Group items tagged

This article talks about Obama's calm and collected response to the upcoming storm hitting back east. Obama has expressed concern about the storm to America but not in a panicked manner. I think made the right move by not focusing on the election here but rather everyone's safety. Having a president who makes Americans feel safe is important. One question that I have is will the weather affect the polls next week? 

Well, if Obama didn't do anything about the storm, then he would have probably lost votes in a lot of states affected in the area. Just look at how much bad press Bush got after Katrina. Obama needed a standing for America moment after skipping out on national security matters to go on TV.

I think people will always like a candidate that tends to pressing issues instead of campaigning because this is another sort of campaigning: actions speak louder than words! Obama made the right move in helping with the hurricane, but it was a political decision as well.

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.

Something that I find interesting in this article is that it seems that Cunningham, who has been less-than-successful in the past four years, attributes his failings in life to the Obama administration. I don't know if this is true or not, but it seems that this is the way a lot of people look at the election: if you have been happy in the past four years, reelect Obama. If you have been unhappy, elect Romney.

This article is highlights the need for this coming week's Democratic Convention to mimic the optimism that Obama's previous convention in 2008 had. Being that Obama's speech is after that of Romney's, it will be interesting to see if he subtly responds to anything that Romney said. Regardless, it is clear that Obama must recapture America.

I agree that is is impossible to recapture the hope Obama had four years ago. I found it interesting to read this article after listening to his speech because I was able to compare what Obama did to what the article was suggesting. Again I agree that Obama attacking Romney is slightly disappointing and not what I expect or want to see from him normally. I think in his speech he did do a little bit of attacking with his various jokes, the one standing out to me at the moment being when Romney called Russie the nation's greatest enemy.

It was interesting to see the different tactics that are suggested that Obama needed to do so that he would perform well at the Democratic convention. After seeing the convention I feel like Obama did follow all of these tactics, but not to his fullest ability. I felt like his attacks on Romney were not as intense as when Romney was attacking Obama at the republican convention. I feel like this is a good thing because the fact that he was not constantly attacking Romney showed that he had an agenda in his speech rather than Romney who consistently attacked Obama in his republican convention speech.

This is something to read bits and pieces of--not every single word. I think of Rush Limbaugh as a conservative version of John Stewart. He's a source of entertainment as well as a political commentator so he has no responsibility to consider anything objectively.

I thought the part where he talked about how the poles right now are just to shape your vote was really strong. Seeing the poles two months before the election can change but, if you see Obama is ahead, it can shape your vote to believe Romney has already lost or the other way around.

I thought the part where he talked about people who are being supported by the government are too scared to not vote for Obama was really interesting. I don't think it's fair to say "The fact that he's destroyed the economy will actually benefit him...The fact that he's destroyed the economy is gonna benefit Obama because all those people who are now on some sort of welfare-like assistance are gonna be scared to death to get rid of Obama because then what will become of their meager existence?"

Although Romney is trailing by a pretty large percentage, the article is positive that Mitt can regain his loss by targeting certain voter groups, such as college students.  The article never says that Mitt has lost a group of voters %100.  The article, in general, seems hopeful that Romney can and will pull it together before the election.

It's interesting that Romney is having trouble holding on to wealthier voters, as a lot of his policies would seem to benefit them. Also, the group of "men" seems exceedingly broad to me. "Women" and "racial minorities" are both groups that have been marginalized in the past, so it makes sense to reach out to them. "Men" have always been the group in power, and it confuses me that they're considered a voting bloc.

Does anyone know anything about how exactly the polls are calculated? I am just curious where the numbers actually come from.

This article is able about how Obama recently went on the The View while Mrs. Clinton met with presidents from the Middle East. This article got me thinking about media and how presidents seem more relatable by going on talk shows than talking to political leaders. 

I agree that assisting needs in foreign affairs should come before campaigning. In terms of campaigning, however, it is hard to say which is more important between the two, because while to the well-informed population of America dealing with presidential issues would definitely be more helpful towards his campaign, the large number of uninformed American citizens rely on things like talkshows to understand the views and beliefs of the candidate more so than their work as a member of the government.

I agree with you sami! I think that to people who are interested in and know about foreign affairs would have appreciate Obama attending the meeting rather than going to the view. Right now I feel like Obama should be focusing on his campaign since the elections are soon. Also Obama probably deals with foreign policy on a regular bases so it is mot like he never has meet with these officials before.

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 outlines topics that The Atlantic believes should be debated about more. This is a very liberal source; do you guys think that a conservative source would have a very different list? What topics do you want to see debated?

I agree with Will, I don't think the list they have are topics that should be debated more, I personally believe that the issues on this list are more about moral issues. If there was a more conservative list I feel like most of the topics would not be on the list.

I agree Yadira, that the issues on this website are more social/moral. But I think it can be argued that the climate change is not social/moral but an issue that is going to seep into everyone's wife. Will, I'm going to have to disagree. I think women's rights and Gay rights can be linked. Women are focusing on rights that they need to keep them financially secure (are they financially able to have a child) while Gay couples want rights to combine assets etc. like straight married couples for stability.

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.

Savannah, what do you mean by going to far?

I believe that Affermative Action is a necessity, and we cannot say that it is outdated until all African Americans are completely integrated into America. In the US at the moment, we see that the amount of African Americans going to college is far less than the amount of Caucasians who attend college. Education is the first step towards equality, and therefore, I believe that we should allow more African Americans to progress to higher education so that they may eliminate, or reduce, the prejudice that their race faces. I do, however, believe that other factors, such as economic class, should be factored in as well in order for people in unfavorable situations to help their families by gaining a good education. Until the average African American makes the same salary and the average caucasian, I believe that Affirmative Action is necessary.

Also, we (white Americans) enslaved and abused their people, the least we can do is help them get an education.

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 article raises interesting questions about Obamacare and what the states will decide to do with their own individual systems. I personally dislike the bill because of its fiscal problems and feel like forcing americans to purchase something from a third party is unconstitutional. 

I think that it is nice to see some hope towards compromise at the white house, but at the same time respect Boehner so much more for saying that he simply will not accept any tax plan that isn't balanced. We  really can't afford to be increasing our budget deficit any more. At current rates, our debt to gdp ratio will be up 40% by the end of 2016, and we cannot afford to be increasing our deficit. By 2016, the interest on our massive debt because of our skyrocketing budget deficit will have tripled. We are financially headed in a horrible direction, and I am trusting Boehner to shut down any attempts to pass more debt-skyrocketing bills. I agree with this article's position on tax cuts to the wealthy, increasing taxes will only hurt the private sector even further. Even the CBO agrees that if bush tax cuts were to expire unemployment would rise to a whopping 9%, and as such should not be allowed to expire.The private sector, not the government, creates jobs, and this article confirms to me why the government should make it easier for the private sector to create jobs by allowing the bush tax cuts to continue. 

This article discusses Romney saying he wanted to cut government programs such as FEMA, the program for natural disasters, and that hurricane Sandy really damaged this point. Do you think the disaster was big enough to shift America''s general views on cutting government spending now that we've seen many citizens suffering and in need of government aid?

Puerto Rico has voted in favor of statehood.  This could men that the US could have 51 states!  How do you guys think that this will affect our country?  Do you think it will be good for the rest of America?  Will it change anything at all?

Interesting changes in supreme court justices! i was just wondering what the group's general opinions on these cases, I sure hope that they end up voting in favor of most plaintiffs in these cases. As long as the court votes liberally on social issues and conservatively on fiscal ones, I will be happy. Justices have greater influence on social conditions than one might think.....

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.

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.