Group items tagged

While I think the ideology behind this article would be hard to debate productively on a forum like Diigo, a conversation about the portrayal of each candidate as a champion of "class warfare" might be a little more fruitful. Class is definitely an issue that any comment, by Romney or by Obama, could incite claims like these. The issue I have with this article is the wordplay it involves: while taking minor quotes from Obama (or just referencing what he's saying) makes him sound like this class-warfare champion, I would be interested to see this author write the same article about Romney. For every spending figure the author cites, I believe a similar one could be drummed up to paint Romney as a villain. The wildly controversial video of Romney, in which he basically divides the country into two halves, those who are dependent and those who are not, strikes me as the very definition of class warfare. If the author wants Obama held accountable for his words, the same can be done with Romney (I don't think it's a coincidence that this article was published shortly after the video leaked). I generally have a problem with using ideology to paint one candidate as hero and another as villain: I would rather take on faith that each candidate truly and honestly thinks his plan will work, and find which one I agree with. The idea that, next month, we will permanently decide the "vision of America" seems like a distraction to me.

Eli, I understand your concern with details of this article, but the point I was more concerned with is the representation of the upper class in modern America. I tried to get an article I read in Fortune, but it was not online, so this was the best I could do. I do think that the rich are often portrayed as the villains. Why should people be concerned with "spreading the wealth" and not with learning how to get more themselves. It is true that less well off individuals tend to favor the Democrat candidate. I just think that everybody needs to stop accusing the rich and learn from them.

I agree with a lot of what John and Eli said, not only because of the inaccuracy of the comments made in this article but also as a liberal "idealistic young [woman]," I didn't know before that I only like Obama because of some misguided desire to be nice to people! Otherwise, Cameron, I think that you are delegitimizing this article further by pointing out that the details are irrelevant. The details are only irrelevant because they are so broad-sweeping and false that they end up outlandish and almost humorous. In actuality, they represent the ignorance that defines this article and the lack of respect for real people in the United States who might not be as privileged as the upper class Americans you also referenced. This is something that I often see as flawed in Republican values, very few poor people have the resources to simply "learn" from the rich and completely pull themselves out of their situations which are exasperated by entire social systems inherently working against them.

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.

When Romney mentioned he would quickly do-away with PBS as President during his debate with Obama, he not only upset those who take advantage of this great resource, which directly benefits children, but also once again showed his ignorance of crucial facts. He pegged PBS as an unnecessary expense of the federal government and made it seem like getting rid of the organization would have a great "impact on the nation's debt," both of which are greatly inaccurate facts. This PBS statement discusses the oddity of Romney's comments well and explains clearly that there is no need for PBS to become a "political target."

I saw a really interesting survey - in this article. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/romneys-attack-on-big-bird-sows-confusion-abroad-and-feeds-it-at-home/?smid=tw-share. It says, " The results of that survey, which asked respondents to estimate what share of the federal budget was spent on certain programs, found that just 27 percent of Americans knew that the money for PBS and NPR was less than 1 percent of government spending. Remarkably, 40 percent guessed that the share was between 1 and 5 percent and 30 percent said it was in excess of 5 percent - including 7 percent who said that more than half of the federal budget was spent on television and radio broadcasts." I just wanted to note this. It's interesting how programs like PBS are being used by the Republicans as an example of government excesses while they're actually a tiny percentage of the federal government, compared to, say, Social Security and Medicare/Medicare (60% taken together).

If we focus on something specific like Sesame Street, it is clear that cutting funding to these kind of programs would disproportionately affect poor people something I find that a lot of Mitt Romney's platforms do; I loved Obamas statement that Romney policies were "thinly veiled social Darwinism." Anyways, over the summer, I read Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. There was an entire chapter on the success of Sesame Street to actually get kid's to pay attention and retain the educational information that they are being presented with. Low income families don't have the same means as middle class or upper income families to provide intelectually stimulating material to their kids. Because of programs like Sesame Street, both a child in a low income family and a child in an upper-income family can watch the same educational programming on PBS. Low income children need this programming more! By the time low income children are in kindergarten, there is a ton of evidence that they are already so far behind upper-income children educationally that they just can't compete. With access to programs like Sesame Street, this achievement gap can start to become smaller. Will a high-income kid be affected by the loss of Sesame Street? Probably not. This attitude seems to correlate with a lot of the problems I have with Mitt Romney's platforms. On the surface level, they may seem like good ideas but they disproportionately affect low-income people.

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.

I have been hearing a lot about the "60 Minutes" appearances by both candidates on Sunday night. This article picks apart the key points that both candidates made in what the author describes as the "pre-debate." While Obama and Romney were interviewed separately, the juxtaposition of their interview was a clear struggle for undecided voters. The author highlights a controversial handling of foreign policy questions by Obama, as well as a pretty spectacular gaffe by Romney, in which he suggests that emergency room care is an effective way to take care of the 50 million uninsured Americans. From what the author says, the interviews were a compelling look at the candidates without their armor. The article includes a link to the video (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57518495/campaign-2012-obama-vs-romney/?tag=contentMain;contentBody) With a lot of rhetoric from each candidate that we've had to decode in stump speeches and at the conventions, it's nice to see content that is a little more upfront. The opinions the candidates voiced, while they have stirred up critics in either party, strike me as a more honest representation than their own descriptions of themselves. Obama's commentary on the Middle East was complicated for me. While I don't think it was very tactful and clearly on the spot, it seems to coincide with his policy quite well. After the discussion we had in class concerning his drone-strike campaign, the comments he made about Israel as peripheral and our alignment with democracy strike me as more satisfying for more liberal Democrats. I have trouble thinking of the way Romney handled the emergency room question as anything but a mistake. I know very little about healthcare policy, and it's totally clear to me that what he proposes isn't sustainable on any level. From the maintenance of a healthcare system that runs like this to the cost on the individual family, his proposal demonstrates very little thought to me, which might be

Very interesting to see Obama's full quotes and partial quotes used out of context to support his position. Romney's answer on health care and emergency room seems to show his lack of economic sense.

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 addresses a point that hit home with me from the Democratic National Convention: Obama brought up climate, but did not champion it in the same style and with the same conviction that he used to. Even while I was struck by his lack of gusto on the subject, the article is surprised that he brought it up at all. This issue has seen barely any coverage at all, with Romney in particular suggesting that even caring about climate change is shallow and ungrounded. He has continued to basically ridicule Obama's (self-proclaimed) devotion to the issue, which is not typical even for mainstream republicans. Obama himself has been almost entirely silent on the issue for the entire campaign (he brought up the term once in 2012). This article makes a really good partner for the first one Eli posted, which dealt with the variety of issues that the radicalization of parties has effectively silenced the debate over. As with the issue of immigration, we see the Republican Party leaning extremely right and making any productive discussion of the issue difficult. If Romney himself treats climate change as a joke and mocks environmentalism as a cause, how can the sides even begin to discuss specific issues of policy? I am honestly really doubtful of Obama's stance as an environmentalist: after the failure of one of his recent cap-and-trade policies, the term "climate change" was entirely avoided in his speech. I remember Dan saying in class that if Obama didn't claim to champion these issues during his presidency, you wouldn't be able to tell by his policy. From this article's description of his rhetoric for the last year, I would say that now he is neither talking the talk nor walking the walk, leaving his affiliation to this cause simply to the fact that he is a Democratic candidate and climate change is a "Democratic issue". To me, there is concrete proof that neither candidate has been taking climate change seriously this election. If both candidates are treating this

I recently heard an interview with Michael Lewis who wrote an article for Vanity Fair that involved spending a lot of day to day time with Obama. One of the things he talked about was Obama's view of his ability to use his position as president as a "bully pulpit." Obama told Lewis that his experience had been that he, in particular, was such a lightning rod for negative response, that when he took a position conservative journalists and politicians automatically responded so negatively that it was more useful for him to operate more subtly. I would imagine that he was using his speech at the convention to let voters know that he still wants to do something about climate change, and takes it seriously. Hopefully, he will be in a position to do this when he is not thinking about re-election.

I think the way Obama has treated climate change as an economic issue is very compelling. One of the main issues that people have with renewable energy is that isn't currently economically sustainable. I think Obama can work on the issue of climate change with the economy in mind and that is what he is doing. The issue that Obama faces on bringing the climate change issue into the economic realm is the Solyndra investment that the government made under his administration. Obama needs to walk the fine line between championing climate change and doing what's best for the economy.

This article really speaks to why I don't think there is a logical argumenta against Obamacare. There is no more conservative solution other than simply having no government involvement with healthcare. It bothers me that Romney isn't more candid about what "Romneycare" would actually do. It seems from his rhetoric that he wants all Americans to be covered, but that's exactly what Obamacare does in a free-market driven way. The only argument I've really heard against Obamacare is a partisan argument, Republicans versus Democrats. Does America really want to let 50 million people go without insurance or are they just ignorant to the fact that Romneycare would leave that many people uninsured?

The middle part of this piece articulates what I like about Obamacare in a way I couldn't: it makes total sense because "health care is distinctive in ways that limit the power of the market." Like you're saying, Eli, the only way Obamacare could be more conservative is to leave government out of the system entirely, and based on the author's description, healthcare itself makes this a really bad idea. The other key point I got from it, which relates to what Jonah is saying about the status quo, is the fact that "competition already exists" in the healthcare system we have now: if the free market would insure more people, why hasn't it done so already? I would like to see a really well crafted argument against the system that has nothing to do with party rhetoric.

This is the first time I've read Kenneth Arrow's analysis of why medical care doesn't fit with the usual free market models. It makes sense that consumers can't comparison shop when so many things are unknown and beyond their control. I don't understand why this simple analysis wasn't used in the debate between Romney-Ryan care and Obamacare. It seems like most voters, even those who are anti-big government, would understand and agree with this argument.

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.

I believe that the biggest part of this election is in the social and civil rights issues. This article outlines the effects of a Romney win or Obama win on the Supreme Court. One of the fews direct powers a president has is appointing new Supreme Court Justices when one retires.With with four of the nine members over the age of 70 there is a high likelihood of a few retiring in the next for years. If Romney wins he will most likely appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court and that would threaten the Roe v. Wade decision in turn effecting the rights of women. There has been lots of talk about economic issues and the impact of the new president on the economy, but I believe that this issue of appointing Supreme Court Justices is far more important and basic civil rights could potentially be threatened as a result of the election

I agree that it is important to make the connection between the election of a new president and their effect on the Supreme Court. Even though the members elected might not have a huge effect on economic issues that have dominated the election, the impact the Supreme Court will have on individuals' rights is great.

I agree that this is an important issue, but I just can't see Roe V. Wade every being overturned, yet maybe I'm totally wrong. It seems just so irrational. Luckily, we won't have to deal with this problem...

Week 4. This opinion piece looks at the foreign policy credentials of both candidates, especially in light of the embassy storming in Libya and other similar incidents in the Middle this past week. The author paints this interval as weak for both Romney and Obama: Romney for his bizarre and inflammatory comments just after the murder of the ambassador and members of his staff, and Obama for not painting a clear picture of American intentions regarding the attack ("the only thing that can be said for Barack Obama's leadership this week is that he's not Mitt Romney"). He points to the increasing public unease about our presence in the Middle East as the perfect opportunity, a "teachable moment," for Obama to make his position clear. The author presents a conflicting message: as a foreign policy advisor, he would suggest this type of speech, but as a campaign advisor, he would warn against it. With all the talk of the Bush legacy in mind, I think this topic could be of huge advantage to both candidates (more so for Obama) if it were used properly. Obama has the chance to distance himself from the early-2000's surge that much of the public regards as a disaster, and distinguish the profile he plans on having in the region from bumbling foreign policy. I think the strides he has made in his first term toward ending our conflicts are pretty questionable. However, he seems in a prime position right now to ride out whatever he has accomplished for the next few months. Romney kind of made a fool of himself after the attacks, and Obama is not really capitalizing on this. It seems he's been doing good work on this front (the way he has been handling the protests in Egypt, according to the article, has been really skilled and professional) and he should flaunt it more. Similarly, a really strong statement of purpose in the Middle East might help Romney recover. The way he described foreign policy during the RNC does basically nothing to distinguish him from Bush for me. As

This is an article by a conservative columnist, Pat Buchanan, that my dad turned me on to. It addresses the fact that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration allegedly knew about the attacks in Benghazi for a while and didn't take action. I do think that the administration mishandled it, and I think it's interesting to read the conservative perspective on the attacks. I think this is a direction that Romney's rhetoric is going to take in the coming weeks, especially during the foreign policy debate. I agree with what this writer says about many liberals wanting to absolve Obama and his administration from all blame for anything, especially at this stage in the election, and I think that reading articles from both sides of the argument will help form an objective understanding of the issue.

I completely agree that there was some sort of intelligence gap in the State Department. Whether or not Obama/Biden knew is open for debate, but I'm not sure that is really important. In reality, both candidates have pretty similar foreign policy stances. I highly doubt the Romney Administration would handle embassy security any differently. We saw it in the VP debate. Biden would challenge Ryan to talk about actual differences in foreign policy and Ryan couldn't really find any. I'm really bothered by this statement, "And lest we forget, we invaded Afghanistan to eradicate al-Qaida after 9/11. Yet today, we read of al-Qaida in the Maghreb, al-Qaida in Iraq, al-Qaida in Pakistan, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and al-Qaida in Syria. And Ansar Dine, an al-Qaida affiliate, has taken over northern Mali, a slice of land the size of France." This is a huge exaggeration of Al-Qaida's current power. They are doing really poorly, not well. I think that it is just a political tactic to relate America somehow being unsafe to the attack in Libya.

Today Hilary Clinton tried to take responsibility for the lack of security in Libya. John and Cody are right about this being the beginning of the Republican attack on Obama's foreign policy. This morning I heard a Romney advisor talking about how little influence and control we have in the middle east in the face of rising terrorism. His examples and questions included many cited in Buchanan's editorial. Buchanan was an early advisor to Nixon and encouraged him to stand against abortion even though it was different than Nixon's original view. It seems like Buchanan is a lot like Carl Rove, finds a weakness and an opening and goes for it.

This article talks about conservative Super PACs working to unify their message to keep away from uncomfortable blunders that bring the entire party down, to avoid letting "their message [become] diluted," and to maintain Romney's full-throttle attack when the Governor is not in a position to do so himself. The subtle moves that keep Super PACs legal is demonstrated really well in this article, like how the different groups can talk to each other and follow the "themes being emphasized by Mitt Romney's campaign," but cannot "coordinate with Mr. Romney's strategists," which certainly seems like it would be a challenge, since the Romney campaign keeps switching its focus. One of the most interesting aspects of this article is the reference to the Super PACs making sure that they all use the same numbers and statistics when attacking President Obama. It's crazy that there is so much confusion about what seems like the simplest part of pro-Romney advertising, especially when some groups actually think that connecting Obama with "Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and the minister's 'black liberation' theology" is a good idea. The paragraph about how these Super PACs' more cohesive vision will affect Obama's campaign is also really interesting and demonstrates a lot of what seems unfair about large-scale campaign finance issues, since Romney's vision and campaign can literally move beyond him and keep up their work without him or his funds.

What you highlighted from this article emphasizes how shady the distinction is between coordinating a message with a candidate and presenting one independently. From what this article says, along with the presentation in class about campaign finance, the difference between these two methods of supporting a campaign seems pretty arbitrary. This is especially true if, like you said, the groups that can't coordinate with Romney can coordinate with one another. This strategy is the part that scares me the most: Super PAC's are trying to avoid "diluting" their message, but they seem to be diluting the messages of the candidates as a collective. The need to present a cohesive message, like you mentioned, seems to explain why a lot of the criticism in these ads is so vague, simply attacking Obama "as a failed leader" rather than highlighting specific policies or mistakes. In a campaign like Romney's, where the key focus is often a bit of a moving target, sticking to general criticism like this seems like a winning tactic. I agree that the engineering of advertisements is unfair, especially given the cause and effect relationship of ad dollars and poll results that the author suggests.

The is an article pre vice presidential debate about medicare. It talks about Paul Ryan's medicare a lot in comparison to the current system and Obamacare. I understand each side and there plans for this system. but I think that the problem is the unwillingness to make compromises between parties which is really holding the government back right now. Just wondering thoughts on medicare and the opposing plans.

Yeah, Romney's plan and Obama's plan are still in the phase of theory, because neither has been enacted. I've read economic analysis that supports both; it really comes down to the economist being a liberal or a conservative. I think we can do as much speculation as we want, but the key difference is that Obamacare worked in Massachusetts, while Romney's current plan has never really worked anywhere.

I agree with Eli. Although this article gives some specific information about why the market based approach to medicare could be more effective in lowering costs than the political. They're both theoretical. Obama's board of experts have had much of their power taken away by Congress, so it will be very difficult to see how effective it could really be if it were given the right kind of power. The vouchers lowering the cost of medicare drug benefits is encouraging, though hard to imagine how something like that would work with a much more complex medical system.

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.

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.

I was looking on the WSJ and I found this general article about how President Obama is leading in most of the swing states. I think this is interesting because it reminded me of a thought that I have had for a while which is that perhaps one of the reasons that Romney isn't as popular as Obama is that he can't connect as well. When I hear Obama speak, while I might not agree with his views, I feel drawn to his charisma. On the other hand, Romney appears stiff and uptight. While this article does not address that point directly, I think that it shows some of the repercussions that a lack of connection can have.

I agree: stiff is definitely a good word for his presence on stage. The point you brought up speaks a lot what I look at as a competition between the candidate in terms of relatability. With jobs being arguably the most central issue of each campaign, and "middle class" being the buzzword, I've noticed both Obama and Romney striving to fit this image. While Romney's income puts him as far from working class as it gets, I think that the difficultly we have relating to him has much more to do with his stiff and uptight presence, like you said. Similarly, I think the way people relate with Obama has much more to do with the charisma you mentioned than his actual relationship to the middle class.

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.