Group items tagged

Obama's campaign is fighting to say that the country is better off than it was 4 years ago in response to Republicans saying otherwise.

This question of whether America is better of now than it was four years ago is really hard to measure. What does better of mean? Obama has been able to accomplish things like kill Osama bin Laden, create obamacare, and stop the war in Iraq. These things that Obama has done make me believe that we are better of.

This article really highlights their wars over the middle class and shows different definitions on what is considered to make the country better off. I'm not surprised that both the GOP and the democrats are trying their hardest to make themselves better in the eyes of the middle class, which is the 'swing state' of the financial world. I agree with the republicans completely on this, I feel like 50,000 dollars per citizen in debt, a doubling of our long term unemployment rates, the 40% of every dollar being spent that is borrowed, and that our national debt under him is growing at a rate fast enough to equal our gdp in a couple of months are all overshadowing anything else from obama's presidency. ACA is only going to increase our national debt at the steep price of those it is trying to help, not to mention the wars on terrorism are far from over even though Osama is dead.

Romney is using Obama's failed promises to lower the unemployment rate below 8% as one of his most convincing points against the president's last four years.

Yes job creation is not the only question in "are you better off than you were four years ago?" but it is a big one. Having a job is a key to having a good life. It is one of the issues that most directly affects each American person. Even someone who pays no attention to politics or policy whatsoever is directly affected by jobs. So if Obama cannot create jobs now, I can see why the Romney campaign would choose to focus on criticizing that so strongly.

Unemployment has become such a pressing issue for many families that Romney is smart to bring up Obama's failed promises to lower the unemployment. Because having jobs is important to everyone, it makes sense that Romney is using this to the best of his advantage. That said, there is only so much control that Obama has and I don't think his "failed promise" leads directly to "are you better off than you were four years ago?"

This article discusses the how the rate of unemployment has decreased and it's affects on Obama's campaign.  Although this is good according to Romney, it is not the best that we can do. Does the fact that the percent it decreased is not a lot? Is it still an accomplishment?

I agree. I think what is key about the article is the quote, "Indeed, the economy has added jobs for 24 straight months." What resinates with me which the article touched on and our speaker on the economy in class went in detail with is the idea that because of the growth in population, to have job growth, not only does Obama have to create more jobs than before, but he has to do that on top of an addition number of jobs that account for the increase in population. This is something I never really thought about before but makes a huge difference in how I look at his success in making more jobs.

However, unemployment inequality has increased and college students are coming out of college with jobs that they are vastly overqualified for. Also, long term unemployment rates have increased, which in my opinion is a more important number than the short term. If Obama wants to be respected in my opinion, he has to create more long term jobs, which he hasn't done. He has only made our country more dependent on government influence. Just because unemployment is 7.8 does not mean that the economy is actually getting better. The 7.8 is taking into account part time employment, which does not indicate economical well being, especially since 2 million will be laid off before the holiday season. And I'm curious to hear what this speaker you are talking about said, please explain.

Obama cast his ballot early and explains why it is better to plan ahead.  It also contains some interviews with Obama supporters.

I as well am curious to what the advantage of voting early would be. The article states that Obama said "It means you don't have to figure out whether you need to take time off work, figure out how to pick up the kids and still cast your ballot." To me it seems as it is just securing your vote in case of an emergency that might prevent you from voting. Also it my be strategic by making a person vote early not able to change their vote later if something happens that might make that voter change his/her mind.

I agree with the idea of early voting, but I'm not sure how far it could be pushed back. What limit should we put on how early you can vote? A few weeks? A few months? It becomes absurd at some point, but at what point?

This article talks about how the lead that Obama had going into the debates has diminished after Obama's debate against Romney. This gives new hope for the GOP going into the Vice President Debate on Thursday.

Having watched both the presidential debate and the VP one I agree in that, "Mr. Romney has gained ground against Mr. Obama in virtually all measures" from his articulate responses in last week's debate. But I think it's important to realize that the hard-core democrats and the republicans probably are not going to change their vote regardless of who wins the debate. I think both Biden and Ryan did a good job last night and that they both also seemed weak at a few points. For me, Biden's laughing/eye rolling was really distracting and made him seem arrogant. His mannerisms were off putting and made me feel uncomfortable which made me almost favor Ryan by the end. Who do you all think "won"?

Danielle, I think Biden won. He was so energetic in the way that Democrats really needed after the first presidential debate. Additionally, the article says that "six percent [of voters] remain undecided". This baffles me a bit. At this point in the campaigns, how could anyone not know who they support? The candidates are so different! Although I suppose that, especially for voters who don't delve deeply into the policies, it's hard to decide who will fix the country faster and better.

This article explains where each of the candidates stand in polls after the debate. Interestingly, according to the polls shown here, 51% of voters like Romney and 56% like Obama, meaning there are a significant amount of people that like both. Also, it definitively says that Romney won the debate. Who do you think won?

For me, the most disappointing thing was Obama's lack of enthusiasm. I also think Romney won this debate and clearly made himself seem like a more appealing candidate. Although he did do that on this one particular night, I think the candidate's personality overall, and not just in one night, is more important. I liked this quote from the article because I think it sums up what happened well: "This suggests to me that while the debate was effective in energizing the Republican base and giving Romney a boost, it didn't fundamentally change perceptions of either man a great deal."

I, too, would argue that Romney won the debate especially due to both his enthusiasm and Obama's lack of enthusiasm. I think this article raises a good question of whether the debates/policies of the candidates are more important to the election or the likability/relatability of the candidates are more important. While we are being educated in all areas of the candidates and are basing our views off of this educated standpoint, many voters might not know a lot about either Romney or Obama, so do you think the outcomes of the debates will have as big of an impact on the election as one might hope?

It's so frustrating to me that campaigns seem to be all about money. Shouldn't they be about the candidates ideas?

I agree that it is frustrating how much a campaign is dependent on money but when I think about it, money is what gives candidates the ability to share their ideas with the most people. Whether or not something just as a TV commercial is more about a candidates ideas or solely bashing another candidiate, the advertisement is reaching a population who may not ordinarily have much interest in the election. Money is what enables candidates to travel around the nation to give speeches ect. So although it is extremely frustrating, money does play a crucial role in even just spreading the candidates ideas.

It frustrates me too. It seems that all of the money spent campaigning could go to something much more useful in our government. But I agree with you Abby that for many people, commercials and any media are some of the only exposure that people have to the current election, which is why they are so crucial.