Group items tagged

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?

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?

This is  short piece which predicts a few questions the candidates will have to answer in the coming debates. It claims that an exceeding expectations tactic "doesn't even fool anyone". Do you guys agree? Will the winner of the debates actually be the person who gives the soundest answers or will it be the most successful politicker? What other questions have to be answered? 

It's interesting that all the questions pretty much boil down to "What would you do differently than Obama has been doing?". I think that this type of question could give Romney an advantage because it's easier for him to separate himself from Obama's last four years that it is for Obama to separate from himself. I really hope, especially because there's been a lot of craving for specifics, the candidate with the soundest answers will win.

It will be interesting to see how the candidates do answer questions like these. The one that stood out to my was Romney and health care since it really is a vast change in viewpoint that he will be forced to discuss. I think the debates will give new perspective to the specifics of both candidates which in many cases through the campaigns have been avoided.

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 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.

Obama is really emphasizing the Auto-industry bailout and the positive outcomes that have resulted from his revenue injection. Also, Romney is gaining ground.

I understand why Obama's campaign continues to focus on their success in the past four years because it is a lot easier for people to pick out the negatives themselves than the positives. That being said, I agree that it is important that he focus a lot on future progress which I think he usually does tend to do.

I feel like this speech that Obama made at the car maker factory is similar to what Romney was doing at his stump speech at the oil company. They were both relating to their audience. This makes sense since North Carolina is a swing state. Obama was trying to appeal to them and gain their vote.

I warn you now this piece is extremely opinionated but I am interested to hear all of your thoughts on the subject. Scott Paulson, a political commentary for the Examiner is making the claim that the early voting in Ohio is ridiculous and unnecessary. He mentions that a lot can change in 35 days (from when early voting starts to election day) and that it is giving Obama a huge advantage which could potentially win him the state. What are you thoughts on the early voting laws?

Early voting is a wonderful democracy inhibitor, just look at how different Romney and Obama were 7 weeks ago, that was before both presidential debates. If they allowed California or Utah to vote early then it wouldn't matter because its not like either of those states are unpredictable or anything, but the fact that it is Ohio makes it crazy, there is no way that swing voters could be expected to make a valid decision considering how eventful the last 7 weeks have been, just look at their precedent in the debates. Of course Obama thinks it will facilitate democracy, it will probably end up in his favor more than Romney's.

Savannah, I think that the people who are voting early are the ones who likely aren't going to change their opinions on Obama or Romney based on debates or any "October surprise". Also, I'm interested as to why you think it'd end up in Obama's favor. Wouldn't this suggest that Obama is, in fact, more popular than Romney?

This article outlines many of Romney's Ryan's views on Obama and his plans and policies for the country. I found this to be especially interesting: "Obama is simply offering more of the same." Do you think this is true? Is Obama offering exactly the same plans he did four years ago?

The quote you pulled out also stood out to me, Sabrina. While I think Obama in many ways will be the same, I think being in office for four years will inevitably change him. From listening to the issue presentations we have seen that many of his policies have changed. For instance his policies on Israel have shifted and he is still working on his immigration policy. I don't think we should expect a totally new president, but rather one that has learned and grown from his past experience with his same ideals.

Logically, we should not expect the same president. Romney probably isn't the only one noticing Obama's mistakes, and I believe that he will use things that he was not successful in to improve his skills.

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 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.

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 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.

This article discusses Congress coming back into session and the democratic members deciding that Romney's tax plan is a good move for the nation. What do you guys think?

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.

Obama's campaign posts a video of Barack Obama breaking into tears after thanking his campaign staff and volunteers. I do not think I have ever seen a president cry in public, what do you guys think?

it's interesting cause the last article I posted was about Romney tearing up when he was thanking his staff. I guess when people devote a full year of their life to getting you elected it's sorta a big deal and I could look at it either way - Romney has more of a reason cause he lost or Obama cause they helped him win. But I sort of think of it like how people often cry when they graduate from school or something - like the end of a journey

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 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.

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 describes Obama paying tribute to Cesar Chavez. There are some speculations about where it was and opportunity to campaign or an actual stop to pay tribute.  

I really think it was both. Does he want to honor Caesar Chavez? Probably. But would he gone if it was somehow bad for his campaign? Probably not. I like Sami's comparison to college apps - every good thing could be seen as sucking up.

The Latino vote is crucial, and Caesar Chavez being the figure that he is, I believe that Obama was doing this more for the vote rather than solely honoring such a great man.