Swing states, or those with undefined political preferences, will decide who will be the next president of the United States. In the 2008 election President Obama obtained 365 electoral votes, when only 270 are needed to become president. The result proved his overwhelming success compared to the previous President George W. Bush, who only obtained 286 electoral votes in the 2004 election. But in November, reelection will not be that easy for President Obama because of the swing states.

In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won back crucial states to the Democrats, such as Florida or North Carolina, which had been in Republican control since the 2000 elections. But this could change this year; the Republicans want to regain control of Florida and hosting the Republican Convention there is proof of it. The Democrats want to remain in control of North Carolina, explaining why they organized their convention in Charlotte.

President Obama’s road to reelection will not be an easy one. Although the last two presidents have achieved reelection, the economic crisis has weakened Barack Obama, and that’s why Mitt Romney will have a chance, since he is seen as someone who knows how to handle economic problems. A recent Gallup poll shows that 60% of the people surveyed said Romney would do a good job handling the economy over the next four years; 52% said president Obama would.

The recent Gallup poll showed in which aspects Mitt Romney is stronger, but it also shows his weak points: he doesn’t generate enthusiasm from his voters and he hasn’t been able to establish a strong connection with the people. The results of the poll show it, and Obama is perceived as a much more likeable candidate with an advantage of over 27 points against Romney.

USA Today/Gallup lists twelve states that can determine this election: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

One state that is not considered a swing state, but could become one at any moment, is Arizona. In the U.S. electoral history this state has only voted for the Democratic Party once since President Truman, but the number of independent voters has grown in recent years in this state. This scenario makes Mitt Romney’s victory uncertain because there are a large number of undecided voters waiting to hear proposals, and that’s why closed elections are expected.

An interesting case of another closed state is New Mexico. In the 2008 election President Obama won with 56.7% of the votes. The Hispanic vote was decisive in this state, but the Arizona Republican Governor Susana Martinez, who has high approval ratings, and the economic crisis, has given Mitt Romney a slight chance to win this state.

The swing states are the ones that will determine the election. If the electoral votes for each one of them are summed up, there are 150 electoral votes, and if Arizona is added, which may become a swing state at any moment, that brings it up to 161 electoral votes that don’t have a clear destiny: they may go Republican or Democrat. The only thing certain about this election is that it would be a close race and if Obama wins, it may not be a comfortable victory like in 2008. Both candidates will have to work hard to achieve the magic number of electoral votes: 270.

Image Courtesy of  Steve Adamson / Shutterstock.com

The article The Importance of Swing States in the 2012 Election appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Outside of the U.S., if you read the book “Diplomacy” by Henry Kissinger, you realize that Democrats and Republicans do not follow parallel or even similar foreign policies.

On November 6, 2012, the colors of red and blue will once again confront to each other and spearheading the event will most likely be President Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Two different schools of thought, fighting to occupy a seat in the White House. It could bring a complete change in American foreign policy and consequently spread to affect the policies of their allies.

Foreign policy of a powerful nation has repeatedly throughout history proven to have great influence in the countries that surround it. In Spain, they know through experience that the support of the right-wing President, Jose Maria Aznar, in the Iraq war contributed to the final result of the Spanish elections and allowed the Socialist party to win the Presidential post, despite popular beliefs.

And the trend goes the other way around too – who knows if the Arab Spring and President Obama’s support of the people in the Arab world will have built relations that could influence new movements in the future.

Even though the Republicans have always had a more clear foreign policy, while Democrats have had a more changing vision, it seems that many trust President Obama’s foreign policy so far. Obama’s vision of the world helped him win his first elections by declaring his opposition of the war in Iraq.

That could happen again. Even today Obama’s supporters give him credit for his fight against terrorism and for inspiring democracy in the Arab world: Osama Bin Laden, Anuar al Aulaki, and Muamar Gaddafi are out of the game, Al Qaeda is against the ropes, and three Middle Eastern countries have begun the transition into democracy. Last but not least, no more American soldier will die in Iraq after this year, and a date has been fixed for the complete removal of American troops from Afghanistan.

In spite of all the good results yielded by the Obama administration’s foreign policy, the flipside is ever present. Republicans accuse President Obama of compromising American interests in the Middle East by supporting the Arab Spring and other movements for uprising. Some are also criticizing Obama for not supporting the movement until it was clear that success was within reach.

It has been further questioned why there is no support for democratic movements in other dictatorial regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Bahrain, all traditional allies of the U.S.A.

It is still widely recognized that the American support to democracies in the Middle East could open up new opportunities for the United States and its relations with Arab countries. Still, it is to be seen if the American people can agree with this policy in the long run and value it when they vote this fall.

The article American Foreign Policy Key in US Presidential Election appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The economic crisis batters a great part of the world. Countries that used to live the “American dream” now witness how the extensive wave of revelry and happiness has come to an end. Spain is one of the many countries that lived above their possibilities. The Spanish downturn has given rise to an excessive increase of unemployment and has been the perfect excuse for politicians to pull out their scissors and begin cutting public spending from their welfare state.

The Spanish people, who watch how the youth unemployment is more than 50 percent, have not taken long to point their fingers at the politicians. Spanish citizens accuse politicians of being responsible for the country’s irreversible state, which they believe is inevitable as a result of the electoral system, where only two teams play.

It is quite the opposite in the United States. Criticisms about the political ‘duel’ have not yet arrived. As a matter of fact, some citizens are proud of it. They say that in the United States, presidential elections gather the many political and social aspects that characterize this country. However, critics against the electoral system, such as Occupy Wall Street, have indeed begun to be heard and could amplify if the situation worsens.

Since George Washington set the foundations, the United States has visibly favored a two-party system, made up of two blocks in Congress. Supporters of this system see it as a way to preserve the democratic health of the country. Perhaps they may be right, but it is also true that reducing the possibilities to solely black and white might not be the best example of a democracy.

It is inarguable that in the elections more than two candidates are represented. However, these dissidents are hardly given any voice in comparison to the two giants. As if that were not enough, their campaigns seem ridiculous when judged against the big parties’ greatly funded campaigns.

In previous elections, most of the media hardly had any say about third party candidates, such as McKinney, who was parliamentary of the United States for many years, or Nader, the activist who presented himself as independent and who ended up being attacked about his credibility and pride.

The media should try to balance the budgetary instability of the current plutocratic regime and avoid instructing anyone with phrases like, “Voting for a candidate that is not a Democrat or Republican is a waste of your vote.” Let us remember that democracy is not a political calculation, but simply a way of expressing one’s support for a leader. Journalists, who are guarantors of freedom, should attempt to treat all parties fairly.

Image Courtesy of  Pete Souza (Source; Story) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The article The Two-Party System: Playing Favorites appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

When taking a look at the United States’ history, you learn that it is a country built by immigrants. This cultural mix has brought the country to a point so high that the fathers of the Constitution could have never imagined it. Today, South Americans are the ones going into the so-called ‘Land of Opportunities’, and they are doing so very rapidly.

The latest census data indicated that in 2008, there were around 46.7 million documented Hispanics residing in the U.S., which represents more than 15 percent of the U.S. population. Of this, about 18 million voters are registered to vote. With presidential elections just around the corner and with the growing Hispanic population, it appears that these citizens will play a predominant role in the elections since they constitute such a large number of voters.

In the 2008 elections, over 60 percent of Hispanics voted for Obama, motivated by his promises of immigration reform. Today, many of them feel disappointed and cheated because they think that Obama will not follow through, especially since Democrats lost their hegemony in the House of Representatives. Neither have they forgotten that under a President Obama mandate, there have been more illegal immigrants deported than ever.

However, different surveys indicate that the vast majority of Latinos will vote for President Obama again, not because they are happy with what he has done, but to punish the Republicans, who they accuse of being anti-illegal immigrant. Arizona is one of the “anti-illegal immigrant” bastions. It was there the controversial SB1070 law was approved. This could bring overwhelming Latino support for Obama in Arizona, which could be lethal against Romney’s aspirations.

Romney is not doing much to obtain the support of this part of the electorate. He supports the Arizona law and seems to refuse the Dream Act law. Today, Latinos are nearly 16 percent of the country, and in 2050, they will make up about 30 percent, so Republicans must change their illegal immigration policy if they want more votes.

The first step has been given by the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Marco Rubio, who has Cuban roots. An immigration bill that he says is a “humanitarian mission” and that he plans to promote is the way to win over an electorate that seems to only trust Obama nowadays .

In every presidential election since 1992, the Republican Party has won about one quarter of the Latino vote, while the Democratic Party has received at least half of the support of this community. The remaining 25 percent is at stake. Who will win the election in 2012?

Image Courtesy of   Natursports / Shutterstock.com

The article The Hispanics’ Role in the U.S. Election appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.