Group items tagged

This article discusses Obama's presidency in terms of the racial legacy he leaves behind and the front he presents to the public as well as his inner-struggle to grapple with his own race. The idea that Obama has become increasingly comfortable as the first black president, but is still strapped down by the unspoken rules about how he campaigns and supports African Americans is especially relevant to the election. I wonder what prejudice and assumptions Obama is able to deal with in 2012 that he would have struggled with in 2008, given the more serious air that he didn't have then. The boundaries Obama must abide by in order to not seem like he is giving favors to his own race are exceedingly limited and the pull he feels to leave a strong, aware legacy but to also normalize the situation is convoluted and difficult. This article talks about how Obama's public discussion of race basically mirrors his internal understanding and relationship with his racial identity and that in many ways he "feels boxed in by his blackness," an idea I am really curious about. I have read a lot about how Obama's presidency is not the indication of the post-racial society many thought it would be, but is actually a sign that the country is moving in a positive direction and this article reminds me that the expectations many carry for Obama make it difficult for him to naturally find his place as an African American and in history. Also, for those who watched The Choice, this piece is especially interesting in the context of Obama's early life.

I liked this article I thought it brought up good points. Reading it thought I realized I have never really thought of Obama as the first black president, aside from when he was elected in 2008. I view him as just another president, which is a hard thing to do for a lot of people in the country. Four years (or eight if reelected) is not nearly enough time to break down those racial barriers because these things take time. No matter how long this takes and no matter how much grief he gets for potentially being bias to African Americans Obama being elected is a step forward for this nation and four more years is only going to help more. "We have to deal with the specific problems of different groups - blacks, women, gays and lesbians, immigrants - in a way that doesn't allow people to put these wedges in,". I think that quote by Obama is the reason why he should be president for another four years. He is attempting to make us even more united as a nation and I 100% respect and support that. "To blacks who accuse him of not being aggressive on race, Mr. Obama has a reply: "I'm not the president of black America," he has said. "I'm the president of the United States of America." ".

Mabel, I agree with what you're saying about the efforts he has to go through to not "favor his own race," and I'm particularly interested in how this interacts with the presidential race and the fact that the majority of black American's are likely to vote for him. In that sense, he is not obligated to woo them in the same way that he is courting the Latino vote in Nevada, Florida, etc. I totally agree with the writing you mention that suggests Obama's election isn't the sign of a post-racial society. Frankly, claims like that seem like a shallow and easy way to treat racial discrimination as if it isn't a problem in the US. In that sense I agree with Jonah: it will take a very long time, and a very, very easy way to stall the progress on racial issues entirely is to pretend like they aren't a big deal. This is specifically where I wonder if Obama could do more. Embracing his racial identity in the moments where it is easiest (like the meetings with leaders, etc.) would be a good step.

There has been a lot of talk around this election that has been about how bad Obama's term has been. People are always so negative when it comes to polotics and when something does not work right away they jump to conclusions. Here is an article about something positive that Obama has been doing. It is nice to see evidence of success from Obama's term. With four more years he could do a lot of good for this country and its future.

I agree with John. I cannot remember any talk about Race to the Top or the Clean Car program in a debate or a commercial. When you consider that voters think education is an important issue, certainly not as important as the economy and jobs, but very important, it seems like Obama's campaign should have highlighted this success. Race to the Top involves policies that reflect many of the same ideas given by the Republicans and is pretty controversial with the Teacher's Union. That may be why they haven't brought it up. I wonder how the auto-workers and the automobile industry feel about the Clean Car program. It may have been that these programs were not supported by important, Democratic groups.

I read an interesting piece on environmental sustainability being actually cost effective. It talked about how Regan go people on board to confront the holes in the ozone layer by talking about the economic impacts of more people getting skin cancer with such a thin ozone layer. I think the climate change debate has the potential to go in that direction. Storms like Hurricane Sandy cost the economy tremendously, and it is pretty clear that storms of that proportion are happening due to climate change. I think the economic impact of climate change could certainly change the debate. Maybe Obama should go in that direction.

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.

I was really interested by the section of the Conrad reading that dealt with campaign funding. This article details Karl Rove, one of the biggest names in political finance who has masterminded the Republican switch from "hard" (personal donations) to "soft" ("social welfare") funding. Many think of him as the man who kept Bush Jr. afloat for two terms, and now Romney has him in charge of funneling donations from massively wealthy, anonymous Republicans into a "social welfare organization" (to be spent on anti-Obama ads). Groups likes these on either side are part of what Rove refers to as the "unlimited-outside-money boom." While Republicans are not the only guilty party, I find it really disturbing that groups like American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS can be legally separate from the Romney campaign itself. This loophole encourages aggressive ads and a totally out-of-control budget - more than a billion dollars - during the campaigning. The advertising machine developed by the Romney campaign has twice the budget of Obama's: if he can't keep up, how could any less mainstream candidate even hope to? This article makes a really strong case for limiting spending. Rove makes a point about keeping the parties themselves stronger, but it was not enough to sell the idea to me. The grimmest part is the story of one-upping Rove gives: he created Crossroads as a response to Obama's doubling of the Republican budget in the last race, pointing out that this cycle could continue.

I found this really interesting, especially being in the campaign finance small group for the presentation. The article does a good job describing the confusing nuances of 501s and 527s (superpacs and social welfare groups), but what I found the most interesting was the discussion of Obama's vilification of the Citizens United decision. The decision definitely hurt the Democratic party and gave the Republicans an advantage in the world of campaign finance, and this article seems to accuse Obama of deliberately misrepresenting the decision to make it seem worse than it was.

The part that stuck out to me in this article was when Rove tried to act as if unions and corporations should have the same rights. Unions represent large groups of people working for companies (i.e. the United Auto Workers). The people in these unions are generally blue-collar, working class people. Corporations on the other hand are all about making money. To me, it seems much more fair for unions to be able to run politically driven ads than corporations, but I'm not sure how that would work legally.

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 piece talks about why the South continues to be extremely conservative politically. I've never been to the South and have always wondered what's going on with the political conservative climate, because it seems to me that conservative economic policy actually hurts a lot of regions in the South. These "Room for Debate" pieces on the NY Times are awesome, because they provide a lot of different perspectives. I'd love to hear all your guys take on this: San Franciscans and Atlanta peeps alike.

Great post Eli. I think this article makes many valid points because in the south, the conservative history is very apparent. Being from Georgia especially during election, President Obama is not widely respected and people often criticize his policies harshly. I hate to say it but I do believe that racist southern ideals are partially the reason for some of the unpopularity of Obama in the south. Relating to the conservative tendencies in southern states, I believe the reason the south has remained predominantly right sided is because tradition is such a big part of southern culture, and with southern tradition comes conservative values.

For me this brings up evidence to support people not being able to move past their moral compass even if it means progress in their socioeconomic outlook and progress in the nation. It makes sense to stay true to their self, but it is not justifiable to hurt yourself and your nation by preventing forward progress. In theory it makes sense to try and change their minds, but it is a lot easier said than done and would take a great amount of time and we have to be patient about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/us/politics/gary-johnson-the-libertarian-partys-presidential-nominee-worries-republicans.html?pagewanted=all I read these two articles in tandem and was really interested by the intersections and the role that finances play in American politics and the two-party system. Gary Johnson is a really interesting politician and I sometimes consider him a liberal libertarian. I can't see myself ever voting for him, but I think he offers a unique perspective. The idea that he could be a Ralph Nader "to Mr. Romney's Gore" is interesting, though unlikely considering Johnson's radical views. Furthermore, the idea that Democrats are supporting Johnson is pretty unfounded. The paragraphs about Johnson's limited finances and management of his campaign are especially telling after reading this op-ed piece, which details the way virtually every politician (both now and in early American history) comes from a white-collar background and how that creates these blocks in terms of understanding their constituents and making learned decisions. Two lines that I especially enjoy comparing are: "Would you like to be represented by a millionaire lawyer or a millionaire businessmen?" and "Mr. Johnson said he had no problem being labeled a potential spoiler in an election that he views as "a debate between Coke and Pepsi." (He said he viewed himself as Perrier.)" Trying to understand why there are not more blue-collar politicians around is certainly difficult ("Scholars haven't yet confirmed exactly what that is. (Campaign money? Free time? Party gatekeepers?)"), but as this article notes, determining why we are in the current situation is vastly important. The ending analogy, about the rise of female politicians since the '40s is helpful in demonstrat

Gary Johnson definitely seems like an interesting guy, and I'm all for the unravelling of the two-party system. I don't think I agree with a lot of his ideas, especially his economic policies, but I think any article written about a non-Romney/Obama candidate is a good thing. The Romney/Obama choice is a limited one, and people should obviously be able to pick a candidate who represents their beliefs, not just one who is affiliated with their party or who comes closest.

Articles like these always trouble me. How will this ever change? It is unlikely that it ever will. When we are adults, we will still probably have a two party system with most political candidates being wealthy. I think one of the issues we have in America is the small spectrum on the political scale that the two parties represent. While Democrats and Republicans have their differences, they are still philosophically the same when it comes to what the government should basically do. In other countries, they have more radical thought like liberterians and socialists.

* This article gets at the heart of what confused me tonight: when will we know exactly who one? The entire night, I feel like we kept getting told by various outlets that Obama had won: it was projected as a sure thing, almost as if the papers and sites were racing to see who could be the most current in preemptively calling the results. CNN, for instance, kept releasing its projection as "breaking news," rather than the real-time analysis it actually was. Ohio and Florida (which to my knowledge could have shifted the results entirely) continued to flux after these "official" announcements. I wish I had come across this article earlier in the evening: it highlights the moment that projections receive the "green light" (after polls have closed) and when they start pouring in. When I finally heard that Obama had won for certain, I still had these lingering doubts and wondered exactly when this went from projected to official. The author also suggests that the same elements that contributed to the Florida scandal in 2000 are in place tonight. This interests me, particularly because the state has been hovering around ~90% for most of the night. I hope not, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to stir up controversy around it. Lastly, the article and election results leave me with the obvious big questions. Now that he's presiding in his last term, will there be a relaxation of efforts to block him? Will he find the bipartisan Washington he failed to reach in his first term? How did what news groups call his "demographic gamble" play out, particularly with the Latino vote?

This is an article about the last week, and kind of the final stages of campaigning for the candidates. Really interesting to read about Romney's last-ditch efforts to take Pennsylvania. It's not got a lot of substance, but it's a good read and it gets me excited for the election.

I have to say that reading this after the election reinforces my dislike for the political posturing and game playing when so much is at stake in our country. As it often does, it sounds like two boys on a playground arguing about who is stronger than the other. When you think about the way they talk about money, huge amounts of money really, that they are willing to throw into commercials in Pennsylvania in the unrealistic hopes of getting a few votes.

I concur with what John and Anna wrote. The amount of money in American politics is obscene. It doesn't really benefit anybody. People in swing states get bombarded by ads. People who spend money on losing candidates have wasted their money. And, people who spend money on winning candidates expect something in return from the candidate.

This article stood out to me because of how badly Romney attacks the Obama campaign. Romney takes a shot at the president by saying, "If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn't you feel that way now that he's President Obama?" I enjoyed the article because it shows that Romney has a plan that he thinks will genuinely work, but I dislike like fact he was not giving the Obama administration credit for anything positive. Romney briefly gives Obama credit for giving Seal Team 6 the order to take out Bin Laden, but then blames him for making every American less safe because of his failure to secure Iran's nuclear threat.

I enjoyed reading this article because it shows that Romney is doing something I have wanted him to do for a long time, which is humanize himself. This election is going to be won by speeches and connection with voters. President Obama is, by far, one of the best speakers I have ever heard and that is why he gets a lot of his votes. While I am slightly upset that Romney attacked Obama in such a harsh manner, I don't get the sense that that was it's main purpose. The way I see that speech is that it was an attempt to reason with and connect to voters in a way Romney has not done before. I posted before about the importance of connection and I still believe that it is charisma and connections that will provide an edge in this election and I am happy to see Romney is starting to realize that.

Cameron, I really don't see Romney winning on his ability to connect on a human level with the electorate. Obama will beat Romney on likability right up until election day and that will not change. I don't think that Romney going down the route of telling his life story help him that much either. Much of what was said about him was an attempt to make it look like he is a normal, which he frankly is not; he won't even release his tax statements. Romney will win on coming across as someone that is ready to take on the economic problems not on who is more likable.

This article addresses the effect of George Bush's legacy on the current election and how it was reflected in the conventions. Clinton, in his speech at the DNC, compared the net job creation of the two parties. This article says that ultimately, not just this sentence but Clinton's entire speech came down to that point: evoking the successes of the Democrats while reminding voters of the many failures of George W. Bush. Clinton's presence, the article says, turned the race into Obama and Clinton vs. Romney and Bush. The article cites some interesting historical examples of presidents who were able to win despite the temporary unpopularity of their parties at the time, and how those candidates distanced themselves from the failed policies with concrete, factual differences in their philosophies. Romney, the article says, has failed to do so.

Great post. I really enjoyed reading this article because I do believe that the legacy of the last elected party plays a major role in future elections. If a president from a particular party succeeds in his own term, his political party gains more credibility because people will connect a president's success with his party. For example(hypothetically speaking), If a democratic president successfully relieves the U.S from economic depression, in the future if depression occurs people would begin to think a democrat is the right candidate to fix the problem.

I agree that the Republican's avoidance of anything too heavily Bush-related is not working in their favor, and like this article notes, whenever a political sensitivity makes a candidate vulnerable, ignoring it is certainly not the best course of action. But this article also shows how Romney is just not well-suited to actually addressing the past failures of Republicans, both because of the early failures in his campaign to sell himself as the type of economically-focused candidate voters want and his unclear values and opinions, and makes it clear that the Republican who will erase the legacy of Bush will not be Romney.

This editorial written by Danielle Pletka, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute criticizes Romney's foreign policy speech on Monday October 8th for offering little in the way of either vision or specifics to separate himself from Obama. Plettka writes that Romney, "sensed an opening" in foreign policy after the Obama administration appeared to bungle the September 11 Libyan attack. She says that Romney needs to show voters that "he's not simply George Bush retread" itching to declare war on Iran and Syria. It is interesting that this conservative thinks that no Republicans have made a case that they will actually do anything differently than Obama. She suggests that Romney help voters connect American global power with prosperity, its dominance of the world's important waterways with flourishing trade and the exporting of democratic ideals with more open "nourished markets. She refers to the importance of the US's "benign" influence since WWII. Look up benign..it doesn't mean the war, death and violence we seen in Iraq and Afghanistan . What she means is that the U.S. has never interfered for 'malevolent" reasons. It's hard to imagine how the US would be perceived as benign in all of the military intervention.

This article shows pretty well a lot of what we've seen of Romney. It seems like his campaign is just based on criticizing Obama, and since there's an opening in the foreign policy area he's moved away from the economy. He's looking for criticisms to make without offering substantive policy proposals, and I think that's because Obama's policies are basically centrist policies. It's a weird situation that Obama, as a moderate, has this unique ability to inspire so much vitriol among the conservative right, and Romney's trying to capitalize.

I'm in the foreign policy group for the issues project at school, and I can tell you with certainty that the differences between Obama and Romney in terms of foreign policy are very small. It is more of a philosophical difference. In reality, the troops will leave Afghanistan in 2014, we will most likely not send troops to Syria or Iran, and we will continue to support Israel, regardless of who is president. Romney is really just trying to create a contrast between his foreign policy and Obama's, but there aren't any major differences, so he has latched onto this whole Libya thing.

I think this video is interesting because it demonstrates not only Romney's hope that he can move past the negative press that the video Mother Jones released brought to his campaign, but also how he will try to pose the statements in a way that will benefit his campaign. Trying to avoid talking about the comments would make him seem weak and I can understand why Romney would want to face them head on so as to prevent even more anger (I don't think he has actually been that successful in doing this). Romney discusses his comments as opinions he has always held and while he originally states that he was referring mostly to the campaign and voters, at the end of the video he mentions that he carries this opinion "day in and day out" and it is "the course of America" that he is concerned with. Discussing the negative comments only in the light of the race would seem like a smarter idea, so I wonder why Romney would even end with this comment? Another perplexing part of this video is how Romney starts off by saying he knows there are some voters he simply will not get, about half of the nation, but then goes on to say that he will do whatever he can to get as many votes as possible. Obviously I understand the desire to collect as many votes as he can, but he is more aware than anyone that there are some Americans who simply will not vote for him, especially after the comments he made about the country's dependents. Though this is a pretty clear dichotomy, it is interesting to see how Romney so blatantly speaks of it and how the faulty logic comes right out of the governor struggling to get his opinion across during the interview. This reactionary type of response is also seen when interviewer tries to steer Romney towards a specific issue and Romney bounces back to classic conservative rhetoric.

Yeah, I think the 47% comment really sealed the deal on Obama winning the election. The Republican's attempt to humanize Mitt Romney at the convention was destroyed by the release of this video. The comments are clearly offensive, and like John said, there is no way that Romney can look good when talking about these comments. It completely fulfills the stereotype that lots of Americans have about Mitt Romney being out of touch and disingenuous when he talks about helping the middle class.

Yeah he's definitely scrambling to recover from that comment. I don't have much to say, but check out this ad from the Obama campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B9xCCaseop4. Pretty harsh. Romney's had a bad couple weeks.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

This article is about the importance of Medicaid in this election. Under Romney 45 million people would be denied health insurance. These are non elderly poor people. I personally believe that a person should not go through life without a health care support system. Its clear that these people are part of the 47% that Romney does not care about. Why would the country want someone in office who has already given up on almost half the nation?

I agree with John about being in the dark about the relative costs of Medicaid. I thought that Medicaid was not as responsible about keeping costs down as private insurers. Again, this seems like an important point that should be highlighted by the Democrats as they implement the Affordable Care Act and work to improve Medicaid. It's too important that the people who receive healthcare through Medicaid continue to be covered.

From my understanding, Obamacare will make states cover people that make up to 133% of the poverty line. The idea that more people will be covered on a program that already offers shoddy coverage troubles me a bit. I know in California Medical doesn't even cover basic dental work. The only dental work a middle aged person on Medical can receive is tooth extraction meaning that the tooth will be pulled when it can harm that person. Hopefully, Medicaid can handle these new people on it, but I'm a little worried about the quality of the coverage they will be receiving.

As the election approaches, each candidate is doing anything in his power to obtain more votes. In Colorado,Florida and Nevada the Latino voting population could possibly determine who wins the 2012 election. President Obama has a "leg up" on Romney with the Latino voters, but will Romney be able to do anything to make himself more appealing to Latino voters? If not, how devastating will the outcome be for his campaign?

They are chasing the latino votes, definitely. Their discussion of this in the last debate was interesting - Obama accused Romney of considering the Arizona immigration law as a "model for the country," which as far as I can tell just isn't true. Who knows with Romney, though - he certainly has been associating with the guy who designed that law. In response to John's point, I think the Romney campaign is kind of forced to stick to the economic aspects of gender discrimination and Hispanic issues. The fact is that the Republican party has a worse record on rights for minorities, so they're playing up their statement that the improved economy under Romney would help get rid of the gender/racial inequities in the country.

It's clear now that the Republicans have a serious problem with Latino support. I wonder how they will deal with this problem in the future. I think bipartisan immigration reform could be a big deal. I see that being the big issues in the next couple years. It seems like demographically, if the Republicans can't get any support from people of color, are going to have an issue as Latinos are the largest growing population in America.

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.

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.