On the Monkey Cage, John Sides blogged about public knowledge of recent political events, ones that we can assume were reported on by the mass media. In this blog titled, Why Campaigns Have So Few "Game-Changers," he commented that the survey showed that Americans cared very little about this campaign and the political events that have occurred.

While these are the findings of the survey, Sides concludes that although the inability to answer specific "events-related" questions accurately is shown, Americans are certainly not unintelligent or bad citizens. They just don't follow politics very closely, which is entirely normal.

Sides's most important comment however was what we can deduct from this survey- it does more "to question the assumptions of commentators, who are often anxious to inflate every argument during the campaign to a 'game changer'—even if many Americans aren’t really watching the game." This conclusion is interesting because it seems to contradict the nature of the "marketplace" with regards to the mass media providing what Americans desire to "consume." If Americans are not really watching the political game, then why would the media place emphasis on the campaign and what candidates are saying? Possibly, the media is fulfilling their role by still providing political coverage despite what the public truly desires to watch or read.

Typically, an average individual remembers the frivolous remarks or reports of the news such as the ones utilized in the survey-"Santorum’s statement about birth control, Obama’s call to Sandra Fluke, and Santorum’s comment about Obama’s snobbery." If Americans cannot even recall these highly reported events, what exactly are they doing? And if no one is truly watching, and the media still reports on it, are they doing their job?

Most importantly however, Sides's final conclusion raises the question of the media's role in influencing public opinion. If viewers aren't actually comprehending or using the news provided by the mass media, then they will never have a large effect on influencing public opinion.

The New Conservatism: Don’t Bother With College

The New York Times reported on Rick Santorum’s recent campaigning leading up to the primary coming up this Tuesday.  The article is entitled “The New Conservatism: Don’t Bother With College.”  The tag line of the article says, “Mr. Santorum called President Obama “a snob” for urging students to go to college.”  The article reports that Rick Santorum criticized President Obama’s recent encouragement of students to attend community colleges to pick up specialized skills, for everyone to strive for some form of higher education, and to make college more affordable for everyone. 

My favorite lines of the article states that “As it turns out, Mr. Santorum is concerned that conservative students who attend a four-year college will emerge fully indoctrinated as liberals. He even called colleges “indoctrination mills.” “Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college,” Mr. Santorum said. “He wants to remake you in his image.”

“Mr. Santorum apparently sees students as easy prey to bearded professors and their dangerous ideas, but all ideas are subject to challenge in college. Some students may emerge more liberal, others more libertarian or conservative; some may lose their faith, or adopt a different one.”

“When his brand of ideas is put to the test, Mr. Santorum seems worried it might not hold up. If this new rant represents the current quality of conservative thinking, he is right to be worried.”

The New York Times does a great job reporting on the subject.  They let Rick Santorum’s word speak for themselves.  Our recent class discussions on socialization and political ideals leads me to see how wrong Rick Santorum is in his assumption that students can be so easily preyed upon when receiving a college education.  As we learned from the Michigan Model our socialization starts early in life with the economic structure, social divisions, and historic pattern we grow up with.  Over time these leads to our group loyalties and value orientations.  Our college years can be formative and can be time that values and beliefs shift and new perspectives can be learned but for student to lose their faith, values, and beliefs that they grew up with is not very likely.  

It's time to talk "Plan B"

Rick Santorum's recent surge in the polls leading up to Super Tuesday has parts of the Republican establishment excited for the possibility of having a hardline, hardcore conservative candidate for the November election against Obama.

Others aren't so sure.

GOP strategists unaffiliated with campaigns keep running the numbers, and an Obama vs. Santorum matchup in December shows Obama winning by a landslide, and that's with a rather anemic economic recovery. If the recovery continues to gain steam, it might not even be a fair fight for Santorum.

Continued after the jump.

Trump Strongly Supports Romney

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/20/trump-takes-hatchet-to-santorum/

          Donald Trump recently spoke on a Michigan radio show about his support for Mitt Romney. Trump has put a lot of money behind Romney, and is starting to harshly attack Rick Santorum. Trump is going to speak several times in Michigan to try and gain Michigan for Romney. He is showing strong support for Romney while bashing Santorum. Trump is a very well repeated business man so he's opinion might matter to the public and to the people of Michigan. Trump stated that the demarcates are waiting for Santorum to win because he believes the democrats think that if Santorum is elected, it will be an easy election. Trump's strong backing of Romney shows how the elites of our society can have a possible drastic impact on the political elections. With the upcoming elections in Michigan, Trump may have an impact on voters decisions.
       Should Trump's opinion really impact the decisions of voters? In my opinion his opinion should have no effect what-so-ever on the publics choice. Yes he is a very wealthy and successful business man, but there are several possible reasons as to why Trump is backing Romney so strongly. Trump may have other interests or motives behind his behavior that we don't know. So Trump's decision could be clouded by some things we don't see or know about; for all we know Trump might not even think Romney is the best candidate, he could be protecting his own interests. The public should do there own digging and search more into the candidates instead of simply letting the opinion of a powerful business man persuade them into making a decision.

A bad investment, or a bad sign?

According to a source in a recent article on CNN's PoliticalTicker, Mitt Romney's campaign has purchased $1.2 million in television airtime for the upcoming Michigan primary.

$1.2 million for airtime in Romney's home state.

The Romney campaign feels it prudent to spend quite a lot of money for a primary in a state that, frankly, he should be able to walk away with uncontested. Such a large push in Michigan is proof that the campaign is starting to strain.

Breakdown and analysis after the jump.

And the winner is... old news.

HEADLINE: "Santorum jolts GOP presidential race with 3-state sweep"

Yawn.

Please excuse my lack of enthusiasm, but I hardly see a "jolted" GOP. After seeing this and countless other headlines Wednesday morning, I sat and thought about the primaries and just what these three in particular meant.

Continued after the jump.