You’re One-Stop Shop of the 2008 Election

politicalbase1.jpgIf you’re like me, you probably don’t even know where to begin when it comes to supporting  a presidential candidate.  Wouldn’t it be nice if there was one place you could go to get all the information you need?  Where you could compare fundraising efforts or see where each of them stand on important issus?

Well, I’ve found politicalbase.com.  This Web site is a hub that links the user to pages full of information about each candidate, how they are doing in the polls and how much money they have raised.

The two most important features on the site are the “Compare the Candidates on Issues” and “Participate in the Conversation.”  Users are given the chance to see exactly where all of the candidates stand on every issue and then participate in a conversation about those candidates.

electionarticlemontage.jpgThe issues discussed on the messages boards are about all topics from Darfur Intervention to Gun Control to Capital Punishment.  In the fundraising section, there are interactive maps that allow the user to see exactly how much money a candidate has raised by geographic area.

So if you want to see how your candidate rates, or you don’t have a candidate yet and just want to get all the facts, check out politicalbase.com.  Who knows, you might learn something…

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

6 responses to “You’re One-Stop Shop of the 2008 Election

  1. Useful site. A similar resource, but one that’s focused exclusively on health care issues, is the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Health08.org, which a friend of mine works on.

  2. Great post! The Web site is so helpful. I am constantly trying to understand all the issues and who supports which ones. This is already bookmarked under my favorites! I look at another political site that might help you in future posts. http://www.politico.com. It has TONS of information about all the candidates.

  3. So glad that you like Politicalbase! Thanks for blogging about it. We really appreciated your feedback.

  4. John

    Interesting post, I visited the site and found it very informative. However, I wonder if this type of site is more a reflection of the era that we live in. The title of this post summarizes the current time well: “one-stop shop.” We have come to enjoy the convenience in our modern lives that is the large conglomerate. Where else can I get my oil changed, purchase a toy tractor, and get a frozen dinner? And if that’s not enough, I can even go to McD’s or Starbucks in between shopping aisles. It has come to a point that the conglomerate sells everything, even retail space to other businesses, to keep you within its walls. We have yet to see the full extent as to whether this type of business model is beneficial to our society, it is certainly beneficial to the conglomerate. Now we see this type of idea applied to the internet (or series of tubes to our friends in Alaska).

    Yahoo/google/MSN are excellent examples of conglomerate sites wishing to keep users within their domains by offering multiple services including news services. Mr. Tatum has certainly developed a useful site with many informative features so that you don’t need to leave his site to how the candidates stand on different issues. For most of us, we just need to know who is pro-life/pro-choice, christian/non-christian, etc. I don’t want to go to different sites to find where a candidate stands, just like I don’t want to go to different stores. At what cost is this to the consumer? I am sure Mr. Tatum has his own opinions of each candidate, would this be reflected in his web site? Am I readily made aware of this? What is his agenda? The convenience of the site overshadows this. Just like Wal-Mart only sells certain brand items and producers are nearly at their mercy to be featured on their shelves and what shelf they do appear on. Is this how we want our political information disseminated? Am I really “getting all the facts” as you say, from this site? The current era demands that we examine the intentions and motives of the presenter. Call it a repercussion of post-modernism

    We are already observing what can happen when these sites become quite popular. Redstate.com, a top Republican blog, has recently put a ban on Ron Paul postings and new users who openly support Ron Paul. Although this site is not intended to “cross the aisle,” it cannot even allow voices within its own party. The idea of the site is to support Republican candidates (not named Ron Paul) and be an arena where Republicans can get opinions and info on other items such as sports and books. Designed to cater to conservatives, RedState.com has chosen to silence a section of its own audience by labeling them “zany libertarians” and “annoying” and “band-width wasting.” You could label this as “it’s my sandbox” or you could see it as ignoring social responsibility to provide an open forum. This has become a hot-topic issue, one I hope you address

  5. election20

    You bring up a few good points, John. I agree that Americans today are obsessed with convenience and getting everything done in one place. That’s what happens when the whole nation is running a mile a minute. Most people don’t even take a minute to slow down to focus on something as important as who is going to be the next person running our country. It’s pretty sad. So I say any place that give voters even the smallest amount of information about candidates and compares them is better than nothing. In the perfect world there would be no need for a one-stop shop, but as you mentioned before a lot of people are just apathetic and aren’t going to make the effort to educate themselves on the issues. In this case, sites like politicalbase.com are the best bet of them getting any information on the topic.

    And as far as objectivity goes, nothing is ever completely objective. Look at the conservative slant of FOX news… Aren’t news stations supposed to be portrayed as completely objective?

  6. Brittany Cramer (Intro to PR)

    This website brings up some issues from me personally. Initially, it sounds like a great idea to connect people (especially those who haven’t done research on running candidates) to who they might vote for. Who doesn’t like the idea of going to one destination and finding all of the information needed, and not having to worry about questioning the validity of it? In a perfect world this would be great site and enable young people to scope out the election scene on their own watches. So as I was scrolling down through the blogs and saw John’s response, he brought out the skeptic in me. Honestly, how could one just trust every stat and tidbit of information that is put on the site? And once again, back to the other end of the spectrum, the optimist in me would want to believe that it is a completely unbiased site just trying to provide useful information on all running, as to where they all stand on certain issues. I think to really answer the question of it being slanted or not, would only be discovered after following the site after scandals surface about the candidates, and then we might be able to see if the site leans to one side or the other. And as for Fox News, I think Bill O’Reilly, Fox and Friends, and the rest of the gang left the unbiased arena a very, very long time ago. Once again making me feel we should all be a little more skeptical and dig just a little deeper about ANYTHING we see or head in the media.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s