Academic literature on the topic 'Democratic Party (Iowa)'

In contests for the presidential nominations from the Democratic and Republican parties in the United States, the duration of candidacies determines both the winning candidate (i.e., the one who outlasts his or her opponents) and the amount of intraparty conflict before the nomination is bestowed. This article analyses how strategic considerations lead some candidates to exit the race more quickly than others. Factors which could shape such strategic considerations include initial candidate assets and characteristics (national poll standings, fund-raising totals and occupational background), initial contest outcomes (Iowa and New Hampshire) and structural variables (proportional representation delegate distribution rules, party, front-loaded calendar). Results from a duration model indicate that poll standings, money (in a curvilinear pattern), New Hampshire and Iowa results, occupational backgrounds and the front-loading of the primary calendar shaped the length of candidacies for presidential contestants from 1980 to 2004. Candidates lacking in initial assets or early victories leave the nomination race in a process most resembling a game of attrition.

Abstract.The outcome of the 2007 elections in France raises a number of questions about the current state of democracy in that country. To put these elections into perspective, we examine the evolution of the French party system and electorate throughout the Fifth Republic. We look first at the pattern of party electoral movement over time. Then we evaluate the partisan cycle with respect to certain equilibrium conditions, namely stability, competition, and democratic rule. Based on these patterns, we arrive at a classification of French national elections using the Michigan school's theoretical framework. A key conclusion is that, in general, these Fifth Republic elections are in disequilibrium and often fail to express the majority partisan will. The 2007 results, which represent a return of the traditional right, are examined against the Iowa forecasting model, to see if they depart from these troubling conclusions.Résumé.Les résultats des élections de 2007 en France soulèvent une série de questions à propos de l'état de la démocratie dans ce pays. Afin de mettre ces élections en perspective, nous examinons l'évolution du système partisan et des inclinaisons idéologiques de l'électorat français sous la Cinquième République. Nous nous attardons d'abord au mouvement dans le temps des appuis partisans. Nous évaluons ensuite l'équilibre du cycle partisan en France sur la base de certaines conditions, à savoir la stabilité, la compétition et la gouverne démocratique. Cet exercice permet d'en arriver à une classification des élections nationales françaises inspirée du cadre théorique de l'école de Michigan. La conclusion principale de cette analyse est qu'en général, ces élections attestent d'un déséquilibre, car le plus souvent, elles n'expriment pas la volonté majoritaire de l'électorat. Les élections de 2007, marquées par un retour en force de la droite, sont enfin analysées à la lumière du modèle de prévision électorale dit «de l'Iowa» afin de vérifier si elles s'inscrivent ou non dans cette dynamique de déséquilibre.

ABSTRACTUsing the Iowa Electronic Markets (IEM), this article assesses the political impact of several important events during the fall of 2013: the US government shutdown, the Senate elimination of filibusters for presidential nominations (i.e., the “nuclear option”), and the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., ObamaCare). Did these events have meaningful effects on congressional control prospects in the 2014 election? According to IEM price changes, Republican chances fell dramatically when the government shut down, and they did not recover on resolution. Eliminating filibusters had a negative impact on Democratic chances. Various aspects of the ObamaCare rollout and reporting, as well as new announcements that incumbents would not run for reelection, had little effect. In contrast, the budget resolution reinforced the status quo. Overall, political rhetoric does not appear to affect congressional control prospects. Instead, actions matter: deliberate partisan actions of Congress adversely affect the initiating party’s prospects, whereas bipartisan initiatives help the party that initiates the bipartisan effort.

La Revista de Derecho del Instituto de Investigación Jurídica de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras presenta su cuadragésimo primero (41) volumen, número uno (1) del año dos mil vente (2020). El instituto con una trayectoria investigativa de más de cincuenta (50) años ha logrado realizar investigaciones y artículos jurídicos entre otros trabajos científicos, que son parte de la tradición del hacer universitario y se ven reflejados en la Revista de Derecho. Generando un espacio nacional como internacional para investigadores consolidados de larga trayectoria en la indagación, como de aquellos, que quieren exponer sus primeros trabajos y producciones intelectuales. Todos cumpliendo con la rigurosidad de método de investigación científica y jurídica. Nuestra revista ya es el sitio predilecto para publicar de muchos que tienen la disciplina y el rigor de presentar ante la comunidad intelectual como ciudadana en general, sus hallazgos y conjeturas científicas, para dar luz y facilitar la interpretación de la realidad jurídica a la luminosidad de la verdad comprobada en sus obras. La actual edición de la Revista de Derecho es marcada por un contexto especial para Honduras y el mundo, la pandemia de la COVID-19, los huracanes “Eta” y “Iota”, han dejado devastada nuestra nación en sus dimensiones territoriales, sociales, económicas, ambientales, alimentarias, educativas y demás que se pueda imaginar en el desarrollo humano, se proyectan según los economistas al menos cincuenta (50) años de atraso. Debemos enfrentar justamente con el aporte de la ciencia, la innovación y la tecnología, pero sobre todo con enfoque humanista y solidario, la construcción nuevos escenarios nacionales e internacionales apoyados en redes sociales solidas soportadas por una plataforma jurídica capaz de legitimar las necesidades de convivencia de manera igualitaria, equitativa, justa socialmente hablando, con un enfoque de derechos que genere confianza, trasparencia, inclusión y seguridad jurídica. Los directores tanto del Instituto como de la Revista de Derecho no escatimaron esfuerzos para hace posible en el actual contexto de pandemia y de crisis, sanitaria, humanitaria, alimentaria y climática mundial, esta nueva edición, justamente porque lo que necesitamos como países es, más ciencia, más investigación y más reflexión de nuestras realidades, lograr propuestas para superar los desafíos del SXXI. Los catorce (14) artículos que se desprenden muchos de investigaciones más amplias y dos (2) ensayos en temáticas de actualidad, logran un abanico de temáticas jurídicas que marcan la región como el país y el derecho español, los cambios que estamos sufriendo como sociedades y de que forma nos afectan en, nuestro estado de derecho, nuestra democracia y nuestro estado de derechos humanos en general. Bajo enfoque metodológicos diversos muchos sobre derecho comparado. En materia penal , se hace referencia a temáticas fundamentales como lo es el articulo número uno (1) con la “…la responsabilidad penal de las personas jurídicas en el nuevo Código Penal…, es un modelo que ha fracasado y poco sostenido por la Dogmática y por la jurisprudencia.” ; el artículo dos (2) igualmente se logra “comparar desde una perspectiva jurídico-científica el rol de la Comisión Internacional Contra la Impunidad en Guatemala (CICIG) y de la Misión de Apoyo Contra la Corrupción y la Impunidad en Honduras (MACCIH).”; el articulo cinco (5) como propuesta se plantea “…promover la base de una Teoría del “ISN” (Interés Superior del Niño) que permita estudiar los supuestos que sustentan los derechos vinculados al interés superior del niño. Ostentando su derecho a una protección especial, durante el proceso penal, por su alta condición de vulnerabilidad…” ; el artículo número seis (6) analiza la perspectiva de genero en el nuevo código penal “…normativa penal aprobada a la luz de los desarrollos doctrinales en la materia, con el propósito de determinar, si la inclusión de estos elementos es suficiente para afirmar que el nuevo Código Penal cuenta con una perspectiva de género…”; articulo número siete (7) hace los análisis de los delitos y penas en el “… nuevo Código Penal contenido en el Decreto 130-2017, siendo ya el quinto Código Penal que rige los delitos y las penas en nuestro país; hecho histórico que consideramos no debe pasar inadvertido en la actividad académica, más aún cuando sabemos previo a su entrada en vigencia existió una gran polémica sobre la conveniencia o no de este nuevo orden normativo…” concluyéndose en esta temática con el articulo número nueve (9) tema que relaciona la corrupción privada en donde se hace “… la ponderación entre los intereses jurídicos que dicho delito debe proteger. Asimismo, la percepción que tiene la ciudadanía hondureña con respecto al delito de corrupción privada, con relación a introducir el tema en la dinámica hondureña.” En materia de derechos humanos interesantes ilustraciones ; el articulo tres (3) presenta una publicación de caso marcando los “…elementos más relevantes del estudio y análisis de realizados en la resolución de la Novena Sala Regional Metropolitana del Tribunal Federal de Justicia Administrativa de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, en la que reconoce la condición de refugiado a un solicitante de nacionalidad guatemalteca que se identifica como gay en un contexto de violencia y discriminación por orientación sexual e identidad de género, elaborando una definición de refugiado incluyendo un componente de género de conformidad de la normativa de origen tanto nacional -México- como internacional en materia de asilo …”; artículo número ocho (8) La tutela efectiva de derechos fundamentales “…determinar si la persona jurídica es beneficiaria o no de derechos fundamentales en Honduras, …examinando a su vez la doctrina constitucional sobre la teoría de atribución de titularidad de estos derechos, para así observar la realidad jurídico – constitucional hondureña a la luz de los principios y fines del texto fundacional…”; articulo número doce (12) Con énfasis en desarrollo sostenible y riesgo ambiental tenemos “…El estudio se justifica habida cuenta de las directrices establecidas por esta rama del derecho que permiten una transversalidad con las pautas del Derecho Ambiental, revelando algunos desafíos a los que se enfrenta la planificación frente a los riesgos emergentes y, la necesidad de promover la protección del medio ambiente para las generaciones actuales y futuras…”; articulo número catorce (14) como parte del estudio del contexto actual de pandemia sanitaria se presenta el examen de la responsabilidad internacional de China “…un hecho internacionalmente ilícito, la responsabilidad internacional de organismos internacionales universales y regionales en la dispersión del Covid-19 ya sea por acción u omisión, en estricta consonancia con la implicación de colaboración inexacta por parte de China en el estudio y divulgación oportuna de las consecuencias patológicas del Síndrome Respiratorio Severo Agudo Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2 por sus siglas en inglés) en el ser humano, …” En materia civil ,un interesante trabajo publicado, en el artículo número cuatro (4) ,el proceso monitorio como medio efectivo para tutelar el derecho de crédito “…visión comparativa del monitorio español a efecto de conocer algunas reformas que se han producido en el mismo para procurar una mayor efectividad en su aplicación, todo esto considerando que la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil española sirvió de inspiración para la creación del CPC( Código Procesal Civil).”; así como el articulo número once (11) y su argumento del “…Secreto Industrial, actualmente con la competitividad tan desmesurada en el mercado internacional y nacional, cada vez se vuelve más utilizada por empresas de diferentes rubros, misma que por su esencia de secreto es muy codiciada para su obtención de manera ilícita, la normativa actual es insuficiente para hacerle frente a estas diversas prácticas de mala fe comercial, ya que la vulneran directamente, a diferencias de otras figuras de la propiedad industrial que cuentan con mecanismos protectorios,…” Al amparo de la temática de interpretación jurídica con un enfoque histórico, nos presenta en el artículo número diez (10) una publicación sobre los orígenes de interpretación constitucional en materia tributaria “…la crisis gestada en la Alcaldía Mayor de Tegucigalpa por la interpretación que varios pueblos indígenas dieron a ciertos artículos de la Constitución Política de la Monarquía Española, durante su segundo periodo de vigencia a partir de 1820…”; articulo número trece (13) la prueba anticipada analizada a través del “…derecho comparado para demostrar cual es la noción, que el mundo está teniendo en cuanto a la relevancia de las partes para resolver sus conflictos, asimismo ofrezco el mecanismo de la prueba anticipada como una nueva noción, con características de autonomía con la mera intención de información, influenciada principalmente por el derecho brasileño procesal vigente y de origen de Common Law.” Finalmente en cuanto a la presentación de artículos científicos se refiere, se el problema del soborno como una crisis mundial. Esta práctica perniciosa ha estado presente a lo largo de toda la historia de la humanidad. En esta investigación se busca explorar los planteamientos éticos sobre el soborno así como sus efectos devastadores en la democracia y en el desarrollo de un país. Cerrando con dos ensayos uno sobre la inconstitucionalidad de la inmunidad parlamentaria derivada de la reforma a la ley orgánica del congreso nacional y el otro sobre las mujeres en política: hacia la reivindicación de los derechos políticos-electorales. Se reconoce el valioso esfuerzo de todos los investigadores al igual que a la dirección de la revisita por tan importante edición. Esperando sean citados los autores, en los trabajos futuros de investigación de los lectores y puedan llenar de valor las publicaciones.

The Iowa caucuses are the inaugural event of the American presidential nomination process. When the state Democratic Party failed to report the 2020 caucus results in a timely manner and manage the consequences, the crisis situation threatened the legitimacy of the party and the integrity of the results. This research presents an in-depth case of the Iowa Democratic Party’s public communication response regarding an event described by the Des Moines Register as “hell” and a “results catastrophe.” Specifically, we were interested in how the Iowa Democratic Party responded to the crisis event and the extent to which the party organization was successful in disseminating favorable messaging about the caucus process to the local press. Drawing on organizational crisis management and echoing press perspectives, this analysis uses network and qualitative analytic approaches to assess message development, dissemination, and ultimately adoption. A local event with national implications presents a critical case in investigating how a political party, due to its institutional role in American elections and unique organizational structure, struggled to respond to the crisis.

The Iowa caucuses are the inaugural event of the American presidential nomination process. When the state Democratic Party failed to report the 2020 caucus results in a timely manner, researchers began to assess how party and press officials co-constructed the events. This research presents an in-depth case of the Iowa state and local Democratic Party’s public communication response regarding an event described by the Des Moines Register as “hell” and a “results catastrophe.” Specifically, we were interested in how the Iowa Democratic Party responded to the crisis event and the extent to which the party organization was successful in disseminating favorable messaging about the caucus process to the local press. Drawing on organizational crisis management and echoing press perspectives, this analysis uses network and qualitative analytic approaches to assess message development, dissemination, and ultimately adoption. A local event with national implications presents a critical case in investigating how a political party, due to its institutional role in American elections and unique organizational structure, struggled to respond to the crisis.

Despite evidence that a majority of people in the United States say that they want more civil politics, candidates still use incivility strategically during campaigns. Distinguishing between descriptive and injunctive norms may help explain this apparent contradiction. This study presents an experiment conducted with participants recruited at 2020 Democratic Iowa Caucus rallies that tested whether (a) individuals differ in their descriptive and injunctive normative beliefs about a variety of uncivil behaviors and (b) candidate characteristics such as gender and insider/outsider status in a party influence respondents’ normative beliefs. Findings suggest that, while descriptive and injunctive norms align for some campaign behaviors, they do not for all behaviors, such as sharing false information and using insults. Additionally, men and women candidates, as well as political insider and outsider candidates, are expected to behave differently but are held to the same injunctively normative standard when uncivil behaviors are attributed to them. Future incivility researchers should continue investigating descriptive and injunctive norms to investigate whether voters dismiss descriptively common behaviors during campaigns, even if they perceive those behaviors as inappropriate and uncivil.

This research investigates the roles of issues, traits, and electability in the 2020 U.S. presidential nominating contest. These analyses utilize survey data gathered at political rallies in Iowa leading up to the caucuses and state and national news coverage. First, we identified the traits and issues respondents used to describe their support for a particular Democratic candidate over others. Next, we determined how issues, traits, and electability differed among the candidates. Finally, an analysis of news coverage uncovered how each candidate’s electability was framed. We found supporters of moderate candidates were more likely to mention candidate traits as reasons for their support, whereas supporters of progressive candidates were more likely to mention issues. Despite the media focus on electability, respondents did not indicate that as a primary reason for supporting a candidate. State and national news coverage treated the electability of Democrats vying for the party nomination quite differently, depending on the candidate’s gender and ideology.

Introduction The research from which this piece derives explores political remix video (PRV), a genre in which remixers critique dominant discourses and power structures through guerrilla remixing of copyrighted footage (“What Is Political Remix Video?”). Specifically, I examined the works of political video remixer Elisa Kreisinger, whose queer remixes of shows such as Sex and the City and Mad Men received considerable attention between 2010 and the present. As a rhetoric scholar, I am attracted not only to the ways that remix functions discursively but also the ways in which remixers are constrained in their ability to argue, and what recourse they have in these situations of legal and technological constraint. Ultimately, many of these struggles play out on YouTube. This is unsurprising: many studies of YouTube and other user-generated content (UGC) platforms focus on the fact that commercial sites cannot constitute utopian, democratic, or free environments (Hilderbrand; Hess; Van Dijck). However, I find that, contrary to popular belief, YouTube’s commercial interests are not the primary factor limiting remixer agency. Rather, United States copyright law as enacted on YouTube has the most potential to inhibit remixers. This has led to many remixers becoming advocates for fair use, the provision in the Copyright Act of 1976 that allows for limited use of copyrighted content. With this in mind, I decided to delve more deeply into the framing of fair use by remixers and other advocates such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Center for Social Media. In studying discourses of fair use as they play out in the remix community, I find that the framing of fair use bears a striking similarity to what rhetoric scholars have termed vernacular discourse—a discourse emanating from a small segment of the larger civic community (Ono and Sloop 23). The vernacular is often framed as that which integrates the institutional or mainstream while simultaneously asserting its difference through appropriation and subversion. A video qualifies as fair use if it juxtaposes source material in a new way for the purposes of critique. In turn, a vernacular text asserts its “vernacularity” by taking up parts of pre-existing dominant institutional discourses in a way that resonates with a smaller community. My argument is that this tension between institutional and vernacular gives political remix video a multivalent argument—one that presents itself both in the text of the video itself as well as in the video’s status as a fair use of copyrighted material. Just as fair use represents the assertion of creator agency against unfair copyright law, vernacular discourse represents the assertion of a localised community within a world dominated by institutional discourses. In this way, remixers engage rights holders and other institutions in a pleasurable game of cat and mouse, a struggle to expose the boundaries of draconian copyright law. YouTube’s Commercial InterestsYouTube’s commercial interests operate at a level potentially invisible to the casual user. While users provide YouTube with content, they also provide the site with data—both metadata culled from their navigations of the site (page views, IP addresses) as well as member-provided data (such as real name and e-mail address). YouTube mines this data for a number of purposes—anything from interface optimisation to targeted advertising via Google’s AdSense. Users also perform a certain degree of labour to keep the site running smoothly, such as reporting videos that violate the Terms of Service, giving videos the thumbs up or thumbs down, and reporting spam comments. As such, users involved in YouTube’s participatory culture are also necessarily involved in the site’s commercial interests. While there are legitimate concerns regarding the privacy of personal information, especially after Google introduced policies in 2012 to facilitate a greater flow of information across all of their subsidiaries, it does not seem that this has diminished YouTube’s popularity (“Google: Privacy Policy”).Despite this, some make the argument that users provide the true benefit of UGC platforms like YouTube, yet reap few rewards, creating an exploitative dynamic (Van Dijck, 46). Two assumptions seem to underpin this argument: the first is that users do not desire to help these platforms prosper, the second is that users expect to profit from their efforts on the website. In response to these arguments, it’s worth calling attention to scholars who have used alternative economic models to account for user-platform coexistence. This is something that Henry Jenkins addresses in his recent book Spreadable Media, largely by focusing on assigning alternate sorts of value to user and fan labour—either the cultural worth of the gift, or the satisfaction of a job well done common to pre-industrial craftsmanship (61). However, there are still questions of how to account for participatory spaces in which labours of love coexist with massively profitable products. In service of this point, Jenkins calls up Lessig, who posits that many online networks operate as hybrid economies, which combine commercial and sharing economies. In a commercial economy, profit is the primary consideration, while a sharing economy is composed of participants who are there because they enjoy doing the work without any expectation of compensation (176). The strict separation between the two economies is, in Lessig’s estimation, essential to the hybrid economy’s success. While it would be difficult to incorporate these two economies together once each had been established, platforms like YouTube have always operated under the hybrid principle. YouTube’s users provide the site with its true value (through their uploading of content, provision of metadata, and use of the site), yet users do not come to YouTube with these tasks in mind—they come to YouTube because it provides an easy-to-use platform by which to share amateur creativity, and a community with whom to interact. Additionally, YouTube serves as the primary venue where remixers can achieve visibility and viral status—something Elisa Kreisinger acknowledged in our interviews (2012). However, users who are not concerned with broad visibility as much as with speaking to particular viewers may leave YouTube if they feel that the venue does not suit their content. Some feminist fan vidders, for instance, have withdrawn from YouTube due to what they perceived as a community who didn’t understand their work (Kreisinger, 2012). Additionally, Kreisinger ended up garnering many more views of her Queer Men remix on Vimeo due simply to the fact that the remix’s initial upload was blocked via YouTube’s Content ID feature. By the time Kreisinger had argued her case with YouTube, the Vimeo link had become the first stop for those viewing and sharing the remix, which received 72,000 views to date (“Queer Men”). Fair Use, Copyright, and Content IDThis instance points to the challenge that remixers face when dealing with copyright on YouTube, a site whose processes are not designed to accommodate fair use. Specifically, Title II, Section 512 of the DMCA (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed in 1998) states that certain websites may qualify as “safe harbours” for copyright infringement if users upload the majority of the content to the site, or if the site is an information location service. These sites are insulated from copyright liability as long as they cooperate to some extent with rights holders. A common objection to Section 512 is that it requires media rights holders to police safe harbours in search of infringing content, rather than placing the onus on the platform provider (Meyers 939). In order to cooperate with Section 512 and rights holders, YouTube initiated the Content ID system in 2007. This system offers rights holders the ability to find and manage their content on the site by creating archives of footage against which user uploads are checked, allowing rights holders to automatically block, track, or monetise uses of their content (it is also worth noting that rights holders can make these responses country-specific) (“How Content ID Works”). At the current time, YouTube has over 15 million reference files against which it checks uploads (“Statistics - YouTube”). Thus, it’s fairly common for uploaded work to get flagged as a violation, especially when that work is a remix of popular institutional footage. If an upload is flagged by the Content ID system, the user can dispute the match, at which point the rights holder has the opportunity to either allow the video through, or to issue a DMCA takedown notice. They can also sue at any point during this process (“A Guide to YouTube Removals”). Content ID matches are relatively easy to dispute and do not generally require legal intervention. However, disputing these automatic takedowns requires users to be aware of their rights to fair use, and requires rights holders to acknowledge a fair use (“YouTube Removals”). This is only compounded by the fact that fair use is not a clearly defined right, but rather a vague provision relying on a balance between four factors: the purpose of the use, character of the work, the amount used, and the effect on the market value of the original (“US Copyright Office–Fair Use”). As Aufderheide and Jaszi observed in 2008, the rejection of videos for Content ID matches combined with the vagaries of fair use has a chilling effect on user-generated content. Rights Holders versus RemixersRights holders’ objections to Section 512 illustrate the ruling power dynamic in current intellectual property disputes: power rests with institutional rights-holding bodies (the RIAA, the MPAA) who assert their dominance over DMCA safe harbours such as YouTube (who must cooperate to stay in business) who, in turn, exert power over remixers (the lowest on the food chain, so to speak). Beyond the observed chilling effect of Content ID, remix on YouTube is shot through with discursive struggle between these rights-holding bodies and remixers attempting to express themselves and reach new communities. However, this has led political video remixers to become especially vocal when arguing for their uses of content. For instance, in the spring of 2009, Elisa Kreisinger curated a show entitled “REMOVED: The Politics of Remix Culture” in which blocked remixes screened alongside the remixers’ correspondence with YouTube. Kreisinger writes that each of these exchanges illustrate the dynamic between rights holders and remixers: “Your video is no longer available because FOX [or another rights-holding body] has chosen to block it (“Remixed/Removed”). Additionally, as Jenkins notes, even Content ID on YouTube is only made available to the largest rights holders—smaller companies must still go through an official DMCA takedown process to report infringement (Spreadable 51). In sum, though recent technological developments may give the appearance of democratising access to content, when it comes to policing UGC, technology has made it easier for the largest rights holders to stifle the creation of content.Additionally, it has been established that rights holders do occasionally use takedowns abusively, and recent court cases—specifically Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.—have established the need for rights holders to assess fair use in order to make a “good faith” assertion that users intend to infringe copyright prior to issuing a takedown notice. However, as Joseph M. Miller notes, the ruling fails to rebalance the burdens and incentives between rights holders and users (1723). This means that while rights holders are supposed to take fair use into account prior to issuing takedowns, there is no process in place that either effectively punishes rights holders who abuse copyright, or allows users to defend themselves without the possibility of massive financial loss (1726). As such, the system currently in place does not disallow or discourage features like Content ID, though cases like Lenz v. Universal indicate a push towards rebalancing the burden of determining fair use. In an effort to turn the tables, many have begun arguing for users’ rights and attempting to parse fair use for the layperson. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), for instance, has espoused an “environmental rhetoric” of fair use, casting intellectual property as a resource for users (Postigo 1020). Additionally, they have created practical guidelines for UGC creators dealing with DMCA takedowns and Content ID matches on YouTube. The Center for Social Media has also produced a number of fair use guides tailored to different use cases, one of which targeted online video producers. All of these efforts have a common goal: to educate content creators about the fair use of copyrighted content, and then to assert their use as fair in opposition to large rights-holding institutions (though they caution users against unfair uses of content or making risky legal moves that could lead to lawsuits). In relation to remix specifically, this means that remixers must differentiate themselves from institutional, commercial content producers, standing up both for the argument contained in their remix as well as their fair use of copyrighted content.In their “Code of Best Practices for Fair Use in Online Video,” the Center for Social Media note that an online video qualifies as a fair use if (among other things) it critiques copyrighted material and if it “recombines elements to make a new work that depends for its meaning on (often unlikely) relationships between the elements” (8). These two qualities are also two of the defining qualities of political remix video. For instance, they write that work meets the second criteria if it creates “new meaning by juxtaposition,” noting that in these cases “the recombinant new work has a cultural identity of its own and addresses an audience different from those for which its components were intended” (9). Remixes that use elements of familiar sources in unlikely combinations, such as those made by Elisa Kreisinger, generally seek to reach an audience who are familiar with the source content, but also object to it. Sex and the City, for instance, while it initially seemed willing to take on previously “taboo” topics in its exploration of dating in Manhattan, ended with each of the heterosexual characters paired with an opposite sex partner, and forays from this heteronormative narrative were contained either within in one-off episodes or tokenised gay characters. For this reason, Kreisinger noted that the intended audience for Queer Carrie were the queer and feminist viewers of Sex and the City who felt that the show was overly normative and exclusionary (Kreisinger, Art:21). As a result, the target audience of these remixes is different from the target audience of the source material—though the full nuance of the argument is best understood by those familiar with the source. Thus, the remix affirms the segment of the viewing community who saw only tokenised representations of their identity in the source text, and in so doing offers a critique of the original’s heteronormative focus.Fair Use and the VernacularVernacular discourse, as broadly defined by Kent A. Ono and John M. Sloop, refers to discourses that “emerge from discussions between members of self-identified smaller communities within the larger civic community.” It operates partially through appropriating dominant discourses in ways better suited to the vernacular community, through practices of pastiche and cultural syncretism (23). In an effort to better describe the intricacies of this type of discourse, Robert Glenn Howard theorised a hybrid “dialectical vernacular” that oscillates between institutional and vernacular discourse. This hybridity arises from the fact that the institutional and the vernacular are fundamentally inseparable, the vernacular establishing its meaning by asserting itself against the institutional (Howard, Toward 331). When put into use online, this notion of a “dialectical vernacular” is particularly interesting as it refers not only to the content of vernacular messages but also to their means of production. Howard notes that discourse embodying the dialectical vernacular is by nature secondary to institutional discourse, that the institutional must be clearly “structurally prior” (Howard, Vernacular 499). With this in mind it is unsurprising that political remix video—which asserts its secondary nature by calling upon pre-existing copyrighted content while simultaneously reaching out to smaller segments of the civic community—would qualify as a vernacular discourse.The notion of an institutional source’s structural prevalence also echoes throughout work on remix, both in practical guides such as the Center for Social Media’s “Best Practices” as well as in more theoretical takes on remix, like Eduardo Navas’ essay “Turbulence: Remixes + Bonus Beats,” in which he writes that:In brief, the remix when extended as a cultural practice is a second mix of something pre-existent; the material that is mixed for a second time must be recognized, otherwise it could be misunderstood as something new, and it would become plagiarism […] Without a history, the remix cannot be Remix. An elegant theoretical concept, this becomes muddier when considered in light of copyright law. If the history of remix is what gives it its meaning—the source text from which it is derived—then it is this same history that makes a fair use remix vulnerable to DMCA takedowns and other forms of discipline on YouTube. However, as per the criteria outlined by the Center for Social Media, it is also from this ironic juxtaposition of institutional sources that the remix object establishes its meaning, and thus its vernacularity. In this sense, the force of a political remix video’s argument is in many ways dependent on its status as an object in peril: vulnerable to the force of a law that has not yet swung in its favor, yet subversive nonetheless.With this in mind, YouTube and other UGC platforms represent a fraught layer of mediation between institutional and vernacular. As a site for the sharing of amateur video, YouTube has the potential to affirm small communities as users share similar videos, follow one particular channel together, or comment on videos posted by people in their networks. However, YouTube’s interface (rife with advertisements, constantly reminding users of its affiliation with Google) and cooperation with rights holders establish it as an institutional space. As such, remixes on the site are already imbued with the characteristic hybridity of the dialectical vernacular. This is especially true when the remixers (as in the case of PRV) have made the conscious choice to advocate for fair use at the same time that they distribute remixes dealing with other themes and resonating with other communities. ConclusionPolitical remix video sits at a fruitful juncture with regard to copyright as well as vernacularity. Like almost all remix, it makes its meaning through juxtaposing sources in a unique way, calling upon viewers to think about familiar texts in a new light. This creation invokes a new audience—a quality that makes it both vernacular and also a fair use of content. Given that PRV is defined by the “guerrilla” use of copyrighted footage, it has the potential to stand as a political statement outside of the thematic content of the remix simply due to the nature of its composition. This gives PRV tremendous potential for multivalent argument, as a video can simultaneously represent a marginalised community while advocating for copyright reform. This is only reinforced by the fact that many political video remixers have become vocal in advocating for fair use, asserting the strength of their community and their common goal.In addition to this argumentative richness, PRV’s relation to fair use and vernacularity exposes the complexity of the remix form: it continually oscillates between institutional affiliations and smaller vernacular communities. However, the hybridity of these remixes produces tension, much of which manifests on YouTube, where videos are easily responded to and challenged by both institutuional and vernacular authorities. In addition, a tension exists in the remix text itself between the source and the new, remixed message. Further research should attend to these areas of tension, while also exploring the tenacity of the remix community and their ability to advocate for themselves while circumventing copyright law.References“About Political Remix Video.” Political Remix Video. 15 Feb. 2012. ‹http://www.politicalremixvideo.com/what-is-political-remix/›.Aufderheide, Patricia, and Peter Jaszi. Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2008. Kindle.“Code of Best Practices for Fair Use in Online Video.” The Center For Social Media, 2008. Van Dijck, José. “Users like You? Theorizing Agency in User-Generated Content.” Media Culture Society 31 (2009): 41-58.“A Guide to YouTube Removals,” The Electronic Frontier Foundation, 15 June 2013 ‹https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-YouTube-removals›.Hilderbrand, Lucas. “YouTube: Where Cultural Memory and Copyright Converge.” Film Quarterly 61.1 (2007): 48-57.Howard, Robert Glenn. “The Vernacular Web of Participatory Media.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 25.5 (2008): 490-513.Howard, Robert Glenn. “Toward a Theory of the World Wide Web Vernacular: The Case for Pet Cloning.” Journal of Folklore Research 42.3 (2005): 323-60.“How Content ID Works.” YouTube. 21 June 2013. ‹https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en›.Jenkins, Henry, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York: New York U P, 2013. Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York U P, 2006. Kreisinger, Elisa. Interview with Nick Briz. Art:21. Art:21, 30 June 2011. 21 June 2013.Kreisinger, Elisa. “Queer Video Remix and LGBTQ Online Communities,” Transformative Works and Cultures 9 (2012). 19 June 2013 ‹http://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/395/264›.Kreisinger, Elisa. Pop Culture Pirate. < http://www.popculturepirate.com/ >.Lessig, Lawrence. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. New York: Penguin Books, 2008. PDF.Meyers, B.G. “Filtering Systems or Fair Use? A Comparative Analysis of Proposed Regulations for User-Generated Content.” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 26.3: 935-56.Miller, Joseph M. “Fair Use through the Lenz of § 512(c) of the DMCA: A Preemptive Defense to a Premature Remedy?” Iowa Law Review 95 (2009-2010): 1697-1729.Navas, Eduardo. “Turbulence: Remixes + Bonus Beats.” New Media Fix 1 Feb. 2007. 10 June 2013 ‹http://newmediafix.net/Turbulence07/Navas_EN.html›.Ono, Kent A., and John M. Sloop. Shifting Borders: Rhetoric, Immigration and California’s Proposition 187. Philadelphia: Temple U P, 2002.“Privacy Policy – Policies & Principles.” Google. 19 June 2013 ‹http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/›.Postigo, Hector. “Capturing Fair Use for The YouTube Generation: The Digital Rights Movement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the User-Centered Framing of Fair Use.” Information, Communication & Society 11.7 (2008): 1008-27.“Statistics – YouTube.” YouTube. 21 June 2013 ‹http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html›.“US Copyright Office: Fair Use,” U.S. Copyright Office. 19 June 2013 ‹http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html›.“YouTube Help.” YouTube FAQ. 19 June 2013 ‹http://support.google.com/youtube/?hl=en&topic=2676339&rd=2›.

This chapter discusses Ida. B. Wells's crusade against Negro lynching and other abuses. Illinois newspapers adhering to the Democratic Party almost invariably treated the Negroes with undisguised hostility, while even the Republican press often subjected them to heavy-handed humor. While attention was centered upon those unfortunate enough to become involved with the police, the most eminent colored people were not immune to ridicule and abuse. This chapter looks at the efforts of Wells, whose reputation as a journalist and crusader against lynching spread after the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, when she collaborated with Frederick Douglass, I. Garland Penn, and Ferdinand L. Barnett on writing a booklet recording the achievements of American Negroes and refuting the false impressions created by most of the newspapers. Wells wrote for various Negro publications under the pseudonym “Iola” and was recognized as the most implacable and effective enemy of mob rule and racial discrimination in general.

The Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential nomination was supposed to be the inevitable coronation of Hillary Clinton. She was the most well-known candidate; had the most support from the party establishment, and had, by far, the most financial resources. Two big names (Al Gore and John Kerry) considered running, but decided they had no hope of defeating the Clinton machine. That left an unlikely assortment of lesser-knowns: a U.S. Representative from Ohio (Dennis Kucinich), the Governor of New Mexico (Bill Richardson), and several U.S. Senators: Joe Biden (Delaware), John Edwards (North Carolina), Chris Dodd (Connecticut), Mike Gravel (Alaska), and Barack Obama (Illinois). The nomination went off script. Obama was a first-term senator, a black man with an unhelpful name, but he excited voters. He raised enough money to be competitive in the Iowa caucuses and he persuaded Oprah Winfrey to campaign for him. Obama defeated Clinton by eight percentage points in Iowa and the race was on. Obama won the Democratic nomination and, then, the presidential election against Republican John McCain because the Obama campaign had a lot more going for it than Obama’s eloquence and charisma: Big Data. The Obama campaign tried to put every potential voter into its data base, along with hundreds of tidbits of personal information: age, gender, marital status, race, religion, address, occupation, income, car registrations, home value, donation history, magazine subscriptions, leisure activities, Facebook friends, and anything else they could find that seemed relevant. Some data were collected from public data bases, some from e-mail exchanges or campaign workers knocking on front doors. Some data were purchased from private data vendors. Layered on top were weekly telephone surveys of thousands of potential voters which not only gathered personal data, but also attempted to gauge each person’s likelihood of voting—and voting for Obama. These voter likelihoods were correlated statistically with personal characteristics and extrapolated to other potential voters based on their personal characteristics. The campaign’s computer software predicted how likely each person its data base was to vote and the probability that the vote would be for Obama. This data-driven model allowed the campaign to microtarget individuals through e-mails, snail mail, personal visits, and television ads asking for donations and votes.