Group items tagged

-"Romney's manner was engaging, informative, and confident. Obama, on the other hand, seemed either ill prepared or ill at ease. " - On the debate. -What skills should our President have? - He goes in depth on our needs as a country. -This source relates the campaign process to the hiring process, saying that the debates are like job interviews.

This article talks about the problems with voting it Ohio. It discusses the voting laws that have changed when the state had republican vs democratic secretary's of state. As of now, Obama is ahead with early votes but with the Republicans changing around restrictions and laws making it harder for people to vote they article said that: " the polls could be wrong and the totals could easily be close enough that long enough lines and tossed ballots will make the difference." I find it really upsetting that the article had to say: "Now it's up to the voters to do the only thing they can: Try to vote." It is really sad that it has become hard to vote - it's a right that should be accessible to all.

I agree with Danielle that a popular vote would be fairer, but I'm not sure how it would help in this situation. I think that the electoral college is outdated and no longer works as the best way to implement democracy.

It seems though with these law being pass are trying to get the most accurate votes as possible, but is it really fair to create laws where your vote and your voice will not be heard. This article makes these laws seem terrible because it is a trap.

Yet another failed company under the Obama Administration. I think what frustrates me the most about these investments isn't that Obama has picked some winners and some losers, but that he has picked only losers, wasting 340,000,000$ so far. Do you guys think that the government should have this big of a role in investing in society, or should it just let green energy succeed or fail on its own? While Green energy is better for the environment, I feel that if the government is only capable of making bad investments or not making investments, then it shouldn't be wasting taxpayer dollars on companies that do nothing but fail. 

Hmm. I'm conflicted about this as well. I think that it's great that the government is supporting green energy, but gambling with taxpayer's money does not sound like a good idea. Interestingly, this is a kind of similar idea to privatizing Social Security, which Obama is very strongly opposed to but Republicans (including Romney) have supported in the past.

In my opinion, this becomes an issue of rights vs. economy. Is green energy a right or an economic luxury? Is it the government's job to ensure energy rights or to let it become an issue of the market? From a broader perspective, do we need regulation to prevent the long-term issue of the destruction of our earth? Sometimes when we think "business, business, business", we forget about ethics/morals. It also becomes an issue of whether or not we want to lead the world in a clean-energy revolution. At the same time, our economic issues present moral issues as well. It is a hard thing to think about because our priorities get all jumbled up. I guess it depends on what the individual thinks is important.

This article highlights the October Surprise that Donald trump has in store for the American Public. There have been  some speculations on what it my be about, but he has cleared these speculations by saying that the American public has to wait and see. Do you guys think this announcement may affect the swing voters in any way?

Yeah I'm curious to know what the announcement was - do any of you know? I think it is to keep voters engaged but also to give one last big swing before people are voting and hope that something negative about the other candidate is the last thing on peoples' minds.

It was something totally lame-Trump would donate 5 million dollars to Obama's charity of choice if Obama released his college and passport applications. Hardly a shocking piece of information at all-and shows how easily Trump can throw money around.

Colin Powell, and Bush-era White House Chief of the Military and Chief of Staff.  He is endorsing Obama even though he has been a long-time Republican.

Obama cast his ballot early and explains why it is better to plan ahead.  It also contains some interviews with Obama supporters.

I as well am curious to what the advantage of voting early would be. The article states that Obama said "It means you don't have to figure out whether you need to take time off work, figure out how to pick up the kids and still cast your ballot." To me it seems as it is just securing your vote in case of an emergency that might prevent you from voting. Also it my be strategic by making a person vote early not able to change their vote later if something happens that might make that voter change his/her mind.

I agree with the idea of early voting, but I'm not sure how far it could be pushed back. What limit should we put on how early you can vote? A few weeks? A few months? It becomes absurd at some point, but at what point?

          I wanted to share this article as sort of a follow up to my previous one which discussed Obama before his DNC speech. This article discusses Obama played his DNC speech safe. His speech did not have many new ideas and proposals. Instead he tried to appeal to an audience beyond the Democratic one by stressing that he is willing to work across party lines.          One thing that particularly drew my attention to this article was that is recognized Obama's lack of discussion on health care. For a president that spent much of his first term on a new health-care refe, he barely discussed it. 

I feel like at this point, no matter what Obama or Romney do, their own parties will support them and the other will criticize. In relation to this article, if Obama says that his plan is working, Democrats will say that he is confident while Republicans will call him an arrogant liar. If he's aware of his own failings, as he was at his DNC speech, Democrats will say that he's humble and relatable, while Republicans will say that he doesn't even have faith in himself.

I agree with Sabrina that their own party will support them no matter what direction they take their speech. I think that what Obama did though, "playing it safe" was a smart move towards independent voters. By not taking a super strong direction in the negative or the positive, it kept him appearing calm while still confident and allowed independent voters to see him in that respect.

This is about a man who power lifted Obama, I was just curious what people thought about this.Was it professional? Does it help Obama's image?

Although this might not change many viewpoints I think it gives a really good impression for Obama. Being able to just stop into a random pizza place and joking around about the strength of a guy makes him seem like just a normal American guy. I think Van Duzer's quote in the article really made that point saying, "I don't vote party line, I vote who I feel comfortable with, and I do feel extremely comfortable with him." For some people feeling a connection and feel "comfortable" is really important. If Obama can make himself seem like the guy you could just hang out with I think that could potentially do a lot for his voters.

I agree that this makes Obama seem personable and "normal" which many people want to see in a candidate. I also think the nature of politics and presidents have changed throughout the years. Today, presidents seem more relatable and "down to earth" as they appear on talk shows and in magazines with their kids compared to how presidents were represented 50 years ago.

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.

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?"

What's interesting about this article is that it seems to criticize the campaigning tactics on both sides as being too negative and relying too much on garbled quotes from the other side.

This article was interesting as it really showed how the election is a back and forth of a negative comment from one party to the other party coming back with a defense to the claim and a new negative comment about the opposite party. This article definitely focused more on the negativity of the Obama campaign.

I also found this article super interesting because it shed light on the pettiness of campaigning.

Now, despite small annual improvements, the deficit for the fiscal year that ends on Sunday will surpass $1 trillion for the fourth straight time. Against that headline-grabbing figure, Mr. Obama's explanation - that the deficit he inherited is actually on a path to be cut in half just a year later than he promised, measured as a percentage of the economy's total output - risks sounding professorial at best. This article highlights Obama's failing economic policies and challenges whether or not he will be up for fixing the problem if he is re-elected in 2012. It also highlights Romney's policies and what he plans to do if he ends up in office in January. What do you guys think? Who's plan is better and what could Obama have done better during his term as President to fix our economy?

I agree with Obama in his plans. I think that Romney is just saying what he thinks people want to hear without thinking of the consequences or the practical applications. However, I wish that Obama would stop saying that he inherited the problem. Yes, he did. But he needs to follow his campaign and look forward instead of back.

I think this quote is interesting: "The fiscal imbalance on Mr. Obama's watch, however much a result of economic and demographic factors beyond his control as well as his own policy choices, has increased the nation's accumulated debt by about 40 percent and has saddled him with one of his biggest vulnerabilities." I know that things have been beyond his control. Sabrina, this reminds me of Michael Potepan's talk the other day. He mentioned that the government has a really hard time of getting anything done right now which is maybe why nothing has changed, regardless of his campaign.