Group items tagged

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].

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.

This article is about the struggle to win Ohio-a very divided state that seems to be necessary for either candidate to win. It outlines the tactics that each candidate is taking there while campaigning this weekend.

It seems like both candidates are criticizing the other pretty harshly. Do you think this tactic will convince Ohio either way? It's hard for me to get my confusion cleared up when there's all this political "punching".

I feel like this article makes me think there is something seriously wrong with the electoral college. Hearing that one state, Ohio, is the main focus of both candidates' campaigns as well as the part of the article that stated that no Republican president has ever been elected without winning Ohio made me feel like Ohio has an unfair say in the election which leads me to believe that the electoral college system needs to be reformed.

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.

This isn't just your average 'look who is on top article', it has this really cool chart at the bottom that shows public opinion over time. You can see how the RNC didn't have as big of an effect on Romney as the DNC did for Obama. This article also remarks on Romney's recent fallback (though does not include on graph) but doesn't say anything about his recent "47%" blunder, which actually suprises me because the Huffington Post tends to be more liberal.

That is super interesting. I wonder if (actually, I hope!) the reason that the 47% thing isn't mentioned is because the Huffington Post is willing to accept that for what it is-a mistake that doesn't need to be brought up again and again. Another option is that it really didn't have a significant impact on voters.

Yep, the good thing is that both politicians have lied substantially and their lies seem to be forgotton by others.