Skip to main content

Home/ Dole Group/ Group items tagged election

Rss Feed Group items tagged

miles henderson

Romney Adopts Softer Tone in Critique of Obama - 3 views

  •  
    This article is very interesting because of the timing of Romney's softer tone in the critique of Obama so soon after many voters heard about the 43% comment Romney made. I think if Romney wants any chance of winning, he really needs to watch what he says and make sure he isn't made out to seem like more of a bad guy in the media. Although Romney compliments Obamacare he still points out what he does not like about it, showing his strong stance on what he thinks is positive and what needs change. It is unique that Romney is pointing out positive aspects of Obama care, because the GOP have often used Obamacare as one of the reasons why he should not be president again.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I tend to agree with you that being super partisan hasn't really worked for him so far, and that being a little nicer could be a good tactic. I like the point you make about Obamacare Just because he doesn't like it, doesn't mean that his policy needs to be entirely distinct from it in every way. This article reminds me of a conversation we had in our class about the "race to the center" that usually surrounds campaigning: since Obama and Romney have the far left and far right on their sides, the battle should be for the centrist voters. Maybe it's because of the general radicalization of his party (tea-party, etc.), but it seems to me that Romney hasn't been playing this game as much as he should. He can, and I would say should, be opposed to Obama in clear and distinct ways if he hopes to win, but I agree with you that it would be foolish to oppose him unconditionally. This attitude puts him in the position of bad guy.
  •  
    I don't think Romney has said what he wants to keep or change at all. The idea that he could only keep the part about preexisting conditions is actually impossible when you take a look at the law. Without a lot of the portions of the act, the preexisting conditions pare doesn't work. By making all Americans essentially purchase healthcare, the healthcare companies can provide for people with preexisting conditions. Without that part of the law, it wouldn't really work for the insurance companies to profitably have people with preexisting conditions covered. I look at this as more rhetoric without substance. Check the article I posted about Obamacare and conservative ideals. I think it paints a nice picture of why Romney is screwed when it comes to talking Obamacare.
  •  
    Yeah, this is an interesting call for Romney. I'm happy about it, but it certainly does seem calculated, especially his response of that he wants to keep "the part about pre-existing conditions." The phrase pre-existing condition is such an agitative buzzword, and it seems that this is a move intended to remove that specific buzzword from Obama's arsenal of rhetoric intended to pump up the base.
  •  
    I agree with what you said John about how this could be part of a Romney tactic of moving towards the center and I am curious what aspects of Obama's policies and ideas Romney would consider taking on. It's interesting to think about this in the context of your comment Eli, because it seems like a lot of the concepts that Romney latches onto simply don't work with the reality of a policy or with the Republican platform. Saying that he supports coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions could make Romney more appealing on a human level, but if it is so detached from his general stance, it ends up being useless. I think a more well-thought out focus on centrists could be really beneficial.
cody s

Andrew Sullivan on the Promise of Obama's Second Term - Newsweek and The Daily Beast - 5 views

  •  
    This article addresses the potential of Obama's second term. Andrew Sullivan is a great writer (you all should look at his blog) and in this piece he predicts that in the event of an Obama win, several things would happen. First, he says, the Republican party would (might) experience a kind of whiplash from its extreme radicalization and loss, becoming more moderate. This - the cooperation of the Republicans in the Senate - could allow Obama to become a bi-partisan hero, dealing with the deficit and immigration reform. Why he chose Reagan to compare to I don't really know, but it's an interesting read.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    The part about the "whiplash" for the Republican Party that you mention is compelling to me, partly because I've read things (I think a few on this Diigo group) that have suggested the exact opposite. Some Democrats are hoping that the radicalization of the Republican Party will continue and make a Democrat victory in 2016 a sure thing. What Sullivan is suggesting seems to make more sense. What he portrays as an entirely new second-term America under Obama seems to fit perfectly with the President's message of "finishing the job," and frankly strikes me as a little idealistic. The section on the first page that describes the unique conditions for a Reagan status second term (tax cuts, deficit was smaller, etc.) is very telling to me: from what I can tell, these circumstances don't exist in the same way today. For him to transform into the "bi-partisan hero" you are talking about with things like immigration reform, it seems like he will need to not simply "finish the job," but take on a totally new strategy (like, as Sullivan points out, Reagan did in his second term).
  •  
    This is a very compelling argument for giving Obama 4 more years to finish what he has started. Even though it talks about "potential not prediction." More and more I'm understanding that Reagan was more of a centrist and more practical than idealogical.
  •  
    I like the idea in this article that you brought up Cody, about Obama becoming a widely supported bipartisan President if he wins again, but it is pretty debased throughout by the constant references to today's great polarization between left and right. While the great partisanship between states and people and politicians is mentioned about other ideas, it seems pretty dreamy to think Obama could sidestep this in terms of his own legacy. Though Obama may not be able to change how the right perceives him, I think the difference between Sullivan's prediction about Republicans becoming more centrist compared to earlier ideas we have discussed where Republicans just become further absorbed in their sparsely-supported and deeply conservative views is really interesting and I am fascinated to see how that plays out. I can see how another win for Obama would lead Republicans to reconsider their platform and targeted voting blocs, but also the idea of withdrawing into their misguided viewpoints in a protectionist-type way also makes sense.
  •  
    Well, it looks like what Sullivan predicted is right. The Republicans did experience a "whiplash" for all of their super right wing policies. I heard an interesting statistic that if the Republicans hadn't been able to do so much redistricting for their house seats, demographically, they would have lost the majority in the house.
Eli Melrod

Week 5: Nobody Understands Debt - 2 views

  •  
    This is an old op-ed piece from one of my favorite economist's, Paul Krugman. I think what he says still rings true. When we hear politicians talk about debt, it always seems so simple; countries borrow money and then owe that money. Krugman explains that it isn't that simple. Ever since reading this piece, I've had a much different take on the idea of "national debt." Let me know if guys find him convincing.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    Debt is a term so easily thrown in politics and it is often given very little numerical context, which has always made it seem pretty hazy to me. This piece discusses debt in an unfamiliar, but clear and understandable, way. I agree that this changes how I perceive the term and the urgency it actually warrants. The article discusses what politicians are actually talking about when they reference debt and the deficit and makes the erroneous nature of how we deal with and talk about debt more rooted in ideas and less in the actual money owed. While it is a little disheartening to know that the challenges we might face when dealing with debt are caused by faulty ideas and political beliefs, also understanding that the problem is in some ways self-made and that "other things matter more" puts the term in perspective.
  •  
    I really like this guy. To me, he paints a really compelling picture of what is becoming a massive issue in this election, and the way he shoots down the image of the US "deep in hock to the Chinese" is both funny and really troubling. Honestly, the way the idea of national debt has been explained to me in the past has been, according to Krugman, entirely fictional. I agree with you, Eli, that politicians talk about debt in this way intentionally: they are able to convince people like me, with no background in economics, of very simple truths that line up with their platforms. That being said, Krugman does leave me with a lot more questions than answers. I am unclear about a lot of the mechanics of his description (the US owing money to itself, how these massive "debts" are even paid off), but it seems to me like the general message is that it isn't a really big deal. From what I can tell, this is a pretty convincing message.
  •  
    Krugman says "Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we are impoverished by the need to pay back the debt." They think it's like a mortgage-that's how i see it. He says that we don't have to pay it back, just make sure it grows more slowly than the tax base. We owe it to ourselves, but I still think national debt is money owed that needs to be paid back and can inhibit economic growth. Dollars paid to the debt could be used for tangible things like infrastructure and education.
Eli Melrod

Week 6: Why Obamacare is a Conservative\'s Dream - 7 views

  •  
    This article is a great explanation for the article that Miles posted last week, "Romney Adopts Softer Tone in Critique of Obama." Obamacare is the epitome of a centralist solution to healthcare, but the Republicans in the house are too caught up in politics to admit that it is actually a good compromise. It is interesting looking at Romney's own plan for Massachusetts in comparison to Obamacare, because they are essentially the same plan. Because Romney has taken up the issue of "repealing Obamacare," he has really dug himself a hole, because what is the conservative alternative? No healthcare plan? It seems to me that this kind of partisan politics is the reason that Romney is doing so poorly in the election.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    This article does a good job of explaining the conservative nature of Obamacare by mentioning how the plan brings forth "principles originally embraced by Republicans" and showing that "because it is not a government takeover of health care," it has few large Democrat supporters. This sentence sums it up well and demonstrates the ridiculousness of the situation: "Mr. Obama's plan, which should be a darling of the right for these principles, was abandoned not for its content, but rather for politics." I am also wondering where that leaves the Republicans, since if Romney is anti-"Romneycare across state lines," what would his health care plan be? Furthermore, instead of attacking Obamacare, he could be giving himself the credit for the basic idea which would certainly help his campaign, gain wider-spread support, and make him appear more the right-leaning centrist.
  •  
    As someone who doesn't understand the details of Obamacare, this was really compelling. I remember someone in the chat room on debate night mentioning that the Mass. plan is basically identical to Obama's, like you said, Eli, so it's more confusing to me that Romney keeps objecting to it as a whole than that he agrees to it in part. Also, Eli, just as there is not really clear Republican alternative to Obamacare, I wonder what the Democrats who are "lukewarm" about it would rather see? I agree with what you're saying in your last sentence, Mabel. It seems like he's already headed in that direction, but should probably hurry it up if he wants it to pay off with the moderate electorate. Even if he can't claim Obama's plan, he could definitely latch onto "personal responsibility" and other traditionally conservative values behind it as more reflective of his own platform.
  •  
    This article is the best. It provides such a clear, concise explanation of Obamacare. And it really does, if you know this, invalidate Romney's entire platform. Obamacare is a centrist healthcare plan, and it's just like Romneycare. Romney is running on a platform of "anti-Obama," and all he's saying that he'll do is remove and replace Obama's policies -- but with what? Romney isn't saying. It really is astounding how much vitriol there is in America directed towards Obama, who is largely a centrist in his policies.
  •  
    This article, like the Obamanomics, shows how too often politics takes precedent over policy. It's very disturbing that when something is as critical as health insurance for as many people as possible, is lost in a political battle. It sounds like even though the Democrats and Republicans agree on the most important aspects of Obamacare, it became mired in its present battle because the White House "rammed the bill through Congress." And the Republicans "lashed back with a vengeance." These political battles seem so petty when so much is at stake and everybody basically agrees on policy.
Anna Schutte

The Remaking of the President - 0 views

  •  
    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.
mabel taylor

Frank Rich on the National Circus: Why Sandy Didn't Change the Race - 1 views

  •  
    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.
Jonah Schacter

Romney Is President - NYTimes.com - 0 views

  •  
    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. 
Jonah Schacter

Sandy and Chris Christie: Lessons from Hurricane Betsy in 1965. - Slate Magazine - 4 views

  •  
    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. 
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    The whole Chris Christie response has been fascinating to me during the Sandy aftermath. The way he completely shifted on Obama was really clear on the news clip I saw, where his agressive attack on Obama's ability to lead the country was superimposed with his really profound praise for him during FEMA. I agree with what you're saying about Sandy saying something real about the rhetoric of government spending. It's one thing to criticize government programs like FEMA during a period of calm, and much, much harder when they are being implemented effectively right in front of you. In the end, though, Christie's switch might not have been much of a switch at all. As someone mentioned in class, FEMA is already in large part state run and in large part private. He was likely showing a better understanding of it.
  •  
    This is an interesting article. You could (for fun, not really as a legitimate exercise) expand this as a metaphor for the problem with conservatism: it works for the rich, or the people unaffected by the hurricane, but to the poor and the hurricane-affected liberal philosophy is clearly superior. I wonder how much Sandy and Christie actually helped Obama - I read somewhere that Obama jumped a whole percentage point the day after Christie praised him, though who really can ever explain a poll bounce with any certainty.
  •  
    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.
mabel taylor

The Ungreat Debate - 4 views

  •  
    I was most interested by the first and last paragraphs in this New Yorker article about the first Presidential debate. The beginning paragraph talks about how expectations made by the "expectorate" largely came true and how political interpretations and actual situations can be so utterly dominated by the media and other politicians' assumptions. It seems so simple that this sometimes anonymous group of "journalists, columnists, bloggers, television commentators, politicians, and 'strategists'" can have such a great impact on not only the perception of a political event but also the actual happenings because a candidate can just work to fulfill their expectations. People expected Romney to do well and he prepared and he won. (Though this article also makes the interesting distinction that not only did Romney win, Obama lost). The last paragraph frames Romney's flip-flopping tendencies in a different and more positive light. By constantly changing his viewpoints, both in his political career and as of late, Romney cannot be pinned down and sold as a specific type of bad person to the electorate. When Romney alters where he stands on the political spectrum and often successfully pulls himself into the center, the Obama campaign can again and again maintain that "all the evidence indicates that Romney has no 'core beliefs,'" but it makes their negative campaign much more difficult.
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    The first paragraph really caught me too. It kind of gives me hope, though, that even the "expectorate" you mentioned were wrong (although I would much prefer that the debate had turned out differently). With all the talk we've been doing in class about how polls and political ads turn out to be self-fulfilling, influencing opinion instead of documenting it, it's nice to see that parts of the race are entirely unpredictable and totally in the power of the candidates and their stances. The point you brought up about him flip-flopping is fascinating to me, especially because of the research I've been doing about his immigration policy for the Issue's Project. I've found that the sheer number of stances he has on deportation and visa quotas makes it really hard to criticize his view. More than that, it's hard to figure out which one he supports right now. In this way, I see him not having to compromise between two sides of an issue, immigration or other. Instead of going for the center, he seems to be playing both sides, and that seems harder to pin down like you say.
  •  
    This article definitely made me think. I feel like the immediate media dissection of the debates is definitely not a productive thing... it takes away from people actually watching the debate and forming their own opinions, and turns the debates into yet another poll thing, just another W in one candidate or another's column. This is definitely a new thing with the internet and the speed of communication, and it's interesting to see it helping Romney.
  •  
    I am also intrigued by John's reference to the self fulfilling nature of polls, pundits and political analysis. Would people have thought Romney clearly won if they hadn't been told he would and then told he did? How long are people actually influenced by these kinds of pieces of information? Do they remember what Romney stood for before the debate? If so, how do they feel about him changing his position? Do they simply want him to win and then think that he was smart to modify how he presented his ideas?
  •  
    I personally find post-debate coverage helpful to determine who "won" the debate. As a decided voter, it's really hard for me to determine who "won" a debate, because I support what Obama/Biden say. That said, I'm not sure if it is helpful to the overall process. Post-debate coverage and polls are here to stay though, so we should get used to them and try to understand them better.
  •  
    It is hard to look at who one and who lost a debate because it formed by the media. Yes we can all say that Romney came out harder and ready to play, while Obama was in the back seat watching the show. But no debate is going to change the mind of a decided and educated voter. With three debates prior to the election I think we have to wait until all three are finished to really form an idea of who won or lost the debates because then the majority of topics will be put on the table. Bottom line is you can be a great debater, but a not so great leader.
mabel taylor

New York Times Endorsements Through the Ages - 5 views

  •  
    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.
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    In the greater scheme of things I do not really know how much impact a newspaper will have by endorsing a candidate, even if it is the New York Times. With the NYTimes most people probably read knowing what kind of content they will be taking in. I just don't think that the vast majority people are going vote for someone because of a newspaper endorsement. Why would a news organization endorse a candidate when the purpose of a news organization is to report the news and give an unbiased report. Sadly that is not true and most news is slanted one way or the other.
  •  
    First of all, this is awesome. I'd like to see one that lines up all of the major outlets that typically make endorsements next to one another. Looking at the row of boxes at the top of graphic is particularly compelling to me: it is a really clear demonstration of "political allegiances" by the New York Times (voting for the Democrat candidate for the past ~50 years), which I suppose shows a consistency in the political thought of the news source over time. It's nice to see them vote for the candidate who they agree with, not for the one who is likely to win as they might be tempted to (they endorsed Mondale, for instance, in the year he lost in 49 states). Seeing all of their endorsements lined up is a pretty clear reminder of the partisan bias that the New York Times represents, like Jonah said. As far as the question of influence goes, I imagine the NYTimes endorsement carrying more weight than most: like you said, Mabel, they have a massive readership, and one that widely (and I believe incorrectly) treats the paper like the unbiased, end-all, definitive source of news.
  •  
    This is an interesting demonstration of media bias. I feel like when an endorsement matters is when a news source breaks with its traditional bias, such as the Economist's endorsement of Obama this time around. I know that that endorsement really affected my opinion, largely because it came from right-leaning magazine. I feel like by being on a 60+ year streak of endorsing Democrats, the NYtimes kind of invalidates its endorsement. It's kind of a bummer to me that a newspaper that I have a lot of respect for seems always to endorse along party lines.
  •  
    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.
Anna Schutte

What I Learned From Playing the Gipper - 4 views

  •  
    This editorial written by Michael Sovern, the former president of Columbia and Mondale's "Reagan"during his preparation for the presidential debates, reveals some interesting things to look for in the presidential debates. Though both Mondale and Reagan used public funding for their campaigns and "were spared the money raising frenzy", Sovern predicts that there will probably be similarities: Candidates challenging the incumbent has an advantage by merely sharing the stage with the President of the United States on equal terms and giving a good performance. He also says that the person answering the 1st question second begins on better footing because they have time to think and settle in. According to Sovern, besides appearing presidential, they each must get their message across even if the question doesn't ask for it AND avoid seeming to dodge the question. They will probably quickly answer part of the question and then follow with their message. It will be interesting to watch for these techniques in the debates tomorrow.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I enjoyed this article and it voiced some ideas that usually come up with Presidential debates. Hearing them explicitly, like the really interesting opinion that the candidate challenging the incumbent usually does better, was interesting, especially after the first debate. It's amazing how many of these predictions actually came true.
  •  
    It definitely makes sense to me that the incumbent is at a disadvantage. The point that you brought up, Anna, about the candidate who goes second having the easiest time is definitely something we saw last week. A lot of the time, it seemed like the second speaker wasn't even answering the same question. It was also funny to me how understated the last part of the author's piece was: Mondale didn't lose in 1984, he got completely demolished (he lost in 49 out of 50 state). For an author who supports a second term for Obama, this seems like a really promising point to make. Even if Obama doesn't have a comeback in the next two, it has no real bearing on November.
  •  
    This is an interesting article. I like its analysis of the strategy of debates, and its assertion that the incumbent is at a disadvantage is, like Mabel said, interesting to hear explicitly stated. It's interesting because I feel like the incumbent has an advantage in the election as a whole, but I guess the debates provide such a good platform for aggressive criticism that the challenger usually comes out on top.
  •  
    I really enjoyed this article, one because it was short and sweet, but also because I agree with what is being said. I just started my school's first Public Forum Debate team this year and my partner, Frankie DeBorde, and I know exactly what this article is talking about in terms of debate strategy. Since the debate has happened, I think that Romney won based on the criteria that the author offered up, which I agree with. I think that Romney was able to win in an area that Obama usually has done well in by appearing more in control and taking advantage of Obama's mistake. For once Romney just didn't make a mistake which worked out well.
Jonah Schacter

Why I Am Pro-Life - NYTimes.com - 2 views

  •  
    Here is a piece around abortion issues and the problem with the term "pro-life". The author states "Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected - not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life.". We have talked about the terrible applications of terms pro-life and pro-choice, it should be pro-choice or no-choice. The problem with the conservatives and tea party is that on one hand they want as small as government as possible, but on the other hand they want to take away or our basic right to freedom of choice. 
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    This definitely feels like a war of words to me. I agree with what you're saying about a certain contradiction in which areas of our lives the parties want to see freedom, and I personally have the same trouble you have with reconciling these differences. I was interested to see the quotes that the author chose for the first paragraph: news outlets have been treating the Todd Akin debacle like the only ignorant thing politicians have been saying about the topic of abortion, and the author shows us that we have plenty to choose from. While I agree with you about the inequality of terms, I don't necessarily think "pro-choice or no-choice" would be any more fair: some pro-lifers could feasibly argue that "no-choice" is inaccurate because it doesn't account for the needs/"choice" of a fetus. I think any change in naming that isn't insane (anti-abortion vs. anti-anti-abortion) would have the same inherent inaccuracies.
  •  
    Okay nothing against you, Jonah, but I saw this article earlier this week and I really dislike it. I think it's such a silly argument - this guy is saying that conservatives don't deserve to call themselves pro-life because they don't support gun regulations and support a larger military? They would say the exact same thing about him because he supports gun regulations and stopping wars but doesn't believe in (in their opinion) stopping the murder of a fetus. I agree that there is something paradoxical about the conservative philosophies on social vs. economic matters, but I think this article goes about exploring that paradox in a really condescending, unproductive way.
  •  
    It's amazing to me how labeling a complex issue can give it powerful meaning. People have been doing this for a long time. The original "family values" were in response to changing views about the LGBTQ community. It was easy for people to think that of course they cared about "family values" without exploring what was exactly behind that movement. I think Friedman does a good job of exploring the use of the term "pro-life'" because really, who isn't pro-life?
  •  
    While I agree with Cody that Friedman's cockiness can be difficult to read, I personally agree with what he is saying. I think there is a problem in the this country with respecting the scientific community. How can people still doubt climate change? The data is there. How can people really think it is a good thing to allow people to carry weapons? The murders are there. While I think this is a potentially divisive way of stating the issue, some of the far right opinions on abortion, gun rights, and climate change seem equally as absurd to me. There is a lot of good that can come out of conservatism, but the conservatism around rights, I don't think is very productive and people will eventually look back on it and scoff.
  •  
    I am also interested in the role of language here, both within the actual issue and in this piece, and what you mentioned, Eli, about how people maintain their viewpoints that are continually in opposition to almost undeniable facts. With both issues it seems that unspoken rules and assumptions carry such weight. It mostly just confuses me.
mabel taylor

One for All and All for One - 5 views

  •  
    This article stood out to me since it discusses a topic that I often find myself drawn to, which is the appropriateness of identity politics and how they affect not only Democrats, but politics more broadly. While this is a rather brief overview of a large issue, it efficiently mentions where the legacy of identity politics has its roots and how the Democratic focus on minorities has been successful in creating policies that strive for more equality. The article then goes on to discuss how identity politics can alienate key voters who are supporters of the party, but find themselves "excluded from" the focus on topics and issues they, as generally white and older citizens, cannot relate to. Though identity politics began as a way to bring in a more diverse audience of supporters and voters who were often left marginalized by other parties and politicians, the Democrats can easily make their campaigns and policies too specific and exclusive, leaving those not affected by more common forms of prejudice forgotten. I like that this article finishes with the idea that shifting the Democratic focus from tailored appeals to minorities to broader campaigns about unity would avoid the problem Democrats face, but I find it hard to imagine Democrats giving up a type of campaigning that their Republican rivals really struggle with when it gives them such an advantage, even with the alleged cost of forgotten white voters.
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    I think the efforts by both Obama and Romney to focus on minorities and identity groups is as much about tapping into wider voting groups as it is about creating equal policy (Jeb's comment about widening the appeal). I agree with you, though, that the Obama approach to identity politics is probably here to stay and worth the sacrifices he has to make in terms of old white voters. This is one of the ways, at least it seems to me, that "conventional" Democrats are not going to be all that important in deciding the election this year. This article reminds me of that infographic Anna posted: not only are some of the concerns of these smaller sections of the party outside of the bubble of typical Democrat issues, some of them actually contradict these views.
  •  
    According to Joe Klein, Obama and the democratic party have focused so much in supporting the minority groups that they have ignored the needs of white middle class voters. It's interesting to think about how this actually excludes a huge portion of the country. I wonder specifically which white voters Klein is referring to. Watching the crowd at the Democratic Convention I was struck by the diversity of the group. It seemed to reflect the US much more than the white crowd at the Republican Convention. There seemed to be many white, democratic delegates. Were these delegates from coastal states? Were they from cities? Did the majority of them connect to groups like women's rights, LGBT rights and other identity groups? I am concerned that the democrat's position on social issues could upset middle class voters who share other values with the democrats. However, I cannot imagine supporting issues of social justice and not highlighting them. They are just too important.
  •  
    This article brings up an interesting division in the Democratic party between white, middle class voters and the various minority groups. It's odd to think that a white construction worker in Texas or California, though he would probably agree with the Democratic party's stance on unions and worker rights, minimum wages, universal health care, etc, would probably be alienated by the party's stance on immigration. Ultimately, though, I feel like the democrats are right to court minority voters - every day, more old white men die and more minority voters become voting age. That is the direction that the country is heading, and I'm sure that if the Dems are consciously choosing minority voters over a more traditional voter base they're doing so with good reason.
  •  
    While I was reading this article, something about it didn't resonate with me. This is the line that really threw me off, "But if I'm a plain old white insurance salesman, I look at the Democratic Party and say, What's in it for me?" Well, for this salesman what's in it for him is a more fair tax code, a medicare system that will guarantee him health care longer into his life, the list goes on. I don't see how "identity politics" are hurting the Democratic Party, because there are so many issues in politics. I really don't believe the equal rights stance of the Democratic Party would alienate middle-class white men, because the Republican Party's economic policy will hurt these middle class men more. Now, all of my views on this issue are completely biased by my liberal politics, but I just disagreed with what this article was trying to get at.
  •  
    Interesting article and a great discussion. Identity does impact political leanings, and middle class white men more often vote Republican. I agree that it seems like the Democrats would have a lot to offer the "plain old white insurance salesman," but working class white guys don't seem to see it that way. If only women voted in this country, Republicans would not have a chance. Indeed, you can say the same about Latinos, Jews, African-Americans, immigrants, the poor ... And Republicans have their base groups as well -- white men, evangelical Christians, rural voters and those in the ex-urbs, etc. It turns out that how you vote is enormously impacted by citizenship status, race, ethnicity, class, gender, etc.
Anna Schutte

A New Guide to the Democratic Herd - 7 views

  •  
    This NYTimes article uses data gathered by the Pew Research Center, and the Rothenberg Political report to chart the different factions of the Democratic Party according to their relative influence, motivating issues and standard bearers. It exposes important unifying issues like equity (fairness) and uncovers differences on other matters like immigration and the size of the federal government. It will be interesting to look at the motivating issues of each group and compare them to the issues Obama focuses on in his speeches and which he stays away from. According to this article, the southern democrats, formerly a large powerful group, are shrinking. Is that because they donít agree with other Democratís position on social issues like gay marriage and positions on immigration and the environment that they are concerned affect employment? Itís also interesting to imagine how this information is gathered and how accurate it is.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I was struck by the part about Southern Democrats too, because their role as a unit in the party is one I've rarely heard mentioned. This is cool to look at, especially in a class of mostly democrats/liberals, because it outlines important sections of the party that (I'm assuming) most Urban students don't fall into. I think its important to see what groups and specific interests the Obama campaign has to promote (or at least be sensitive to) that fall outside of the "Staunch Liberal" bubble. This sub-party, which defines the issues I immediately think of when I read "democrat," is not only just one side of a big set of interests, but also not that critical to the outcome of the election.
  •  
    The parade of different donkeys efficiently demonstrated the core Democratic voters, ones I am more familiar with, and the offshoots of the party, like the Southern Democrats, who hold an interesting position in that their values only partly line up with Obama's and they are therefore hard to pin down. I thought the connection the video made between the historical impact of the Democrat party and the voters today was great and the size of the animated characters was an easy way to understand the breadth of a group. I also enjoyed that the identifiers for all the different voters, represented through stereotypical markings, like glasses and protest signs, actually did show the diversity of the party. While some voters may slowly be falling out of the Democratic range, the variety of Obama supporters is interesting when thinking about all of the different issues that matter to the voters themselves. It always amazes me that the Obama campaign seems to manage all of the sensitivities and passions of their mass of voters; though that balance definitely seems precarious, when it does work, it's very impressive.
  •  
    It's weird how many of the groups in this are classified as "social conservatives." I feel like living in San Francisco there are a lot of people who support Obama purely because of his positions on abortion and gay marriage. I see a lot of people to whom it seems social issues are pretty much all they think about politically, so its interesting for me to think about people who vote against their personally held social ideology to support their economic interests. Gives some perspective.
  •  
    The "standard bearers" section of this article really stood out to me. Almost all of those politicians described as "standard bearers" spoke at the convention. Because all of these different prominent politicians in different groups all spoke at the Democratic convention, I believe it shows a united party. If there was a similar analysis of the Republican party, I don't think all of their "standard bearers" would be featured in the convention. For example, the Republican party worked hard to keep folks like Ron Paul off the center stage at the convention, even though he has plenty of supper within the Republican party.
« First ‹ Previous 41 - 54 of 54
Showing 20 items per page