Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

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.

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

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

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

I watched the debate last night and I could not help but feel sorry for Romney and every other presidential candidate that has had to debate the president on foreign policy. Obama had a distinct advantage in the fact that he has done things, where Romney never had that power. So, even if Romney had good points, Obama had past experience. Regardless, I think it was a good debate and I liked how Romney appeared to the public and didn't resort to petty needling.

Cameron, your point is interesting to me because I can imagine it going both ways: while Romney does not have the past experience of a foreign policy record as the governor of Massachusetts, that also means he has no record for people to criticize. For instance, he can berate Obama for his failings in the Benghazi attack without any fear of a similar criticism from the President himself. In this sense, I feel that a debate on foreign policy means pitting what Obama has actually done against what Romney says he will do. Romney can say basically whatever he wants, and this is the substitute for his foreign policy. During the rest of the campaign, I feel like we've seen the side I imagine playing out. During the debate, I agree with Cameron and Jonah that this dynamic was in Obama's favor.

Cameron, that whole comment about "you woud say what I said, only louder" is due to the fact that they have essentially the same foreign policy when it come to the Middle East. Even thought Obama definitely had an advantage, Romney was at even more of a disadvantage, because he has the same platforms as Obama. It's hard for Romney to say, look, Obama is doing a bad job, but I have the same policy, so vote for me.

I chose this article, from The Economist. It's long, and pretty boring, but I think it addresses the issue of Obama's economic record from an (as far as I can tell) objective standpoint. Obama and Romney are making conflicting claims about the state of the American economy under Obama, both of them citing statistics, and, unsure of who to believe, I went in search of an article like this.      The article neither adulates nor lambastes Obama, which I think adds to its credibility. Interestingly, it seems to support Mitt Romney's characterization of Obama as a starry-eyed idealist, saying "Mr. Obama's personal priorities carried the day... Mr. Obama has always portrayed himself as a pragmatist, not an ideologue. In practice, though, he usually chooses bigger government over small."      The articles casts Obama as having arrived to the Oval office with unrealistic goals, but still having made progress despite not living up to those goals. These unrealized goals, though, can still be used against him by the Republicans to win disillusioned Obama voters over to the right.

The point Cody brought up about unrealized goals, but goals with progress, is one that I see being key to the arguments both sides are making. It's a good summary of what's at the heart of Obama's hope to "finish the job" and Romney's sad portrait of the last four years. I think the article really gets at the tough place he is in: are we supposed to criticize or praise Obama for doing basically everything a president should do, but not delivering what he promised? The way it talks about the mini-recession that occurred just because of the transition sort of sells me the claim that a lot of went wrong can't be pinned on him. Granted I don't know that much about economics, the decisions he made for sections of a tanking economy (stimulus, etc.) seemed level-headed, and seemed like they came from a pool of options limited to a "Democrat" choice and a "Republican" choice. Also, debt vs. deficit?

I thought it was interesting to read the description of Obama's unique position as a president influencing the US economy. Comparing him to FDR's response to the Depression shed new light on the difficulty of Obama's position and the complexity of his response. Being reminded that the months between FDR's victory and his inauguration were the worst months of the Depression put perspective on Obama's need to both quickly gain credibility and take some serious risks. It was interesting to read that The Economist felt that his stress tests were more effective because they were tougher and more transparent that those set up in Europe. In fact, the only clear criticism they make is that he didn't take the risk to spend a lot of money on the mortgage crisis. I would have thought a more conservative magazine, like The Economist, would think the government should have spent less. It is interesting to think that with all these complicated decisions, Obama's biggest mistake may have been that he promised too much. I think that might be right. Listening to him now, he seems to understand that. His speeches are less inspirational, but in may ways more realistic.

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.

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.

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 piece begins to shake out the specific effects tax cuts have on economic growth. With so much general back and forth arguing about this, it is useful to look at the graph included in this article and try to understand what it really tells us. The graph that maps the economic growth between 1987 and 2005 clearly shows that the economy grew dramatically after the Bush and Clinton tax increases and dropped dramatically after the Bush tax cuts. But, what is most interesting is the discussion about other factors affecting the economy. Paul Ryan says that the increase was affected by the tech boom, lower trade barriers and peace. According to the conservative economists, the economy had already slowed before Bush's tax cuts and surprisingly, Glen Hubbard, who helped write Bush's plan is quoted saying that, " tax cut's don't translate quickly into higher growth. According to the Tax Policy Center, a "highly regarded" non-partisan group, "it's hard to make the argument that tax rates have a big effect on economic growth." So, this makes me wonder, what exactly are Ryan and Romney proposing and why do they think it will improve the economy? One very interesting point that is made is that tax cuts did make a difference when to top marginal rate was 70%..who knew that it was ever that high. According to this article, between, 1940 and 1980, taxes were that high at tech top. That is very different than today's 35%.

I don't have much to add here, but I fully support at tax rate of 70% or so after someone's income has reached a certain mark. That will never happen in America, but if we look at a lot of other countries in the world with high taxes, they have far fewer expenses to pay for (i.e. education, healthcare, etc.)

This is interesting. It's important to be thinking that there obviously were other factors going on during all these periods, but with all the discussion of - like John says - whether tax cuts actually work or not, this graph is an interesting way of understanding their role in the economy.

As I watched the video of Romney making those inflammatory remarks (here: http://www.motherjones.com/transition/inter.php?dest=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser) about these "freeloaders," I wondered how this would play out politically. I loved this op-ed piece, because it did a nice job of explaining the political impact of Romney's remarks. Conservatives have been bashing Obama and the democrats for criticizing success and instigating class warfare. To me, this is actual class warfare; Romney has divided Americans into two categories of "makers and moochers" that is completely un-American. If the Romney campaign thinks he can win running on ideas like this, I think they are truly mistaken.

I agree that Romney should not have said those things about Americans and that using terms such as free-loaders suggests a lack of understanding, but reading this article reminded me of an article I read in Fortune magazine called "Is It Still OK to be Rich in America?" This article offered a different perspective on recent ideas about the American economy and the "1%". Overall it talked about how instead of trying to bring the rich down we should not make them out to be villains, but instead try to see what they did to become successful. There are a lot of people in this country who have had things handed to them and that needs to change. People need to realize that the American Dream is not equal outcome, but equal opportunity. An interesting statistic in the article was that even if all of the money that the 1% made was split with the 99%, as some people have wanted, the income would be less than half the income that people would make if they had a college degree, and by that I mean a legit degree, not French Art Underground Gothic History Degree.

Cameron, I understand where you're coming from in terms of people needing work hard if they want to succeed, but where do you expect people that work hard but don't come from wealthy families to get the money for college? Someone on student-aid at at a public university would fall into that 47% that Romney referred to. This money for college is not a hand-out, but rather should be looked at as a right. If people in this country work hard enough to get into college, America needs tap into those hard workers by paying for their college education. So if we take a look at how those people in the "1%" were successful, they probably went to college. In order for people in this country to go to college, a lot of them need aid from the government. On another less important note, your comment about a "French Art Undergound Gothic History Degree" frustrates me. There is nothing wrong with someone pursuing a career in art if that is what they are interested in. Art is an extremely important part of self expression and as a country, I believe we are too focused on the conventional notion that success means being wealthy.