Group items tagged

Romney's energy views

This is an incredibly drastic change between two Romneys which I agree makes me a feel a bit uneasy. That being said, as a generalization, I take the standpoint that having him changes his views some to be more likely to win the election is not necessarily a bad thing. Assuming he continues to do this if elected, it means that he will be acting to serve the more, or at least what he believes to be, the more popular vote on select issues. I do wonder if he hadn't changed his views on this matter where we would be in the election right now. Would he lose voters because they don't agree with his energy policy or gain democratic voters who are looking for a strong stance on clean energy? Would the republican voters be upset enough about his energy policy to truly not vote for him or would his other republican positions outweigh it and not make him sacrifice many votes at all?

I can't blame Romney for changing his opinion on investing in green energy, just look at how terrible government investment in green energy has come. He does still believe that green energy is good, but wants the government to stay out of it for obvious reasons. Yes, he is shifty, but so is every politician that has ever existed ever. For instance, Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, but he extended the bush era tax cuts and not to mention set up ACA to require about 1 trillion in tax revenue when he only increased taxes by 550 billion. Obama says lots of things that he also has no intention of following too, this 550 billion increase isn't going to come at no cost to the middle class. What all politicians say and do are very different things.

page one of two

I think I need to learn more about unions and how exactly they work to gain a better understanding of this article. It's interesting how important a state's votes can be in an election. Talking about the importance of winning over Ohio really stood out to me and how big of a deal that is. It's good that Obama's campaign is able to recognize that they will not raise as much money at Romney and are working to catch up on votes with other means.

I'd like to point out here that, while Restore Our Future--the conservative super PAC supporting Romney--has an expenditure quadrupling that of Priorities USA--the super PAC supporting Obama--the influence of corporations and wealthy independent donors has played a major role on both sides in this election [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php].

This article talks about the importance for a Candidate to win Florida. In 2008, Obama won Flora by only 3% and four years previous, Bush won Florida by a slightly larger 5%. Because Florida has a total of 29 electoral votes, it is the biggest and therefore one of the most important swing states. Not only that, but the majority of the state does not matter as compared to a small section known as the I-4 who really do determine this election themselves. 

This is going to be an interesting swing state due to its larger population of senior citizens and with Romney appealing significantly to the senior citizen population with a 52-41 percent lead over Obama according to an associated press-GfK poll with seniors likely to vote.

It's interesting to me that it seems that the entire election can come down to one swing state, and the whole state to one county. I think this is a example of why the electoral college isn't right-no one county should have that much power.

This article quotes Paul Ryan being extremely confident that he and Romney will win the election. He accepts that they have made mistakes but also adress that they will make it clear in the upcoming debates that the American people are choosing between a brighter future and failed policies of the past four years. I particularly noticed this quote: "Ryan said Romney has been specific, but declined to say which loopholes, saying, "It would take me too long to go through all of the math."" I think this is interesting because as he is saying they are specific, he is avoiding being specific. The article continues to talk about Obama commenting on to Republican Campaign not being specific as well.

Yadira touched on this, but they HAVE to be confident: if you say "I don't think I'm going to win" you're definitely not going to win. The article says "Paul Ryan acknowledged Sunday the campaign has made some missteps"; I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he considers those missteps to be.

Yeah I agree Sabrina. Putting on the confident face definitely makes you a more attractive candidate. But I think he has not been very specific with his campaign which makes me trust him less. His confident persona matched with his flakey statements leave me confused!

This post election analysis breaks up each candidates votes by ethnic demographics and finds that 88% of Romney voters were white. 56% of Obama voters were white. It claims that the white establishment no longer has the capacity to decide an election, and accuses the Romney campaign of running purely on his appeal to white people. 

This is certainly one of the biggest problems that the GOP is facing. It is ancient, and religion is seizing a hold of its policies to an extent that makes a good bit of americans strongly dislike.

This article is more about Iran than the election, but it brings up the prospect that the Obama administration chose not to release the information until after election day for political reasons. I don't think it's important whether he did or not, but I come to the question: how much does a political agenda sway what a media outlet or any entity that publishes information chooses to cover? Beyond tone, rhetoric and biased descriptions, could entire events have been passed over in the way of allegiance to one party or the other?

I believe that a political agenda has great influence on what information is released to the media and what stories are hidden from the public's eye. An example of this is the attack in Benghazi and the significant delayed release of information pertaining to the attack. It seemed that Obama's administration attempted to keep the details of this attack in the dark, in an attempt to preserve its reputation. I believe there will always be a political agenda behind what is and isn't released and I do believe that there have been events in the past that have been passed over in order to preserve someone's reputation but in this modern time with the interent, I believe it to be impossible for significant events to be hidden from the public and I believe that there will now be more events covered and talked about than there have been in the past.

James, I do not believe that Obama's "political agenda" delayed the release of the information pertaining to the attacks in Libya, or that the information was intentionally delayed. I do agree with your opinion that the government does have sway over the media, but I do not believe that this was one of those situations. Obama, himself, released the information and he did not receive the complete story.

This article discusses the GOP's response to Mitt Romney after losing the election. It argues that his lack of "emotional foothold" with the party means that the party has little desire to hold on to him, but also has no need to angrily push him out.  It also argues that he is now focusing on "what was wrong with the voters, not what was wrong with his campaign." Given that the party is trying "to get away from the stereotype that is...by and for white," do you think that Romney's ideas will be rejected by Republicans from now on? Do you think his personality has led them to dislike him? In terms of being a "puppet" like candidate, what do you think Romney's role was in this election?

These are graphs that show the different demographics that voted for which presidents.  It also shows the results to which states both Obama and Romney won. I think it's interesting that this year Florida did not play much of an important part as it usually does. 

The question about about handling medicare, the economy and the deficit are really telling. The implication of such a vast majority of voter agreeing with their candidates view on these specific issues is that a vast majority of voters based their choice on these issues.

I find it shocking that the african american community voted significantly more in favor of Obama than any other community combined. I side red with a ton of these issues. I'm still a little confused why people think that Obama's foreign policy is considered as being good considering that he completely covered up the fact that they CIA had been to libya two weeks before the attack and requested help, yet nothing was done. This is infuriating to me. I do not trust Obama to handle foreign policy, he is far to loose with Ahmadinejad, Iran's nuclear program has skyrocketed since 2008. Nothing about that seems 'successful' to me.

This article talks about Obama's and Romney's responses to the recent violence in Libya. Obama is criticized with not speaking forcefully and being too apologetic in regards to the recent situation as well as some of the recent stuff going on in the Middle East. The article then goes on to say that despite the foreign affairs news, the economy is still the pressing issue of the election (not sure if I agree with that fully).

If things continue to escalate in the middle east, as they have been lately, than foreign policy will continue to be a major issue in the election. Danielle, I feel like you are right and that most americans will focus on the economy, but the two issues are intertwined, and bad news for one is bad news for the other if things continue to escalate. How much money are we willing to spend dealing with other countries? We already have out of control spending, but if things get worse then we will have to decide what is more important to our country: security, or money.

What seems frustrating to me about this whole situation is that both sides seem to be using Libya as an excuse to say "look at me, look at how good I am at foreign policy!" I wish that they would work together to actually solve problems instead of trying to prove what good problem solvers they are.

This article isn't really about politics, but it made me think about the election's trail through the internet. True, I didn't spend as much time on the internet in 2008 as I do now, but I never really thought about this much until this article. I have to say that my experiences on the internet have caused me to see that it has a clear sway in its beliefs and is always liberal. This makes sense because young people are on the internet more than old people, say, and young people are more commonly liberal than older people. 

I think that the internet is a great way to attract young people who might not otherwise be engaged in the election. I think that often, young people vote much more on the personalities of the candidates than on their policies (I'm sure most 18 year olds couldn't give you their beliefs on what tax policies would be best) and the internet conveys personalities quite well. Additionally, this might contribute at least partially to why the internet is more liberal: most people would agree that Obama is a more charismatic candidate than Romney.

I have not seen many ads for either party, either that or I may just have ignored them. I know, however, that places like Reddit tend to be hyper-liberal and are often the sources for many of the liberal propaganda that circulates throughout the internet. I cannot think of any conservative sites that compare in size to any of the predominantly liberal websites that make up a large portion of the internet.

This article identifies who Obama needs to focus on in the Swing State of North Carolina, African Americans. They were one of the main reasons that North Carolina sided with the democrats for the first time in decades. After 4 years with Obama's policies, some of these people who were originally very enthusiastic about voting for Obama are now uncertain about this new election. This is a state that could provide a big influence in the election and it will be interesting to follow it and see what happens.

This article calls to attention something that I never thought about before: "I guess part of it is that history has already been made." A lot of people who voted for Obama in 2008 may have done so so that they could feel like they were changing history, being a part of the first black president, and now that excitement may have worn off.

I saw that too, Sabrina. I think that Obama has to highlight what it means for the African American population if Romney is elected. He can't rely on energy that he generated in 2008.

I think this is great progress that we're introducing more diversity into Congress. Although I still think that it would be even better to introduce more diversity (like 50% female) into Congress, this is a step in the right direction and I know that we'll get there eventually. What do you guys think? Is this an important step for Congress?

I think it is progress but like Abby said, it's upsetting that electing women is still a big deal. I guess the next step is to have a woman president...

I agree with both of Abby and Danielle, I think that the fact that everyone is making a big deal out of this is unnecessary. I think it is great we are diversifying the senate, but I think we need to make bigger changes and encourage the diversity more. I mean it's great that 5 women got into the senate, but these numbers should be higher. I think once this happens this will definitely be progress.

I think this article sort of depresses my vision of the future. After the election I felt a serious lack of excitement and I think this article shows why. With the reelection, hearing Obama call upon a need for bipartisan work is nothing new. With the Republicans saying no raise and democrats saying raise, once again, little is going to be accomplished in moving across party lines.

Yep, Sabrina I'm with you. This reminds me of the frontline film we watched that said how important it is for presidents to understand how to work "the system".

I completely agree with Sabrina, I mean Obama can try to create and try to pass many things that might be beneficial for America, but congress does have more power over him because congress is made up mostly of republicans. I like that Obama wants to work with both political parties, but how willing are both parties willing to work with each other?

News reports are coming out with information on hurricane sandy and the warnings set out in various parts of the country. It is interesting to see how the different candidates are being and going to be effected by this. It seems from this article that in terms of swing states, Obama is going to be hit harder although Virginia may be tough for Romney with the conservative parts being hit harder. Romney definitely does have a disadvantage with his headquarters in Boston though. I am interested to see how much of an effect on the election this storm has. Thoughts and predictions?

I'm wondering if the storm will affect the voters more than the candidates (eg: making them unable to vote), and in this way it will affect the election. Like Yadira said, though, the storm can be symbolic for many who have experienced it as they think about what really matters in life and what they want America to look like. I would think in the non-swing states, the storm would only make people more enthusiastic about their choice, thinking America is due for a 'rebirth' of some sort, with their preferred leader at the head. And, also like Yadira said, if the storm affects an undecided voter personally, the way in which the president deals with their lives/the governor proposes he would deal with their lives could determine their decision of who to vote for.

I think that the storm will make a lot less people vote, especially the undecided voters who the candidates have been trying so hard to sway. However, I think that the voters who are passionately decided will not be affected by the weather.

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?

This article highlights the role of women in the election. It discusses the necessity for each candidate to receive the votes of women. Obama criticizes Romney for his changing views on abortion but women have also felt the tough economy under Obama's administration. Do you think there are other issues besides the issue of contraceptive health care that would persuade women to vote for Romney or Obama?

I think it all comes down to either sacrificing women's rights or women's stance in the economy. Romney who does not support abortion but may be able to fix the economy, while Obama does support women's rights but might delay in fixing the economy. Thinking about a women's votes in this election, I wonder what the "Walmart moms " prefer, fixing the economy or their rights? Either way whoever gets elected not everyone will be happy. They will have to sacrifice one or the other.

I would think women would be more connected to a candidate supporting their rights, but I realize there are other perspectives. A few of my female relatives are very conservative and are prolife, and they are women too. I feel that in his campaign, Obama is doing a better job of making women feel comfortable in their vote while Romney is making it seem like women's rights is a separate issue from people's rights, which may make women feel all the more disrespected.

This article is about the jokes that Romney and Obama made at a charity dinner. It also highlights the fact that they are focusing on women as the undecided voters and talks about the advertisements they put out to sway undecided women in their direction. This is interesting in that it combines two things we discussed in other articles on diigo: ad campaings and women voters. Do you think it would be more affective for Romney/Obama to take a more comedic or critical approach to winning these female undecided voters, and how do you think their advertisements affect their decisions if at all?

While I think that decisions about something as important as who the president should be SHOULD be based on statistics and facts, this late in the game people who haven't yet decided are going to latch on to anything, factual or personal, that appeals to them. Because of this, I agree with James that appealing to voter as a person is just as important as appealing to them as a candidate.

Yeah I agree completely. Although in reality the numbers may be most directly related to who is going to be a successful president, in terms of getting elected I think the stories are equally if not more convincing to voters.

This article is about Obama's campaign switching over and talking about how Romney changes his policies and can therefore not be trusted. It emphasizes Obama keeping his word and focuses on a rally in Florida. It also discusses Obama referring to "Romnesia" The quote that really stood out to me was, "On the auto industry bailout, the hiring of public school teachers and Medicare, Obama said Romney is aiming to disguise his real positions in order to win the election." Do you think that Romney's position changes are going to have a negative or positive effect on his campaign? And, do you think that these are genuine changes or are for the polls?

When researching energy for the issues project we just completed, I read an article about an environmentalist who was leaning towards Romney, despite his views on energy resources that harm the environment, because his past positions on green energy gave her hope. Also, on a previous article, we were discussing how people might take Romney's switches as a confirmation of his concern for the people. At the same time, a lack of commitment to his beliefs could prove a lack of commitment to the people and his job. I know I feel more connected to that second argument, but I am very curious to how the rest of the country will look at this.

I'm not sure how Romney disguising his real plans would benefit him in any sort of way-if helping the country is not his "real goal", what is his goal in becoming president? And why would he present something other than the best plan he's got if he wants to win votes?

This article describes the shift that everyone has seen in Romney as the elections near.He has shifted from a more aggressive stance to a more moderate stance, attempting to show himself to be a candidate that appeals to all different voters. Do you think this shift will help or hurt Romney in this election? Does this shift show inconsistency or does it show his willingness to compromise his ideas for the betterment of America?

I think that this is an extremely good tactic for Romney: he appealed more to the far right and the people who were very set in their conservative values earlier in the campaign, and is now appealing to the more moderate undecided voters. People who were really excited about him as a candidate aren't going to change their minds about him now, so there's no downside for Romney. However, I'm not sure if his values are actually changing or if he's simply trying to appeal to a wider voter base.

Romney wouldn't be this far in the election if he weren't going to 'compromise' because he would be pro-choice and for same-sex marriage and have little support from the republican party at all. Compromise is great but only to a certain level. There has to be some point which people can't across and which we, Americans can depend upon to know that Romney won't change his views on. I would not be comfortable voting for President who changes his viewpoints to line up with the votes he needs the most just because who knows what positions he will hold if he actually does make it into office.

This article emphasizes the importance of the toss-up state of Wisconsin and how crucial it will be to this election. This state has been democrat for the last 6 elections, although it has been a close call for the past two elections. Romney's addition of Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, this state will be a true battleground for both parties.