Group items tagged

I thought this article summarized pretty much how I felt about the debate. They both did a good job and were fairly evenly matched but in my opinion, Biden may have done just a tiny bit better. That being said the poll asking people who they thought won (taken of the people who watched the debate) confirmed my suspicion that many republican viewers thought Ryan did as well, if not better than Biden.

I thought Biden and Ryan's debate was completely different from the presidential debate. I know many democrats were disappointed in Obama's lack of critical response to Romney's points, arguing that he could have shot them all down easily and logically. Biden seemed to compensate for that completely, making Ryan seem like he didn't really know what he was talking about. What I thought was interesting about this debate, though, was that who won seems completely subjective based on personality equally if not more than policy. Many might thing Ryan won because Biden was laughing in a perhaps rude way the whole time, while many might think Biden won because he deserved to laugh at Ryan for saying things that didn't entirely make sense. I think this almost has more to do with personality preference than policy preference because in our debate chat room, where most of us were democrats, there were arguments both that the laughing was rude and that the laughing was called for, passionate, and helpful in Biden's claim. Overall, Biden's casualness was a great contrast to the formal, almost scripted attitude of Ryan. This is why the debate seems to be so varied in public response, and to me, why it depends on what the individual listener wants to hear to decide who really won the debate.

In my opinion, Biden won, but it certainly wasn't a runaway like it was for Romney. I agree with you all that they were pretty evenly matched, and that a lot of who won is based on who you already like. I don't think that this debate will have a significant impact on the election.

I believe that Biden won for his ability to: connect to the viewers, shoot down all of Ryan's ideas, and emphasize all of the good things that have happened under his and Obama's office. Like Sabrina said, however, Biden did not blow away the competition like Romney did to Obama, but he did seem to do better than Ryan. Also, like Sabrina said, this debate won't mean much to the voters even though they did raise some policy issues.

Personally, this debate did mean something to me as a voter. It did not make me want to change my position or anything, but it did boost my confidence in my already-made choices. I am wondering if this has become more of the reasoning behind these debates, or if they are still created to make people decide on who they are voting for?

I completely agree that the candidate that is running against the incumbent main focus is to try to bring "zingers" against the president. Romney in a way has a fresh start because no one has seen him in action yet so he has main focus is to prove that he can be better than Obama. By focusing on Obama's flaws Romney will be able to prove that he is a better candidate than Obama.

He can't change his policies but he can change the way he expresses his policies, and that's half the battle. Also, (unsurprisingly) Romney acts as if it was not Obama's lack of energy at the debate that made him lose his lead but his policies, but it's not like the debate was the first time the people had heard these policies.

Obama was definitely rusty compared to a fresh-out-of-the-primaries Romney and I believe that if he wants to generate the same levels of enthusiasm that he had four years ago, he has to raise his own energy levels.

I actually can't wait until thursday's debate, I think it will be just as exciting as the first one was. Ryan is extremely intelligent and a statistical slammer, so it should be interesting to see how he debates.

I think the race will be a close one. I think for some people, the third presidential debate will either cement someone's choice or make them more hesitant. Romney needs to not make another mistake with his wording in regards to women while Obama needs to keep him energy up.

We read an article about this at Urban, but often the polls are unreliable. They can choose who they want to poll, how they contact the people they poll, and how they analyze the information. I'm not saying that this particular poll is wrong, just to take it with a grain of salt because I'm sure there are many polls that disagree with it.

Sabrina, I think for the many families struggling to put food on the table, yes their main concern is jobs. I'm still curious how Obama's track record will effect this election. I wonder if Romney will have somewhat of an advantage because he hasn't had some of the "failure" that Obama has with getting things done in congress. Do you think people are hopeful that Obama can fix the hold ups in Congress? This quote sums it up why some people think will happen again. "The president just cannot work with Congress to finally get the job done. He says he would. He said he would before and he didn't,"

I am not sure of why someone would want to vote early. If there is no difference or advantage, then what is the use. It is weird though that democrats are pushing to vote early. I mean it does give flexibility to people who are busy a longer period of time for when to vote, but otherwise what is the use?

I think early voting is fine, as long as you are sure this is who you want to vote for. I feel like the people who would vote early would not change their minds in the last 35 days. While it does seem strange because there is no huge benefit, I feel that voting early could take a load off people so that they get it over with and don't over think it. It could also spark from enthusiasm. Also, in Will's article, it Obama argues that it helps people have easier access to vote (if for some reason they couldn't vote on election day). Because of this, I see more benefit than burdon from voting early.

This article is about how Obama's target audience in his advertising is mainly blue-collar women (middle aged white women without education). It brought up two major questions for me: 1. how important is advertising? It seems to be most affective when criticizing the opposing candidate. 2. how important are women (specifically blue-collar women) in this election? How do women's rights tie into the swing votes/why are many GOP-leaning blue-collar women now leaning towards Obama?

I found this very interesting, I normally don't really think of what the midwest's demographic is, but to see that it is blue-collar white women is super interesting. I also think the connection between advertising and the women is really powerful. The ads they are showing are definitely working since much of Obama's supports are their targeted audience.

It's funny that they focus on such a specific group. This quote stood out to me: "Democrats say blue-collar women have been the principal, and most receptive, target for their extended ad barrage portraying Romney as a plutocrat who is blind, if not indifferent, to the struggles of average families." The ads all seem to be focused on saying how bad Romney will be for these women, rather than Obama helping them. How can they know that Obama is really right for them if all they know is that they don't like Romney?

I agree that this race will be very close, but, like the article we read, polls aren't always reliable.

I think that it could be seen either way: as a commitment to the people or as a weakness in lack of ideals. While it seems nice to be always doing what the people want, I feel like our government was created to create equal opportunity for all, which means both gains and sacrifices for all people. If Romney lacks an ideal or a focus, how/where will we go forward? As we have learned from our history and even in Obama's decisions as president, too much compromise can get us nowhere, so where do we draw lines in order to reach our goals...if we have any?

Too much stubbornness can get us nowhere as well, remember. Our government is built on the principals of compromise, and Romney has a much more solid track record than Obama when it comes to business as well as pre-presidential government experience, which speaks way louder than anything else. Would Romney have been as successful if he weren't willing to compromise? No.

I think it's ridiculous that Romney has "changed" his standpoint on abortion. To me it seems that changing your "pro-life/pro-choice" standpoint publicly is to win certain votes. I remember during Romney's RNC speech he brought up protecting the sanctity of life right after a huge applause and I'm sure everyone did not hear him. His wobbly shifts on his position on abortion is something that bothers me.

This reminds me of the conversation we had in class the other day about fact-checking. It seems like the accessibility of media would make presidential candidates stick to a clear point of view rather than altering opinions depending on the audience. It doesn't seem like the media is stopping Romney from changing his story. I also was really bothered by this quote: "We're not going to round up people around the country and deport them". The language in that rubbed me the wrong way and it makes me feel that Romney isn't taking the uprooting of lives as seriously/respectfully as he should be.

Romney's idea of "self-deportation" seems ridiculous and unrealistic to me-maybe I just don't understand it enough. It seems like saying that people should go home but the government won't make them is the worst possible option; it doesn't welcome undocumented immigrants into the country nor does it remove them. It sounds like another example of Romney changing his message based on his audience.

I agree with you about how it might make the President seem a bit more relatable to the public when he went on to the television show "The View" but right now was an awful time for him to do it. He is avoiding the world leaders that have come here for the United Nations General Assembly and he is shirking his responsibility to them and this country. He put his campaign in front of the foreign policy he is supposed to be in charge of. Sure as Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton should be the one to handle the majority of the foreign policy affairs, but Obama still has to do his part, which he failed to do according to this article, by putting his campaign in front of meetings with Global Leaders.

James, I couldn't agree with you more. Why should the president be trying to appeal to the masses right now? If anything, his adamant resolution to work things out with Israel says way more about his integrity than going on some talk show to try to impress the masses, which, in most cases, aren't exactly adamant followers of international news. Obama selfishly chose the election over America, and just went down even more in my book.

I also think that in this case, Obama should have spoken with world leaders instead of going on a talk show. He is campaigning, but he's also the President of the United States, and that should still be his most important job right now.

I agree that Obama did not make the best decision in putting the talk show above metting with world leaders. I think it is a hard thing to balance when trying to figure out what the American people will think of either choice but I do believe that as the president, it would not have hurt his campaign and could have possibly helped his campaign if he had put international affairs above a tv show.