Dole Group

Here is an article just about some interesting facts about the election, Just some interesting things to think about when looking at the results of the election.

This column by David Brooks about the changing nature of the American electorate and the Republican's inability to understand it seems to nail many of the issues Republicans have with minority voters. The old days of white male Protestant individualism is a mindset that is slipping away as our country is made up of more cultures who believe both in the commitment to hard work and to the idea that government programs can insight work and enhance opportunity. It's funny to hear the Republicans now talk only about immigration reform as they try to reach Latino and Asian voters. David Brooks shows that there is much more listening and understanding the Republicans still have to do.

I don't want to sound naive, but I feel like the "small government" argument is beginning to be an outdated argument. Obviously, there will always be conservatives, but I think they are going to need to start fitting the desire of the electorate. For example, in California, a state that votes very fiscally conservative on its propositions, we passed a bill that raises taxes to pay for education. I don't have any stats on this, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that if most people in America were asked the question, "would you raise taxes on wealthy people to help pay for education?" I believe people would say yes.

I think that the Republicans were able to go into the mind set of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" in the past few elections as this change started to happen. Now they clearly cannot have that mind set or they will not go far as a political party. If they can embrace this change and allow themselves to work to attract a broader demographic they will be able to make the 2016 election and interesting one. I do believe though that it is hard to let go of because it has been their "status quo" of sorts for awhile.

This is just a reminder that Obama is not the "champion of liberal values" that many liberals would want him to be. It will be interesting to see how this whole "fiscal cliff" problem ends up, but I doubt anyone will be happy about it.

I agree, I think it is tough for Obama because he will get a lot of criticism from his own party for not living up to those liberal values. It is going to be a hard for Obama to figure out a way to work with Republicans while still pleasing the Democrats. I do think though that he will be able to find a balance at some point.

This to came up a lot in my debate this Saturday and i think it is an overall summary of the situation in Iran which needs to be dealt with. What are your views on Iran and how should we being dealing with them. Are they a legit threat?

I think the "Iran issue," or whatever you want to call it, is way overdramatized. We're not going to go to war with Iran. Our sanctions are destroying the value of their currency. There is nothing more we can do to "deal with" them. And no, I'd say they are not a legit threat. While it is debated, it seems to me like they aren't close to getting a nuclear bomb at all. They are closer to having the materials to construct one, but they don't have the technology or the actual warhead to put that material into.

I agree with John that Iran is a bizzarre threat. If Iran wanted to hit that drone they probably could have. Maybe they were trying to send a message, but I do not really think it came across. I also agree with Eli that this is way overdramatize. People are just always nervous about things that could happen, as soon as anyone hears nuke they freak out even if there is none.

This article talks about the challenge Obama has in the next for years due to the divide between parties. Things could get messy if he can not somehow convince the Republicans to open up and start breaking down party barriers. It does not really make sense for this divide because everyone involved should really just want the country to run the best it can and it will not with the divide. It is a tough battle that Obama is going to face, but if there can be a good relationship between parties our country will be on a much better track than it is now.

Will our country be on a better track? I read an op-ed piece from Paul Krugman (link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/opinion/krugman-lets-not-make-a-deal.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), my favorite economist, that said Obama shouldn't strike a deal at all. I found his piece really compelling and worth reading.

Just a final thought before this blog thing ends. I think about how heated the election got and everything, but in the end we have a president and we all must support him in his troubles. Speaking of which, there are a LOT. Already a drone has been shot at, the head of the C.I.A has stepped down and a general has been implicated in the scandal. Overall, what do you guys think is the most pressing issue facing Obama in this new term?

I think domestic policy will be much more important than foreign policy over the next couple of years. Republicans and Democrats are pretty much in consensus on foreign policy concerns. Domestic policy however is a much different story. This "fiscal cliff" problem is a huge issue that Republicans and Democrats will have to deal with. Probably nobody will happy with the out come. I think wealthy people's taxes will go up and entitlements will also be cut; is that compromise or is everyone losing? I guess that's more of a philosophical question, but it's something I've been thinking about a lot recently.

Here is another article about how Romney was not really prepared for the loss. The only thing that Romney really won was white men in America, which is the category he pretty much perfectly fits in. here is a good quote from the article about the disregard of a lot of Americans. "Romney and Tea Party loonies dismissed half the country as chattel and moochers who did not belong in their "traditional" America. But the more they insulted the president with birther cracks, the more they tried to force chastity belts on women, and the more they made Hispanics, blacks and gays feel like the help, the more these groups burned to prove that, knitted together, they could give the dead-enders of white male domination the boot." It amazes me that the republicans ran a race directed at "traditional" America when we are clearly in a time of great change. 

This article in The Economist does a good job of summing up where Obama had the edge over Romney. It was clear, as we've talked about, that his message resonated most with young women, minorities, the educated, and the young. He won female voters by eleven points, which was more than enough to beat Romney's seven point advantage among men, especially because women make up more of the population than men. I thought it was also interesting to learn that Obama enjoyed a lead of 13% among voters who had post-graduate degrees. The article does imply that Obama past legislation in order to reach certain groups. Their examples include the Lilly Ledbetter Act to reach women, the Dream Act for Latinos. They also acuse Obama's campaign for being unnecessarily negative about Romney's business background implying that he only cared about the rich. I didn't know that Obama's campaign opened three times as many field offices as Romney. Though it is disillusioning to consider all the things a good man like Obama must do to get elected, it's obvious his campaign was smart, and up to date. The graphs of who voted for each candidate are worth taking a look at. It's particularly interesting to me that Romney won the votes of people whose annual income in under $50,000 and Obama won with those making over $50,000.

This is a nice bit of Romney retrospect, investigating what I looked at as his greatest asset during the race: his past as a successful businessman. In an election where the economy is inarguably the most important issue to voters, I saw his business savvy as something that would resonate with a lot of people. These authors are suggesting reasons why business success does not always translate well to politics. A convincing one, brought up early on in the piece, is the idea that CEO's and "money men" are required to interact with people below them in their respective hierarchy in a fundamentally different way. Namely, businessmen are not as used to people telling them what they don't want to hear. Another Romney-specific point a commenter raises is that Romney is not a businessman in the same way as a manufacturing CEO or someone like that: he is a "deal-maker," less involved in leading a company than striking enormous deals with other men like himself. The idea that a country is a business, and should be run by a businessman, seems like an easy train of thought to arrive to when our economy still struggling from a recession. This article brings up some interesting contradictions to this part of the Romney campaign. While I looked at his experience (not counting his superwealth) as an asset to a man promising to fix the economy, the article pointed to ways that this can actually hurt him. An interesting one has to do with the basic dynamics of the election: where a businessman needs to sell a good product, a president has to address people and communities as the things that need to be "fixed." This is where elections become personal, and where I saw Romney struggling to connect. This kind of thinking led to the infamous 47% comment: in the eyes of a businessman, discounting a part of a company implies nothing personal. To the rest of America, he was talking about friends and neighbors. This is where I believe he failed: running a country is fundamen

This article highlights the significance of the Benghazi attacks for Obama as the foreign policy debate looms in his future. The author presents the developments to the story in manner sympathetic to Obama, pointing to the difference between "spontaneous" and "opportunistic" in the description of the attack and the "fog of war" Hilary Clinton has used to describe the evolution of the intelligence information. The author also selects the specific points that have become "politically petty": the vocabulary used in the initial attack, whether "terror" was meant in a general way by Obama or specifically geared toward the murder of the ambassador. A new development I hadn't heard about involves House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, who endangered the lives of several Libyans by releasing information about their work for the US government at the Embassy. The Benghazi discussion is fascinating to me in a train-wreck sort of way: I agree with what Dan said in class about it basically being a non-issue, and has digressed into the candidates bashing each other on things that have nothing to do with the violence itself. In my opinion, one of two things should be happening: Romney and media outlets should either accuse Obama of deliberately covering up a terrorist attack if that's what they think happened, or they should drop the Benghazi issue if they recognize that extremely complicated events on the other side of the planet evolve over time instead of being obvious immediately. Topics like Obama's drone strike program and Romney's Iran prospects are really substantive and should be talked about at length, but rehashing Benghazi over and over again seems like a distraction from a broader foreign policy debate to me. In the end, I don't feel like the article really answered the question it set forth (why Obama is being attacked on what many consider to be a non-issue). In my opinion, Romney and eager media outlets are looking for a campaign game-changer where ther

Yeah, this was a huge non-issue that I think had no effect on the election whatsoever. Whether or not Romney did a good job of hitting Obama on it, after the debate in which Candy Crowley stepped in, the issue was over. I really didn't think this would be a big deal in the election, and sure enough, it wasn't.

I know the election is over and all, but I just got back from a Speech and Debate Tournament where my debate topic was foreign policy. This subject came up a lot, as I was arguing against the current policy, and it was very effective so I can see why this topic is still dogging Obama. Overall I think the foreign policy is bad and think it should be changed.

This is a unique format for a political article, but Frank Rich always brings up interesting ideas. While the outcome was unknown at the time of the interview, I think this is a solid analysis of how Sandy affected the outcome of the election and offers a good explanation for how Christie and Bloomberg may have hurt Romney. Chris Christie's consistent lack of support for Romney is interesting both in terms of his own future political career and tensions within a party. I wonder if Christie's hesitation about Romney came solely out of disliking the governor or thinking a win for Romney would really lower his own chances of a win. The second to last question, about what Romney's concession speech, is a little funny after seeing the real deal, I don't feel like that was Romney's "best moment." Thoughts?

I have a hard time with the idea that Sandy changed the race. If we look at all the polling data, Obama was well ahead in the swing states before Sandy. I'm not sure how much of an effect it really had and anyone that says differently is really just speculating. To be honest, I think most people in politics realized Romney was going to lose. Whether or not that affected how Christie reacted to the storm, no way of knowing. In class, Romney's concession speech came under a lot of fire, but I thought it was fine. It did what it needed to do. I remember watching it with my mom and we both commented on how gracious Romney seemed to be. I think Romney realized that was the end for him in politics, which must have been a bitter realization too.

This is about how Romney was caught off guard by the Obama victory. Romney was blindly optimistic and overlooked his opposition and the voters of America. They went into election day only really thinking about what they had found in research and did not really touch on the idea of worst case senario. There is defiantly no way someone can win a presidential campaign without thinking of every possibility and how to combat them. In the end his slight unpreparedness was a factor in his loss. 

It is pretty crazy that he took the election as a given, and I tend to agree with you that it is the wrong way to approach an election. In this article, I was particularly fascinated by the way that the author characterizes the Obama ground game as "conservative": especially with the polls behind him, I thought that Obama and his team seemed just as confident as Romney. Maybe this is the important distinction: like you're saying, Romney was "blindly optimistic" and really sincere about this optimism. While I think it's smart for both candidates to act like they're sure they will win, they should always act like it's a close race when running a campaign.

This article shows that in times of need the federal government can really help states. With hurricane Sandy the majority of New Jersey was destroyed and the republican governor Chris Christie was welcome to the federal aid that was given. If Romney was president at the time of the hurricane he would have left it up to the states to rebuild themselves. Sandy is a clear example of how the federal government is for the benefit of the country its inhabitants. The author also brings up Hurricane Betsy, which took place in 1965 and how the governor of Louisiana (who once thought about seceding from the country) realized how the federal government is a necessity in this country. 

It is important to keep in mind the difference between FEMA's response to Katrina during the Bush Administration when it was led by someone who had little disaster experience and FEMA's response to Sandy. This article shows that when political rhetoric is dropped, people do want government to help with disasters. It would seem that government organizations during administrations that take government roles seriously are more likely to have strong government services. I guess that might be wishful thinking.

I pretty much agree with what all you guys are saying. I think Hurricane Sandy has been a good reminder of the need for government services and problem we have with climate change. Hopefully, people will learn from this horrific storm.

     This is a kind-of-funny article about the many conservatives who are criticizing Chris Christie as being responsible for Romney's loss. They call him some funny names, and it's interesting to see this especially considering his potential for a presidential run in 2016.

It is funny to think that the Republican's need a whipping boy for the Romney loss when there's so much information about the Republican's inability to reach Latinos, women and other groups. My guess is that Chris Christie will be able to use his conduct during Sandy to his benefit. All he has to do is spin it to highlight his leadership and his ability to "reach across the aisle."

I like Chris Christie so much after his dealing with Hurricane Sandy. He clearly put his state first and did what he needed to do. I doubt this will have much weight in 2016. If Chris Christie runs for president, I doubt this will eve be on the table. He is one of the stronger candidates that the GOP has and it would be dumb of them to discredit him for helping his state in a time of need by working with the president.

This is a really thorough opinion piece about how American politics drift left or right. The mention of how both candidates this election have gained more support whenever they did something left-leaning, like "not until [Obama] began talking like a populist did he begin picking up steam in the polls" and Romney " taking back his promise of tax cuts for the rich and proposing instead to let people choose which tax deductions they wanted to take," is especially interesting and makes the idea that politics are likely to continue to drift rightward even more unsettling. I really enjoy this type of political writing where they talk about how each candidate's win would affect future politics, and this article does it well.

The writer of this article actually seems to think that despite the drift to the right that Obama and more particularly Romney and the Republican party were making is not a good idea. He ends the piece suggesting that whichever candidate wins the election must move away from old Reagan era positions. I agree with him.

I found this piece fascinating. It seems to me like America is moving rightward fiscally, and leftward socially. I wonder how that will look in the future. I agree with what John said about healthcare and defense spending. I think that kind of backs up my point about our fiscal conservatism. The article doesn't talk too much about social issues, but the country really voted liberally on social issues in this election.

We have spent a lot of time on this group talking about the bias of particular news-sources, particularly the New York Times. It is interesting to look at more straight-forward endorsements that the paper makes and go back through history to see who else the paper has supported, seeing the first endorsement of Lincoln to their current one for Obama is particularly astounding, considering how often Obama references Lincoln in his speeches. Though most papers try to maintain some bipartisanship, when they do make their political allegiances clear they send a powerful message. I wonder how much influence their endorsements make, especially if they are already a left-leaning or heavily conservative paper and their readership is similarly aligned. But with a paper as widespread and respected as the New York Times, I am sure it has some influence on undecided voters.

I wonder as I look through the changing parties in the endorsements how much it indicates changes in the Democratic and Republican parties and how much it reflects editorial changes. Early on the paper endorsed many Republicans and haven't for many years recently. It was particularly interesting to see how many times they endorsed candidates running against FDR. I would have imagined that the editors of today's paper would have endorsed him during each election.

Cody, I don't think it has much to do with "endorsing along party line" as it has to do with the fact that the editors for the NY times tend to be liberal. I don't think they are just like "oh, we'll support the Democrat." I'm sure it has more to do with the policies and beliefs of the candidates and those beliefs and policies that align with the NY Times tend to be Democratic candidates. I also don't mean to be foolish here, but it seems like liberal policies have worked for the most part. Whenever we here about another era in America, it always harkens back to times with bigger government, higher taxes.