Dole Group

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...

Here is a piece around abortion issues and the problem with the term "pro-life". The author states "Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected - not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life.". We have talked about the terrible applications of terms pro-life and pro-choice, it should be pro-choice or no-choice. The problem with the conservatives and tea party is that on one hand they want as small as government as possible, but on the other hand they want to take away or our basic right to freedom of choice. 

While I agree with Cody that Friedman's cockiness can be difficult to read, I personally agree with what he is saying. I think there is a problem in the this country with respecting the scientific community. How can people still doubt climate change? The data is there. How can people really think it is a good thing to allow people to carry weapons? The murders are there. While I think this is a potentially divisive way of stating the issue, some of the far right opinions on abortion, gun rights, and climate change seem equally as absurd to me. There is a lot of good that can come out of conservatism, but the conservatism around rights, I don't think is very productive and people will eventually look back on it and scoff.

I am also interested in the role of language here, both within the actual issue and in this piece, and what you mentioned, Eli, about how people maintain their viewpoints that are continually in opposition to almost undeniable facts. With both issues it seems that unspoken rules and assumptions carry such weight. It mostly just confuses me.

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.

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 addresses the potential of Obama's second term. Andrew Sullivan is a great writer (you all should look at his blog) and in this piece he predicts that in the event of an Obama win, several things would happen. First, he says, the Republican party would (might) experience a kind of whiplash from its extreme radicalization and loss, becoming more moderate. This - the cooperation of the Republicans in the Senate - could allow Obama to become a bi-partisan hero, dealing with the deficit and immigration reform. Why he chose Reagan to compare to I don't really know, but it's an interesting read.

I like the idea in this article that you brought up Cody, about Obama becoming a widely supported bipartisan President if he wins again, but it is pretty debased throughout by the constant references to today's great polarization between left and right. While the great partisanship between states and people and politicians is mentioned about other ideas, it seems pretty dreamy to think Obama could sidestep this in terms of his own legacy. Though Obama may not be able to change how the right perceives him, I think the difference between Sullivan's prediction about Republicans becoming more centrist compared to earlier ideas we have discussed where Republicans just become further absorbed in their sparsely-supported and deeply conservative views is really interesting and I am fascinated to see how that plays out. I can see how another win for Obama would lead Republicans to reconsider their platform and targeted voting blocs, but also the idea of withdrawing into their misguided viewpoints in a protectionist-type way also makes sense.

Well, it looks like what Sullivan predicted is right. The Republicans did experience a "whiplash" for all of their super right wing policies. I heard an interesting statistic that if the Republicans hadn't been able to do so much redistricting for their house seats, demographically, they would have lost the majority in the house.

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 is from the website of a conservative think tank, The Manhattan Institute. It's interesting to read a conservative criticize Romney for being out of touch with the American people when he focuses his economic argument on only the "four sore years" of the Obama administration. She highlights the number of times Romney referred to 4 years during the debate missing his opportunity to acknowledge that Americans know that the economy crashed well before 2009. She aptly states that Americans remember well the "white as a ghost" President Bush, "the panicked Congress", the "helpless" GOP standard bearer, McCain. She also points out that Americans are feeling like we already hit bottom and that it's not the time to focus only on the negative. Given that she seems more nuanced in her thinking, I was particularly interested to read her criticisms of Obama's reaction to the financial crisis, especially, according to her, his missed opportunity to encourage states to fix their pension and benefit problems, by bailing them out temporarily with the stimulus money.

I am glad you posted this, as it offers a different type of critique of Romney. I read an essay like this from another conservative think tank criticizing Romney's energy policies and they both have expanded my perspective, it seems that more disparaging reviews of candidates from within their parties are more productive. It's interesting to consider what Romney would be like as a more positive candidate and how he might end up like an Obama from 2008. The benefits of an optimistic, or at least more constructive, campaign are great. This article also highlights something which comes up a lot for me when thinking about the election, in which candidates really under-estimate their constituencies' intelligence. There is definitely a difference between selling the perspective you want to use to win and ignoring the reality of what people know.

After the election, it's pretty clear that "four sore years" didn't work. I wonder if there was really much else Romney could have focused on. I think Romney dug himself more holes than he holes he really dug for Obama. There were Republican governors running for reelection talking about how great the economy was while Romney was running for president talking about how bad it was. It really shows how you can spin a situation any way to suit you.

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.

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 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.

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 article spoke to what I thought about the presidential debate. I would be really interested to hear what the candidates had to say about the Euro-zone crisis or other real issues, but they were forced to tailor their comments to appealing to people in Ohio and other swing states. Classic American political system messing up real conversations from taking place.

I noticed the same thing Eli and also become frustrated when politicians' definition of foreign policy is dominated by historical problem countries in the Middle East. It's especially confusing considering that situations in Europe can be more relevant to the US' economic situation and future and that America really has little power when it comes to influencing the Middle East. I don't know a lot about the Euro-zone and I think that really relates to how little politicians bring it up, the problem is cyclical, if people don't talk about Europe, not a lot of people will know about it, and if few people know about Europe, politicians aren't going to want to talk about it... It's not that productive.

It does seem like the debate and most of the election focused on foreign policy issues that involve controversies about trade, oil, and military intervention. The broader issues that effect the world like climate change, nuclear proliferation and the economic troubles in Europe are not as compelling.

This article looks deeply into what we talked about last week regarding Ohio being the key state to win for both candidates. The author examines the importance of the state even more closely by narrowing in on five specific counties that have historically helped decide which party Ohio swings to. In this sense, the article is also useful as a profile of important undecided voter demographics in the country. In Wood, Ottawa, and Sandusky counties, the population is small but they serve as an indication of which candidate the entire state will vote for. Full of both elderly whites and union members/auto workers, the counties have been notoriously difficult to predict but paint a larger picture of the state as a whole. Tuscarawas serves as a bridge between the industrial, union-heavy north and the more rural south, and has gone with the winner of every presidential election in the last twenty years. Finally, Hamilton is worth watching because it has a much larger black population than the rest of the state, which the article suggests will indicate if Obama has a large turn out of this demographic. I am interested to see the results from Ohio come in on Election Day, and after reading this article, I'm going to keep a particularly keen eye out for these counties. I normally look at the enormous emphasis given to certain states as a flaw in our campaigning process, but this article is a good reminder that these states themselves are very diverse and a pretty good representation of the country as a whole. That being said, I still feel like the issues put forward by the candidates in the coming weeks are going to favor swing states like Ohio. This article was also informative to me as a California voter because I don't normally think of there being a hierarchy within the swing states, and I particularly don't consider the counties within these states. The magnification that this article takes to Ohio makes me wonder how carefully the candidates themselves look: do they fo

What intrigued me about this article was the need to examine four small counties in the state of Ohio in an effort to predict the outcome of a national election. More and more, as we've talked about, candidates are micro-targeting specific groups to hone their message to that groups specific concerns. Its become the way to win an election, but more and more it seems that it's just about convincing someone to vote for you and not about convincing them that important policies will help the country.

I think that looking at the historical economical failures and successes of democratic and republican economic policies is a good way to come to a conclusion about which candidate would actually help the economy. The candidates themselves are just spewing rhetoric about tax cuts and the middle class, so this third party analysis of economic growth under Democrats vs. Republicans is really interesting. Check it out.

It is sometimes extremely hard for me to understand the argument for conservative economic philosophies, because while they might seem great paper, have NEVER worked. "Trickle down" economics tend to stagnate the economy, not help it. While I definitely read a lot of liberally biased news sources, I still find that unbiased analysis of economic policy points to liberal policies almost every time. Jonah, if a person is still undecided, I would say they are definitely not going to vote on social issues. If social issues were more important to them than the economy, they would absolutely have already decided who to cast their vote for. It is very clear where the candidates stand on social issues, but is much less clear to the average undecided voter who is "the best candidate to help the economy."

It's great to see the economic facts laid out in this way. I read an article earlier written by two economists who quantified the effect of tax increases on the wealthy and found that tax increases had little effect on job growth or the economy. Again, this article proves that "trickle down" economics isn't based on facts. I wonder why it is so compelling. Of course people would rather believe that independent investment would benefit the economy more than government investment. It's part of the American mythology. The only way to bust a myth is with facts like these.

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 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?

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.

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.

I get so worked up when super-wealthy people act like they are somehow being persecuted when the Democrats asked them to "pay their fair share." I think this op-ed piece does a great job of explaining the frustration with the current socioeconomic divide. The author writes that "It is no accident that in America today the gap between the very rich and everyone else is wider than at any time since the Gilded Age." Although we can sit around and pretend that people "need to learn" from the rich. In reality, a of government policies are making it much harder to go from poor to rich, or even middle class. As the author describes the holes in the current American system, "Exhibit A is the bipartisan, $700 billion rescue of Wall Street in 2008. Exhibit B is the crony recovery. The economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty found that 93 percent of the income gains from the 2009-10 recovery went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. The top 0.01 percent captured 37 percent of these additional earnings, gaining an average of $4.2 million per household." This article doesn't blame Romney or Obama, it just explains why people are starting to have problems with the idea of the "1%." I personally don't think the outcry is against the actual members of the 1%, but rather agains the policies that it make socioeconomic inequality greater.

I think that what Mr. Potepan said in the talk really applies here. The idea is that when money is mobile, the economy is flourishing, but once the money gets locked up in the super-rich's bank accounts it doesn't help anyone because it's not being invested. It's always interesting to see historical examples of theories like these, and the thing about Venice seems like it illustrates Mr. Potepan's point well.

I agree with Cody that the point of the article is that successful states are those that give everyone access to economic opportunity and that inclusiveness as opposed to exclusiveness makes for a more prosperous country. The "book of gold" is a powerful image for the special access and privilege the elite had in Venice that continues today in access to better education tax breaks, etc. That access is something people don't want to give up. The African-American president at Brown who didn't want to give up legacy at admissions, since she had a granddaughter shows how once you have privilege, you don't want to let it go.

This article exposes how few candidates who run for office are from blue collar backgrounds even though most of the electorate are not white collar workers . Although I think so many election related articles focus too much on who the candidates are and not what specific policies and plans they have, the statistics and the implications Nicholas Carnes exposes are worth considering. With 90 million blue collar workers in this country, is it possible that not one former blue collar worker is qualified to run for office? He can only give two example of former blue collar workers who have been elected to federal offices. I agree with him that where you come from must influence your priorities and this means that important experiences are not being represented. Carnes says that it's unclear why this discrepancy is so huge. It could be campaign money, free-time, or party gatekeepers. Citizen United could only have made this discrepancy and the possibility of fixing it worse. Some possible solutions could include required public financing of elections, strict spending limits, and a very short election season. I wonder whether someone who tried to run for office and was be clearly cut out of the process because of job related time constraints and lack of funding could argue that his civil rights were denied. Has this been argued before?

I disagree, Cameron, mainly because of the staggering disconnection I see a lot of the time between Presidents and the people they hope to serve. Obama and Romney both try to play up their connection to the middle class. I see this as a performance, but the emphasis they put on it certainly makes it seem like an essential quality of an elected official. If blue collar workers ran and were elected, an authentic connection to the way policies play out for a huge part of our population might be possible. You seem to suggest in your article that no blue collar workers are as qualified as those with white collar backgrounds. The article suggests that, if even a fraction of a percent of the working-class population were qualified, if office "suited them," as you put it, they would "fill every seat in Congress and in every state legislature more than 40 times." No one is saying that only blue-collar workers should be elected, but it doesn't seem fair to attribute this discrepancy to every blue collar worker "not knowing as much about politics" as his or her white collar counterpart.

It seems like having wealthy politicians is just natural. Politicians have to be educated and ambitious, and someone who is both of those things typically isn't a blue-collar worker. The world of politics is also really based on connections, some through family and some though college (Harvard law for Obama) and it makes sense that most of those connections would go to the wealthy. Honestly, this article seems like it's raising kind of a silly point. Sure, there are blue collar workers who absolutely have the intelligence necessary to be president. But the educated tend to be wealthy, and so do the ambitious.