gets power to quarantine possible Ebola victims

Chapter 3- Federalism
On Tuesday Governor  Dannel Malloy agreed to allow, Jewel Mullen, the state health commissioner to quarantine the state of Connecticut. In doing so this will limit the spread of the Ebola virus and those that are currently infected from escaping. Currently, no one has shown any severe signs of Ebola (only minor symptoms). Unfortunately one man, Thomas Duncan, is in critical condition in a Dallas hospital. Overall the federal government has revoke the civil rights of the state. In doing so the inhabitants of Connecticut are not allowed to leave and outsiders are not allowed to pass through.

I agree with revoking the civil rights of the people. This is for a legitimate cause and prevents a massive surge of fear in the country. This is the perfect example of how the federal government has the power to override a state's choice. The federal government has jurisdiction because of  the CDC to quarantine a state if there is a possible threat.  The article also stated that this power has not been used since " influenza epidemic in the early part of the 20th century, when more than 600,000 people died."Rights or no rights, this decision was made for the sake of the whole country.

Wilson, Reid. "Connecticut Health Department Gets Power to Quarantine Possible Ebola Victims." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 7 Oct. 2014. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/07/connecticut-health-department-gets-power-to-quarantine-possible-ebola-victims/>.

Court: Racial bias did not lead NYC judge to convict man

October 3 2014

 

In October of 1999 Supreme Court Judge Frank Barbaro thought for sure Donald Kagan was guilty of homicide. However Judge Barbaro's motives were merely based off of personal beliefs; Judge Barbaro believed that Donald Kagan killed Wavell Wint because he was Black. Due to this prejudice Donald Kagan was convicted of the murder of 23 year old Wavell Wint. For 15 years Kagan sat in prison, and for 15 years Barbaro contemplated the conviction. Was this a good decision? So after all of this time Judge Barbaro decided to testify against his own word upon the release of Donald Kagan. Finally, October 14th Kagan is expecting a parole hearing and will hopefully be released.

 

Yes, sometimes we as humans can get involved in our feelings, but for them to affect the life of another isn't right. Barbora allowed his prejudice to cloud his mind and at the expense of Kagan's life. And no matter how many times Barbora apologizes Kagan will not get those years of life back. Barbora's request to release Kagan came about because "he believed that he denied a fair trial to a white man who claimed he killed a black man in self-defense." This statement reminded me of the 6th amendment which is the right to a fair trial. in this case Judge Barbora did not give Kagan a fair trial which resulted in 15 years wasted.

 

Carver, Marina Carver. "Court: Racial Bias Did Not Lead NYC Judge to Convict Man." Cnn.cm. ©  2014 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved, 2 Oct. 2014. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.