Assignment: George Will Article
George Will is a renowned writer in the United States who has won numerous awards for his remarkable use of the English language. He also shares his political commentary frequently in newspapaer editorials, newsmagazines and on political talk shows. In his article, which appeared in the Post Bulletin the other day, he discusses the upcoming midterm election based on historical happenings of midterms with lameduck presidents etc. etc. Read the article and write a short reflection and post in the comments. PLEASE be sure to reference something specific from Will's article in your comments as it always makes your point stronger to reference content for support. This will be graded and is due by class on Tuesday Jan. 14th.
Enjoy,
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 8:48 AM
61 comments
61 Comments:
I don't find it that surprising that George Will is conveying the idea that almost "anything could happen." Because his definition of "anything" is, either party has a chance of winning- which seems to generally be the case.
Not "anything" as in- a third party could finally be elected. Besides, just like in the reading in the government book, America usually has "eras" of political power held by a single party. It's unsurprising that it may swing back the other way especially since "Republicans have not decisively won a presidential election since 1988."
I believe he is predicting a Republican to win the next election even though he does not say so outright. He says there have only been two times when two democratic presidents have been consecutively elected. He also mentions the declining support for Obama in 2012 compared to 2008. These facts show neither political party ever has a true majority and you never know what will happen in the next election. Support from independent voters can also greatly impact which party wins. Although there is not a great number of them, they can determine which party gets the majority of votes in an election. So yes, anything could potentially happen but my interpretation of his article is a Republican will win the next election.
Jamie Knox
This article threw a bunch of numbers and statistics at me which made it hard to make sense of. The conclusion I came to was that George Will is talking about how elections have become less competitive because of the redistricting so that there is a majority of a party within a region. It's becoming less likely for a real change to happen in our government when election outcomes are more easily foreseen. George said that even in the most competitive states of Florida, Virginia, and Ohio, had Obama lost all three he would have still won the presidency. With all the redistricting going on, it is becoming less competitive and more predictable as to who will win. He also talked about how there is not likely to be a big change with midterm elections because only 48% of people vote in them. This is astounding because the people that seem to complain the most about Congress are also the ones helping re-elect about 90% of incumbents. Voters are only becoming more predictable with every election and it will be easier to tell who is most likely to win earlier. This article also showed me that George Will is more entertaining to watch on TV than to read an article that he's written.
-Shannon Adkins
Will says that the Democratic support is "inefficiently concentrated" in and around large cities. I think by this he proves his point that anything can happen because the Republican vote is distributed more "efficiently" so they may be able to gain back the presidency. The idea that control may swing back to Republicans is that only 2 Democratic presidents have been followed by another Democrat, and both of them died while in office so their VP just took their place and then were elected as incumbents. So Will is saying that it is possible for the Republicans to take the next presidential seat. He also supports that Democrats could keep the presidential seat by stating that "In the six elections 1992-2012, Republicans averaged 211 electoral votes, Democrats 327. Republicans lost the popular vote in five of these elections" This means that since Republicans have averaged lower than Democrats and since they have lost the popular vote in most of the elections, the Democrats may be able to keep the presidential seat.
In this article, right off the bat I found it very interesting that in the October poll mentioned, although "60 percent favored voting out of office every congressional incumbent", voters still re-elected 90 percent of House and 91 percent of Senate incumbents just 11 months later. It's funny to me how even though people often put the blame on incumbents, they still end up voting for them anyway. Secondly, it was a little surprising that when talking about House elections, that although Obama won 80 percent or more in 27 districts, Romney was able to do so in only one. It was a little bit of an eye-opener for me to know that even though Democratic House candidates got more votes than Republican candidates, that still didn't mean that they will win control of the House. Lastly, I think Will definitely proves his point the most in the final paragraph when he quotes Jeffrey Bell who said, "...had Romney won the popular vote by 1.1 percentage points instead of losing it by 3.9 — Obama would still have prevailed in the Electoral College, winning 23 states and 272 electoral votes". This just goes to show that yes, there can be strong predictions about an election but nobody truly knows exactly what the outcome will be and that anything can happen because each party does have the potential to win.
- Hannah Lehman
Will blames the inability for a president to get control of the House in a midterm election on numerous factors. In order to prove his point he uses a series of statistics—first, he blames it on voter turnout. Sixty-three percent compared to forty-eight percent, these numbers allude to fact that there is less media surrounding these elections compared to presidential election. Will goes on to blame the failure to control the House in Obama’s first midterm on 3 deficient voting groups, “unmarried women, minorities[more than 40% of Obama’s 2012 vote) and young people—are especially prone to skipping midterms.” Will only analyzes the past midterm election during the Obama administration. So, it is hard to know if there are any trends in these statistics. I guess the question that arises for me, is if a party knows they are disadvantaged, and they know exactly who they are deficient in/ or what is keeping them from controlling the party, why don’t they campaign harder in those regions. I find absolutely insane that “Since the mid-19th-century emergence of the current two-party competition, no party holding the presidency has ever won control of the House in any midterm election.” I guess you can never satisfy the American public.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I found it really interesting that from all the statistics given, it seems Republicans win in the House and Senate by such a huge margin, yet Democratic presidents have won by many more votes overall. I don't get how one party could be so heavily favored for president while the other so heavily favored in the House and Senate. Seems to me like we are intentionally trying to make our government as conflicted as possible.
Ciera Hardyman
Brooke Johnson- This article to me portrayed the percentage and numerical values of Americans leaning toward a republican candidate instead of a democratic candidate. Specifically shown at the point of the swing of the 2008 election when Obama lost 5 percent of his votes since when Ronald Regan won the two-popular vote majorities. Even with a build up of evidence supporting that Obama has lost democratic votes, George Will clearly states that Obama still has the majority of electoral votes even if the down fall of the contemplated states, Florida Virginia, and Ohio. this article shows that even though the grounds is hard to change from one party to another in a presidential election, it is possible and Will proves that there is pull from both sides of the party in his article.
I found it interesting that 90% of house members were re-elected in 2012 and then just 11 months later well over half of the public said they wanted every incumbent in congress out, i wonder how what percentage of people wanted the incumbents out before the election, and what percentage of congressmen are re-elected in the next election even though a majority of the American people want the the incumbents out. The other statistic that jumped out at me was that on average only 63% of the population votes during the presidential elections and only 48% vote during midterms, it seems to me that if the public is really
^ that concerned with how congress is functioning, why don't they just vote, especially because the elections can be so divided as Will explains.
From what George F. Will is saying about how 'anything could happen,' it almost seems like he's throwing out percentages and outcomes to prove that statistics are nonsensical garbage. However, by stacking his article with ONLY statistics and outcomes, and none of the underlying issues, "such as WHY Bush Jr. gained more votes his second term, or WHY Obama lost votes in his second term) I'm really disinclined to take him seriously.
George Will shows the reader that the political parties struggle to get a true majority. He states " Since the mid-19th-century emergence of the current two-party competition, no party holding the presidency has ever won control of the House in any midterm election." showing the almost extinct ability of winning the House during midterm election which destroys the chance of a majority. Democratic party has difficulties in re-election; only having been re-elected twice after the original Democrat served his two terms. This statement provokes me to believe that Will thinks that a Republican will win the next presidency. With Obama being a lame duck president and his numbers decreasing since 2008, his performance(as deemed by votes) has not been seen as the greatest. To me, it confuses me on how the American public works. Our voting seems so conflicting that it hinders the efficiency of our government.
-Jared Bromberg
I feel George is showing the inconsistency that can be found in American voters. The Democrats won the presidential election but now are more likely to lose control of the Senate than gain control of the House. If Americans were happy with their political party, then that party should have no problem winning a midterm. Midterm turnout declines, compared to presidential elections, by 15%. This shows that we are to blame for "faulty" politics. Everyone complains about politics but you shouldnt be able to complain if only 48% of voters show up for the midterm. It also states that only 2 Democratic presidents have been followed by Democrats. Another example of how the American public cant consistency show up for elections and decide what party they want to be.
Jake Titus
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Democrats are more likely to lose control of the Senate than gain control of the House."
"Since the mid-19th-century emergence of the current two-party competition, no party holding the presidency has ever won control of the House in any midterm election."
If American politics is so easy to forecast, then I see little reason, with my own individual vote, to change that pattern. There may come a time when it will change, but for now, going by George Will's statistics, my single vote can do little.
"Furthermore, for House elections, much of the Democratic vote is inefficiently concentrated in and around large cities."
"Obama's coalition — unmarried women, minorities (more than 40 percent of Obama's 2012 vote) and young people."
"In the seven midterms since 1984, voters younger than 30 averaged 13 percent of the midterm vote, down from 19 percent during presidential years."
I believe that George Will uses statistics to define the American people, rather than values and beliefs. I believe that statistics does not define a nation or an election, but rather serves as a lesson that many Americans can (and should) learn in order to make a difference.
While reading this article it has become apparent to me that statistics indeed CAN be over analyzed. I applaud the diligence of Will in finding all of the various stats used in the article, but I don't believe this paper serves any logical purpose other than to leave the audience hanging about what might happen in the next election. The article is a back and forth tug of war match between positive and negative factors in history that may/may not even play a factor in the next election. In one instance, the author references trends dating back to the Civil War, which allows the stage of politics to evolve nearly 150 years. This struck me as an insignificant factor as to how it might play a role in the upcoming election. In consecutive paragraphs the author writes, "Obama won 80 percent or more in 27 districts; Romney did so in only one" and "Republicans controlled the governorships and legislatures in 25 states with 53 percent of the nation's population; Democrats had unified control of 13 states with 30 percent of the population." By contradicting himself like this, it leaves the reader in a state of fogginess of who might come out victorious in the next election.
I think when Will says, "In 10 months, voters will vent their spleens — if they still are as splenetic as they now claim to be — in congressional elections" it shows how truly flawed our voters are considering he later goes on to say that unmarried women, minorities, and young people are likely to skip the midterm election, considering how many complaints their are concerning our congressional leaders. I think this article implies that no matter what the numbers say in opinion polls, it is hard to predict a winner, especially for this upcoming election since there will be no incumbent running for office, because incumbents are more likely to be reelected.
The article states that in a poll just eleven months after re-electing 90+ percent of the House and Senate, 60% wanted to vote out every incumbent. What happened to make the majority so opposed to these congressmen? You'd think that after having them in office already that people would not re-elect those politicians. The article also states that since the mid-19th-century emergence of the current two-party competition, no party holding the presidency has ever won control of the House in any midterm election". This surprised me because, in a midterm, how can one party hold control in the presidency, but be unable to control the House? Though the article has good statistics, it seems like Will is trying to confuse readers into believing his argument that either party can win with all the numbers.
I have deduced that Mr. Will is trying to express to his reader through multiple statistics, that I truly don't understand and secretly hope that some super awesome Government teacher can help explain to me what all those points and percentages mean, that for the last two elections, the U.S. has predominately favored the democratic party. For example, in the second to last paragraph Will states "Had Romney won the popular vote by 1.1 percentage points instead of losing it by 3.9 — Obama would still have prevailed in the Electoral College, winning 23 states and 272 electoral votes" (Will). However I believe Will is implicitly suggesting that this coming presidential election will result in a republican victory. Will includes in his article that in the past two elections, in which the democrats have claimed victory, the republicans have been gaining momentum. Will also mentions that, "Since the mid-19th-century emergence of the current two-party competition, no party holding the presidency has ever won control of the House in any midterm election" (Will). With these facts in mind my slightly confused brain concludes that in the upcoming midterm election, there will not be many significant changes in the House, and we the citizens of the United States can expect a significant gain in republican backing, if not a win.
Tori Dylla
This comment has been removed by the author.
George Will doesn't seem to do much actual writing in this article, instead he takes an interesting look at the statistics and lets them speak for themselves. It was interesting how he also mentioned the people's lack of action in changing the Congress despite their lack of approval as we also mentioned this in class. 90 and 91 percent of House and Senates voted in incumbents with such high disapproval isn't sensible. During the article he discussed how much control over the states the Republicans had, having 25 states and 30 governors. Despite this, he shows that Obama would've won even with a 5% shift in the vote. Despite all this, he seems to be leaning towards the idea of a republican president next, using the lack of democratic succession (FDR and JFK) and shift of voting from Democrat to Republican from 2008 - 2012.
Chris Lam
After reading George Will's article, It seems apparent to me that Will is predicting the Republican party to gain more seats in Congress than the Democrats will in the upcoming mid-term election. He claims early on in his article that, "Democrats are more likely to lose control of the Senate than gain control of the House", this statement is based on the fact that, "Since the mid-19th-century emergence of the current two-party competition, no party holding the presidency has ever won control of the House in any midterm election". Considering the above fact, not only will the Democrats not take over the House of Representatives, due to President Obama's low approval level, as well as Congress's low approval level overall, it appears that the Democrats will more than likely lose Congressional seat rather than gain any.
From reading this article the main points that i have gathered are all of the statistics that he list's regarding the Democratic and Republican votes and the fact that he believes that the Democrats are more likely to lose control of the Senate than gain control of the House. As he says, since the two-party competition, no party holding the presidency has ever won control of the House in any midterm election. The way i see it anything can happen and it seems that things are getting way more complicated than they should be.
- Igor Antolovic
I found it very interesting that the very people who have some of the highest turnout in presidential elections (young adults and minorities) are the ones who do not show up for midterm elections. Since the president doesn't actually have that much power without the support of congress, they effectively undermine their presidential choice of candidate by choosing not to vote in midterms
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think George Will needs to cut down on his use of statistics. That being said, his use of stats helped him really drive his point home about various factors and impacts on election decisions. The portion of his essay that really resonated with me was that "in 2012 Obama became the first person to win a presidential election while losing the male vote by seven points". When I first brushed over this, I didn't realize just what it meant but when I went back and thought about it, I realized the lesson politicians can learn from that. To win, one does not need to win over everyone, just enough of a particular group. The fact that Obama was able to pull through without most of the male vote shows how much women believed in him. He was able to convince them to vote and they certainly delivered. I guess Will was trying to make a similar point throughout his piece but it didn't hit until I realized just how focused politicians could make their campaigns and how effectively they could market to certain groups not just based on location, gender, ethnicity, and age. If you do the math right, you could get a win without truly winning over the nation. However, this logic may be skewed because so many americans don't vote...
-"60 percent favored voting out of office every congressional incumbent. The poll was taken just 11 months after voters re-elected 90 percent of House and 91 percent of Senate incumbents."
-“the average turnout in presidential elections has been 63 percent and in midterms 48 percent.”
This article heavily relies on statistics that make voters seem unstable hence why “anything could happen.” It's interesting to see how many voters tend to complain about the congressmen that they chose to elect however, Will never states back round as to why voters minds change so rapidly.
-“no party holding the presidency has ever won control of the House in any midterm election.”
-“unmarried women, minorities (more than 40 percent of Obama's 2012 vote) and young people — are especially prone to skipping midterms”
These quotes shock me as to why voters set the government up to clash. By a very influential group skipping midterm, they lose out on balancing executive and congressional decisions. It would be interesting to see that if as many people showed up to midterms as they did a presidential election, how much of a difference parties in both presidency and the house could vary.
- Kelli Grimm
-"60 percent favored voting out of office every congressional incumbent. The poll was taken just 11 months after voters re-elected 90 percent of House and 91 percent of Senate incumbents."
-“the average turnout in presidential elections has been 63 percent and in midterms 48 percent.”
This article heavily relies on statistics that make voters seem unstable hence why “anything could happen.” It's interesting to see how many voters tend to complain about the congressmen that they chose to elect however, Will never states back round as to why voters minds change so rapidly.
-“no party holding the presidency has ever won control of the House in any midterm election.”
-“unmarried women, minorities (more than 40 percent of Obama's 2012 vote) and young people — are especially prone to skipping midterms”
These quotes shock me as to why voters set the government up to clash. By a very influential group skipping midterm, they lose out on balancing executive and congressional decisions. It would be interesting to see that if as many people showed up to midterms as they did a presidential election, how much of a difference parties in both presidency and the house could vary.
- Kelli Grimm
After reading this article, I found that statistics and elections go hand and hand. To me the most interesting quote that Will said was, "Furthermore, for House elections, much of the Democratic vote is inefficiently concentrated in and around large cities. Obama won 80 percent or more in 27 districts; Romney did so in only one. That is why in 2012, Democratic House candidates got about 1.4 million more votes than Republican candidates but did not win control of the House" (Will). This shows how the voting in the larger cities affect the whole election. It also effects the Congress voting, because generally when a person in the United States votes for a President, they would normally vote for the same party when it comes to congress votes.
After reading this article, I found that statistics and elections go hand and hand. To me the most interesting quote that Will said was, "Furthermore, for House elections, much of the Democratic vote is inefficiently concentrated in and around large cities. Obama won 80 percent or more in 27 districts; Romney did so in only one. That is why in 2012, Democratic House candidates got about 1.4 million more votes than Republican candidates but did not win control of the House" (Will). This shows how the voting in the larger cities affect the whole election. It also effects the Congress voting, because generally when a person in the United States votes for a President, they would normally vote for the same party when it comes to congress votes.
In this article, I am almost getting a mixed message in that George Will is leaning towards the side that a Republican will win. I am convinced that he is thinking the republican will win because throughout history the party of the president currently in office usually declines because of the declining approval ratings of the president. This affect can also explain why the leader of the Senate is also most likely to switch because of the people not in favor of the president with means that the Democratic Party may not control the Senate anymore. I also support the republican theory because Will said that FDR and JFK were the only 2 presidents since the emergence of the Republican Party that had democrats follow their office but that was also because they had passed away and left democratic incumbents up for election (Will). This information means that there is a very small chance that a democrat will be elected into office and this could potentially have a negative impact if the House and Senate both remains Republican. This data is so important because one can already begin to see the pattern forming that will make more accurate predictions for future elections.
I found it a bit surprising at first when Will said at the end of his article "There will be more numbers to contemplate by the time the 1 percent of Americans who live in Iowa are heard from." For a man so engrossed with numbers and predicting large scale effects,it seemed odd that Will would care about what only 1 percent of Americans thought. However, as stated in the Government textbook, Iowa has been disproportionately focused on by candidates and the media. So, I guess the point that Will makes at the end of the article is that while a prediction of a election is uncertain, Iowa's opinions, however small in number, might be quite representative the nation's opinions.
-John-Michael Eberhard
George Will overloaded the article with statistic after statistic, but the main ideas he intertwined with them are the things that are surprising to me. For example, the fact that the divide between a Democratic Party dominating the presidency and the Republican Party dominating the seats of Congress has been consistent for so long. Will further elaborates on the past presidencies while stating, "Republicans have not decisively won a presidential election since 1988. Since then, no Republican nominee has won more than 50.8 percent of the vote". However, George Will presents evidence that things may be changing for the Republican Party. George Will specifically talks about how the numbers between Obama's first and second elections have swayed in the Republicans favor. The question is whether this trend will continue or was it specific to the election of 2012 with Obama?
If people complain so much about the current congress then why are they continuously being elected? This is the question that most voters should think about before they place their vote instead of putting down the familiar name. The percent of people dissatisfied with the current congress as shown by Will continue to lead to an outcome that makes no sense other than the voter's insecurity to chose a different canidate. Also with the unsubstantial amount of republican votes over the last 30 years suggest the possibility of our nation becoming more democratic, but now with Obama's approval rating lowering the nation appears as though it might swing to the republican side. If it will, we will just have to wait and see.
-Maranda Curtis
Will certainly had plenty of statistics in the article, and I would say he used them to back up his point... if I knew what exactly the point was. He began talking specifically about midterm elections, and then started to veer off into presidential elections. It seemed he spent more time on the presidential election statistics than those of midterm congressional elections (which is weird because midterms are the ones coming up). He ends the article by saying "These numbers suggest that the great political prizes can be won by either party." One could say this was meant to be a conclusion similar to those reached in our synthessays for Mr Decker, but he didn't even go that far. He basically finished by saying "Hm. Not really sure what's going to happen." That is hardly helpful to the reader, and I certainly gained hardly any insight from the article other than young people have horrible turnouts at elections.
George Will's article was certainly not in short supply of statistics...but it's because of all the stats that helped build his idea that "anything can happen." The statistics go back and forth from showing how Democrats win at times to how Republicans win a different time. They also show how things that aren't expected can definitely happen. For example, when he states "Obama won 80 percent or more in 27 districts; Romney did so in only one. That is why in 2012, Democratic House candidates got about 1.4 million more votes than Republican candidates but did not win control of the House." The idea that Democrats got more votes and yet they didn't get control of the House is an unexpected occurrences that goes back to Will's idea that "anything can happen."
-Lucky Volety
George Will is rather ambiguous in his answer of who will prevail in the upcoming midterm elections. His conclusion about what has happened in the past is that what has happened is inconclusive. He states that, "Republicans lost the popular vote in five of these elections, and in the sixth, 2004, George W. Bush's margin was the smallest ever for a re-election," yet we still had a Republican president for 8 out of 20 years from 1992-2012. This goes to show how much of a "gray area" our country really has. The fact of the matter is, many people in America are often split on their political views, sometimes voting Republican and sometimes Democrat. To make things more complicated, candidates come from a wide variety of backgrounds, some being more middle leaning democrats or republicans, and some being more towards the extremes. This makes predicting elections from previous data difficult, as the country's population is constantly changing and their votes change along with that. This is why, in the 2012 election, Mr. Will states, "In three of the most intensely contested states in 2012, Florida, Virginia and Ohio, Obama's victory margins averaged 2.6 points." This fact goes to show how close Americans can come when they go to the poles, and this also explains why George Will's piece is so ambiguous. You cannot predict elections strictly from previous data. Every year is different, and every year adds new statistics that could have never been predicted.
Chris Kotschevar
I think that the title of the article itself can speak for the general purpose; "Election history indicates that anything could happen" does not convince me that any of his statistics are making an outright point to convince the reader of. His statistics, such as going back and forth between possible advantages between Democrats and Republicans balance out and give neither party an upper hand in Will's argument. However, this does not mean that this article is completely dry of information. Although the information is not useful to the description of the article, it does state that younger voters vote more at presidential elections than mid-term elections. Will also cites: Analyst Jeffrey Bell calculates this: "Of the 12 'battleground' states, Obama won 11 — eight of them by a margin of more than 5 percentage points", also an interesting idea. Was the election closer than the electorate says? This information concludes that in the "battleground states", the election was very close, but swept by Obama. Although there were few interesting ideas in the article, the purpose is unclear and random statistics of elections blurred the main idea of the whole piece.
I think that the title of the article itself can speak for the general purpose; "Election history indicates that anything could happen" does not convince me that any of his statistics are making an outright point to convince the reader of. His statistics, such as going back and forth between possible advantages between Democrats and Republicans balance out and give neither party an upper hand in Will's argument. However, this does not mean that this article is completely dry of information. Although the information is not useful to the description of the article, it does state that younger voters vote more at presidential elections than mid-term elections. Will also cites: Analyst Jeffrey Bell calculates this: "Of the 12 'battleground' states, Obama won 11 — eight of them by a margin of more than 5 percentage points", also an interesting idea. Was the election closer than the electorate says? This information concludes that in the "battleground states", the election was very close, but swept by Obama. Although there were few interesting ideas in the article, the purpose is unclear and random statistics of elections blurred the main idea of the whole piece.
After reading the article, I came under the impression that George Will is expecting a Republican nominee to win the next presidential election. He states that "Since the emergence of the Republican Party, only two Democratic presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, have been followed by Democrats, and both FDR and JFK died in office, so their successors ran as incumbents." Citing this fact sheds light on how the American public has elected our presidents for the last 60 or so years- and habits are very hard to break. When it comes to electing presidents, and there is no incumbent, Americans tend to swing from one party to the next. In the case of the 2016 elections, when two new candidates go up against each other, George Will implies that due to past trends we are more likely to see a Republican president than a Democrat.
Based off some of the stats that Will is displaying, Americans might be leaning towards a Republican candidate for the next presidential election. Obama got 3.6 million fewer votes than in 2008 and also lost ground among every age cohort. There is a stat that says Obama became the first person to win a presidential election while losing the male vote by seven points. It seems to me that a trend of more conservative males is starting up and that could ultimately have an impact on the voting turnout for Democrats. The fact is though that the Democrats always hold the advantage over bigger cities which contain a high amount of minorities, unmarried women, and young people. In the 2012 election, Obama won 80 percent or more in 27 districts; Romney did so in only one. But who knows? Obama, a member of the Democratic Party, has driven the U.S. into a massive amount of debt. The American people may come to a resolution that we need a new platform from a different party with a new set of goals and values. "Anything could happen" in the next presidential election.
Zach Higgins
I was somewhat surprised to read that George Will predicts a switch in Senate from Democratic control to Republican control. I would have thought that with a Republican House already, Democratic voters would be predicted to try to keep the Senate Democratic in order to aid the President's agenda. I was also kind of surprised about the argument behind the prediction. I understand that Obama's supporters consist largely of groups of women, minorities, and young people as the article says, and I also agree that young people are more inclined to skip the midterm elections because we don't view it as impacting us very much. The part that confuses me is that women and minorities would also be more likely to skip the midterm election, especially since those are the groups that are probably looking for the most legislation, and they probably have less chance of that with both a Republican House and Senate.
What I got from this article was that Will is just giving out statistical information about how both parties are severely close of overtaking one another at these elections. Although he states, "anything can happen," I feel as if he is suggesting that the next election will go to the Democrats due to the results from Obama's election. In the second to last paragraph, Will basically states that Obama still would have won regardless of
losing Florida, Ohio and Virginia.In addition to that information it may seem that elections are becoming more predictable because of the declines in voters and voters re-electing the same members they wanted out. However, there is still the possibility that for some strange reason the people who usually don't vote, may end up voting and causing the Republicans to actually win. So, I would guess that "anything can happen" more towards either Republicans or Democrats and not a third-party to win. ~Sararith Chhan
Just by reading the first sentence, I can see that George Will is wise in his words and that his comprehension is above my own. He provides great statistics that help to develop his points and he analyzes that no individual has control in the results of elections.
"...had Romney won the popular vote by 1.1 percentage points instead of losing it by 3.9 — Obama would still have prevailed in the Electoral College, winning 23 states and 272 electoral votes."
Although some individuals gain popularity over another in their political races, overtime it is impossible to tell which side of the party will come out as a winner. Each party in each election brings their own set of views and ideas, and as elections come and go the parties elected balance each other out. I guess that is the beauty of having a two party system, sometimes elections will go in your favor and sometimes they won't; the only guarantee is that chances keep coming.
I felt as if Will attempted to point out the inconsistency within the US elections to highlight the unpredictable nature of it. While using statistics to prove his point, one stat that caught my eye was, "Today, the 30 Republican governors — four short of the all-time GOP high of 34 in the 1920s — represent 315 electoral votes... But Republicans have not decisively won a presidential election since 1988. Since then, no Republican nominee has won more than 50.8 percent of the vote. In the six elections 1992-2012, Republicans averaged 211 electoral votes, Democrats 327." With this, it seems as if republicans should have the upper edge during elections, which hasn't always been the case in our recent history. Also, I feel as if Will is favoring republicans, just by the way he describes certain statistics like how Obama had a 5% decline from 2008 to 2012 and how the "Democratic vote is inefficiently concentrated in and around large cities" which seemed as if he was essentially criticizing democrats.
George Will said that anything could happen in an election and that nothing is for certain. It really dependents on swing states and who the people in the independent party vote for that could make or break your win for an election. But even when Romney had the independent 50-45 and had improved from 14 to 18 points since the last election it still was not enough. The article proves,through past election history, that anything can happen and can be won by any party. _ Ashton Andersen
To me, the statement that "only two Democratic presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, have been followed by Democrats" is enough historical evidence to assume that in the next presidential election there will be a Republican as President. It stands to reason that because the American population does not approve of President Obama (Obama got 3.6 million fewer votes than in 2008, a 5 percent decline) as they did of FDR or JFK, there is no reason to suspect that the next President shall be Democratic. -Paul Edlund
This article uses a lot of statistics, George Will uses statistics such as no party holding the presidency had won control of the house in a modern election. I found this very interesting and confusing at first. Wouldn't it make sense for the party holding the presidency to win the midterm election and take over the senate, but then I realized that if the people don't like what the president is doing, they're going to try and be smart in voting for the minority party to try and make things better. Another stat used by Will was that Obama is the first president since Reagan to win two popular vote majorities. This was interesting because I would have thought Obama wouldn't have gotten the popular vote majorities, only in the reason that America (although we are becoming more liberal) has people who still are very conservative. But it also makes sense that the Democratic Party won because of the previous stats of republicans not decisively winning an election since 1988. All of these statistics help to prove Will's point that no matter the situation, any party can win an election.
Maddie McCullough
I think that the key part of the article is the last sentence: "There will be more numbers to contemplate by the time the 1 percent of Americans who live in Iowa are heard from." While scrolling through other's comments, I noticed that many people said he used contradictory information and just really didn't make much sense. But I believe that that's the whole point of the article. By adding that last sentence, he creates a sort of incredulity- we're basing our presidential futures off of polling in Iowa, off of one percent of the population? How ridiculous! And when you at it like that, it's easier to see why he's gone all the way back to the Civil War era, where the political system was significantly different, or why he placed all of that contradictory information next to itself, seeming to nullify his point. He's trying to show what a ridiculous system it is. That last sentence is the key when you're trying to understand the article.
-Emma Pankratz
Carleigh Pula said...
I feel as though George F. Will's article is very bias. He is trying to get you to see politics through his eyes and believe as though he does. He does have some good facts about the election from2008 to the most recent one such as democrats got 3.6 million fewer votes than they did in 2008 and the republican party got more share votes from men causing them to be above by 18 points. He uses facts and logic of his own to convey the way he thinks and now hes showing others that. In other words I believe by his facts he is trying tell people behind the curtain that a repulbican will win the next election. He goes on to say their has only been two times where democatic presidents have been consecutively elected. I believe anything can happen and it just depends on what the economy and government needs at the time and persuading people into thinking they can give it to them. The presidents win on logic and voice; they see what the people need and then say they will make those changes happen. It's all about the talk.
In this article, Will mentions that "Since the nineteenth century, no party holding the presidency has ever won control of the House in any midterm election." I found this really interesting as he also mentions that many members of Obama's coalition (unmarried women, minorities, young people) often skip midterm elections. If more people were involved and engaged in midterm elections, I wonder if the party holding the presidency could win control of the House.
Samantha Sanders
George Will basically states that anything can happen when it comes to politics. He uses all sorts of statistics and numbers to prove this point. There are so many, in fact, that I began to see the article as more of a table of numbers than a coherent article. Wall advocates for both republicans and democrats. He states that both could win any particular election because the numbers indicate that people change their opinions on them often and they take turns winning over the people who are on the fence. His numbers between the presidential and the midterm polls show this trend very well: "In an October poll, 60 percent favored voting out of office every congressional incumbent. The poll was taken just 11 months after voters re-elected 90 percent of House and 91 percent of Senate incumbents."
First of all, I 'd like to note that Will's article contained almost exclusively statistics, and did very little analysis of relevance of such statistics. On particular thing that he said: "Since the mid-19th-century emergence of the current two-party competition, no party holding the presidency has ever won control of the House in any midterm election." surprised me. President's Parties have NEVER won the House in a midterm election? Either way, Will seemed to be insinuating Republicans have a bit of an advantage for this upcoming election, noting the high probability of Obama supporters (young people, minorities, and unmarried women) are often much less likely to vote in midterm elections than presidential ones and also noting Obama's recent loss in nearly all age groups. He also, however mentions that Republicans have not decisively won a presidential election for about 20 years, while Democratic presidents like Obama have won by a clear margin. Either way, Will's lack of an actual main point, being overrun by statistics, makes the article rather hard to follow or appreciate
A lot of people commented about how many statistics Will used, and some even said he used too many, but the way I see it, he needed those statistics in order to support his claim. He flat out states that this is the purpose of his use of statistics in the last paragraph "These numbers suggest that the great political prizes can be won by either party". I think he accomplishes his goal quite well. He uses statistics to show the power Republicans have, "Ninety-three percent of Republican House members represent districts Mitt Romney carried", these members aren't likely to be replaced, giving the Republicans quite a bit of power in controlling Congress. He also uses statistics to show the Democrats' power, "Of the 12 'battleground' states, Obama won 11", Obama won most of teh big states, meaning most important states voted Democratic. Both of these points, well supported by Will's statistics, emphasize his point that either party can win the "political prizes".
The next midterm election seems to be a big one according to Will because of the indecisivness of who the winners will be, tt seems that the public is changing to be more consertvative based on stats from the presidential election. But that is not what's important about the next couple of elections. With the exceeded use of gerrymandering and redistricting, districts are becoming either very liberal or very conservative, if the trend continues, the American public will be seeing more and more gridlock in Congress, making them more and more upset.
Riley Kuhlman
I found it interesting tthat the "had Romney won the popular vote by 1.1 percent..." Obama would still have won the electoral college. This seems unfair to me because the popular vote is the voice of the people and gerrymandering most likey would have caused obamas win if Romney would have won popular vot, tis ultimately resulting in Obamas win. Also, the fact that most of the unmarried women, minorities, and young people skipped midterms surprised me given that they are over 40 percent of Obamas support according to the article. This may possibly be the effect of Obamas loss of approval.
Nicolette Johnson
While reading the article I found it most interesting that the stats show that
Republicans win the most in the Senate and House of Representatives, but it showed that Democrats win presidential elections more overall. It seems rather backwards to me that Republicans have greater representation in the Senate and House and not as much presidentially and vice versa for Democrats, wouldn’t that just put more unnecessary strain on our system? Seems odd.
-Alicia Q
Perhaps it is just me detesting our current political system, but I saw with many others such things as the tendency of a Democrat winning the presidency and Congress to be controlled by Republicans. Also I was reminded about how redistricting always tends toward one party or another always winning(93% of districts who voted for Romney voted for the republican candidate and 96% for Obama voters), leaving actual political issues out of it and just boiling it down to declaration of a certain party and then the maintaining of public image. This being said, I hope you will actually watch the video. The transfer to a new system will not solve all the problems in the political process. However it will create more diversity in opinion and will lead to more attention to real issues rather than simple party lines.
This is the first,(The Problems with the First Past the Post Voting Explained) it is 6.5 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
The followup is The Alternate Vote Explained
Not necessary, but I am curious for your response to these. Thanks
Based on Will's article it would appear that voting during midterm elections are much less popular now than they used to be in terms of voter turnout. It also appears that voting could go either way in the two-party system with Mitt Romney having 93% of the districts represented by Republicans and Obama having 96% of the districts represented by Democrats. However, historically the only presidents to control both houses of congress were FDR and JFK, both of whom died in office and were taken over by their successors. This makes it seem highly unlikely that Obama could win the House based on past midterm election results.
Chloe Davidson
I believe George Will is thinking highly critically towards American voters and our election process.
"In an October poll, 60 percent favored voting out of office every congressional incumbent. The poll was taken just 11 months after voters re-elected 90 percent of House and 91 percent of Senate incumbents."
This statistic alone illustrates George's presumption that voters are hypocritical and don't take the election system for all that it is worth.
Also interesting is how minorities and young adults have the highest turnout when it comes toward the presidential election, but staggering low results for midterm elections. Especially because congress often controls what the president can or can not do.
Overall, I believe George Will is making the argument that anything could happen come election time because voters are not intelligent when it comes to how they use their opportunity to vote.
-Brianna Colvin
Post a Comment
<< Home