Dole Group

I like this article because it shows that Romney is finally focusing on a part of the election in which he has experience and knowledge. Voters are most concerned with the election and if Romney can show that he can fix it then he will increase his chances of winning, which is why this move is smart. I do; however, think that he should establish that he has his own economic plans and distance himself from Ryan's ideas, as those tend to scare away prospective voters and are absurd.

great post. I agree with mabel also because Romney's plan for the economy needs to be way more convincing than Ryan's for him to win the election.I think its very important that the candidates really lay out a play for what needs to be changed. I do think it is necessary for Romney to separate himself from Ryan's economic plan. Romney has taken no stance on Ryan's economic plan for severly cutting government expenses leading to believe he does not agree with this plan because if he did he would give his support.

I agree with what all of you have said about Romney needing to focus on the economy in order to win. The other night I was watching the news and they were going through different poles. One of the questions was who people trusted with the economy, and Romney was up by almost 20 points. It seems to me that the economy is the most important issue in this election, but Romney still can't seem to edge ahead. That shows to me that his campaign has made a big mistake by not focusing on the economy.

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.

This is an old op-ed piece from one of my favorite economist's, Paul Krugman. I think what he says still rings true. When we hear politicians talk about debt, it always seems so simple; countries borrow money and then owe that money. Krugman explains that it isn't that simple. Ever since reading this piece, I've had a much different take on the idea of "national debt." Let me know if guys find him convincing.

I really like this guy. To me, he paints a really compelling picture of what is becoming a massive issue in this election, and the way he shoots down the image of the US "deep in hock to the Chinese" is both funny and really troubling. Honestly, the way the idea of national debt has been explained to me in the past has been, according to Krugman, entirely fictional. I agree with you, Eli, that politicians talk about debt in this way intentionally: they are able to convince people like me, with no background in economics, of very simple truths that line up with their platforms. That being said, Krugman does leave me with a lot more questions than answers. I am unclear about a lot of the mechanics of his description (the US owing money to itself, how these massive "debts" are even paid off), but it seems to me like the general message is that it isn't a really big deal. From what I can tell, this is a pretty convincing message.

Krugman says "Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we are impoverished by the need to pay back the debt." They think it's like a mortgage-that's how i see it. He says that we don't have to pay it back, just make sure it grows more slowly than the tax base. We owe it to ourselves, but I still think national debt is money owed that needs to be paid back and can inhibit economic growth. Dollars paid to the debt could be used for tangible things like infrastructure and education.

Both campaigns and much of the news coverage has focused on how the two candidates must convince the small group of undecided voters to vote for them. This article analyzes how Obama's convention acceptance speech sought to appeal to the more centrist voter. It was interesting to read that Romney's target voter was, "a married, middle-class, middle-aged woman who had voted for Obama in '08. These kinds of simplistic characterizations like "hockey-mom" seem to help campaigns focus their messages. But do they oversimplify what these voters want to know? The Ecomomist writer clearly dislikes what he sees as Obama's "leftish pandering" about globalization", but found some of the speech convincing, specifically his attempt to present the role of government in a more nuanced way. It's not "either/or". This makes me wonder whether the debates will give a platform for each candidate to be more specific about their vision for the role of government. When I've heard undecided voters interviewed, they all seem to be very interested in specifics and tired of the simplistic partisan fighting.

I agree about a space for debating the role of government in not strictly Democrat or Republican terms. In the long run, I think this would help both candidates. For Obama, I see this helping him take back the disillusioned first-term voters that you mention. If he can present a position on the role of government that's "nuanced" (either backing up his policy these last for years or differing from it), he could be able to paint the next four as brighter. For Romney, this specificity about the role of government could be huge. If he distinguishes himself from Bush's, as Cody's articles suggests, he can avoid appearing as a generic Republican and create a more center argument than wishing that the government would "get out of our lives." I think this could make up the minds of the undecided voters you mention, and would be a relief from the debate that's going on.

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 is about the importance of voting and how voting for a third party candidate or no candidate at all will solve no problems. Just because a candidate does not always persent the best ideas the whole picture has to be viewed. In the case of Obama-Romney many people say that Obama has not had a "good" term and will therefore not vote for him, but my feelings towards that is Romney is not going to do any better and no third party candidate will have a chance to win. The author brings up the point that even if you are in a state that will surely vote one way that you should still cast your vote. Being in California for most of us what is the incentive to vote if we know the state is going blue? I think that in this system with the electoral college it is hard for me to see the point in voting if my vote will not really count that much. Just wondering thoughts on this topic of voting.

This article is pretty interesting. I think that the "third-party debate" is an interesting one, and I don't know exactly where I stand on it. On one hand, I really do think that the two-party system and the electoral college, together, hurt the purity of the American democratic policy. On the other hand, in an election like this, I think it would be irresponsible to vote for a third-party candidate as a liberal. Romney could win, and every vote that goes to a green-party candidate is a vote taken away from Obama. It really is a bad situation for voters, but that's just how it is.

This is a little unrelated, but I see the best bet at third party happening in America is the formation of a new party for the Tea Party. The Tea Party is very different than the mainstream Republican party. Michelle Bachman is in a whole other universe than Mitt Romney politically. If Mitt Romney loses the election, I really think the Republican party has some serious thinking to do about how they want to shape their party. It is completely unhelpful to the democratic process to have people like Michelle Bachman and Mitt Romney in the same party. Michelle Bachman has basically absurd views, stating things like the number 2 to Hillary Clinton is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Mitt Romney is much more reasonable. I don't know how if this will actually happen, but I could definitely see a Tea Party forming as their own party.

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.

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.

This is a very interesting article about using "micro-targeting" to tailor messages to the "favorably disposed but need a push to actually vote". The writer, James Surowiecki, cites a new book, The Victory Lap, that describes the increasing use of studies done by political scientists to plan political strategy. The studies found out that the best run campaigns perfect the mix of new technology to get specific data about individual shopping habits, voting histories, charity donations to target potential voters and then reach them using the concrete, personal door to door , face to face discussions. It's interesting to read that all the hundreds of millions spent on ads do little to recruit new voters or convince them to go to the polls. It turns out that good old social pressure is one of the most powerful forces to get people to vote. Since voting records are public (something I didn't know), one study used the threat of notifying neighbors if you didn't vote. It motivated most people to get to the polls. What's most interesting to me about this book and the studies it cites is that this kind of information hasn't been used sooner in campaigns. Why waste all that money on adds? Use it to improve schools or something that can truly make a difference.

The mechanics that you're talking about are really interesting to me, mainly because of how completely foreign they are. Having grown up in California for my whole life, I get the feeling that I'm missing out on a big part of the process that a lot of the country experiences. What you're saying about the small impact of ads is honestly terrifying to me, given how much money is funneled to a candidate through these Super PAC's, etc. These makes the "free speech question" with respect to campaign finance seem totally irrelevant to me: whether free speech or not, the amount of money spent on ads is totally flagrant and inexcusable if they are not even accomplishing much at all. The way you mention cash being directed to better causes makes me think of the "working hard, not working smart" quip that the author makes. From what I can tell, it would be really hard to set lasting limits on soft money in campaigns, but the least the candidates could do is spend it in an effective way, not just airing primetime ads because it seems like the thing to do.

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

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

This article speaks to a theme that we've seen before in this group - the idea that Obama's second term could be one of bipartisanship and efficiency. There are a bunch of factors that contribute to this theory, and this article speaks to one in particular - the idea that if the GOP fractures after this loss (which seems easily possible) Obama can align himself with some of the less obstructionist members of the GOP to have a productive term. The article argues that Abe Lincoln and FDR did the same thing in their days. It's a good read.

This is a really interesting article and I agree that this is a consistent subject area in our discussions - the idea that Obama could possibly move past the hindrances of his first term, dealing with severe partisanship and maybe also beginning to tackle the areas he ignored to avoid controversy (like the environment) is pretty exciting.

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.

A variety of people that were in previous administrations give their opinion on what is most important and possible for Obama to do during his second term. This is one of those "room for debate" pieces on the NY Times, which I think present a nice variety of opinions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a 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.

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 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.