Group items tagged

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.

I can't imagine how it would feel to vote in a swing state. With the long lines in Florida and the difficulties in Ohio, it seems exhausting. I'm sure many people are relieved that the election is over with all of the campaigning. Reading this article just brings me back to what seems to be the flawed system of the electoral college. I obviously don't know what is the best alternative, but wouldn't some of this tension be reduced if we had a popular vote system?

"Early voting is a major component of Obama's mobilization strategy, and is useful for ensuring that supporters who may have trouble getting to a polling station next month end up casting their ballots." This quote is really interesting and timely because of the storm that is about to spread across the east coast. I know early decision college applications have been pushed further out so I wonder what will happen if the election falls during this bad upcoming storm. Voting early seems to help many people who would not otherwise be able to get to the polls, but at some point-doesn't the process have to be standardized?

This was really interesting to me particularly after reading it just after posting my most recent article against early voting. Obama's campaign has been pushing hard for people to vote early in the opinion of Scott Paulson, it is an advantage to Obama. It will be interesting to see how that plays out but I am also curious why it would be good for Obama to have his supporters vote early but Romney isn't pushing it?

I do think it will have an effect on voters but in two different ways. I think for a lot of people they will opt out of voting because they have more immediate things on their minds. Or others, I think that in hard times people are grateful for bigger governments and it could potentially convince voters to vote for Obama rather than Romney.

I don't think that Hurricane Sandy will have a significant effect on voters in the states that were hit. Sure there will be some people who simply can't get to voting machines or voting machines won't be working in their area but these people won't have a significant effect on the outcome of the election. It seems that the states hit by this hurricane have really stepped up in figuring out new ways for the people living in their states to vote. For example I read that a state, I believe it to be New Jersey, created an email ballet to make it convient for those people who can't reach a working polling machine to vote.

James, I guess my question was more based on the politics of the natural disaster, like FEMA aid or Christie's response.

I want to go off of Abby's point in that I also think people feel safer with larger governments in times of natural disasters. But I don't necessarily think people will change their votes after Hurricane Sandy. I also think it's important to remember that (at least I think/hope) any President would take a step back during these disasters and stop campaigning to focus on the people in need. But sure, Governor Christie's praise for Obama is a nice reminder that at the end of the day, both republicans and democrats have similar values.

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.

I don't think that this will change anyone's opinion on Obama: Democrats will say that it makes him light-hearted, ready to make a joke, and able to connect with people. Republicans will say that it's unprofessional and inappropriate. Imagine the same thing happening to Mitt Romney.

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 think that, like mentioned in the debate, their views on equal pay and hiring women can also play a huge role in who women vote for. Additionally, though, women are people: they have the same desire for a strong economy and a safe country just like men. I think that Obama's campaign probably appeals more to women as they are women, but Romney's campaign may appeal more to women as they are people.

Interesting point Sabrina and I agree. I'd like to add though that it's interesting how Obama is taking the comedian approach to these issues. At least from this article, I definitely took the event to sound like a place I would have been laughing a lot. I wonder if that is the best approach to handling the situation or if he would be more successful emphasizing the issues with a serious tone?

Yes, every politician in history behaves differently around their donors and voters. Even Obama. Just look at how socialist of statements he makes in university speeches, calling directly for "spreading the wealth around" and "those who have more should be expected to give much more" (all excerpts from a speech to Loyola university) are vastly different to those he made at the DNC claiming that he wasn't necessarily for an increase of taxes in the 250,000+ category. All I'm trying to say is that any politician that ever went anywhere did so doing just this.

I think this storm is a great chance for the candidates to show America how they would run in the case of a disaster. Romney's head quarters are in Boston, which may be hit by a power outage meaning that the would have to find a different way to campaign. I think if Romney manages to deal with his campaigning situation that will be impressive to the American people. I think this as well will be true for Obama. His challenge though would be dealing with the storm in a way that may not seem like he is campaigning.

I'm wondering how effective knocking on people's doors in the hopes of persuading them towards a particular candidate can be. This strategy seems ineffective from how I imagine the conversation going, if a person even gets a door opened. Also, how I'm curious how many people in Ohio participate in the election?

Battling for voters' attention is extremely difficult, especially when the two candidates seem to be saying exactly opposite things. And, in a case like this, money can talk, and the Republicans are funded by a lot of wealthy groups. It seems so frustrating to me that money plays such a huge factor in how people vote, but it some cases, money can demonstrate popular opinion. The more donations a campaign receives, the more money people are willing to invest in that candidate.

I'm curious to follow Romney's and Obama's campaigning in Florida until the election. From my other reading, It seems as though Obama has secured the "minority" votes compared to Romney so wouldn't that continue over in Florida?

The article says "Democrats are likely to look at the economy with rose-colored glasses because they want their candidate to win in November" which doesn't really address anything. If they believe that the economy is bad and that Obama isn't going to fix it, why are they going to vote for him? The article doesn't give any reasoning at all for why people would want to vote for Obama, just makes them seem crazy for wanting to do so. As for your questions, James, I think they did pick the best candidate at the time. I just think that Obama is a really remarkable politician and public speaker, whether you agree with him or not, and Romney can't compete with that. That, and many people really do believe that Obama is improving the economy.

I'm not seeing the true point of this article. I think the "rose-colored glasses" refer to people that will support Obama regardless of the campaign. I think that there are people who like what he has done and trust him so will vote for him regardless of the economic state right now...but is that hard to believe? Not really. He probably has some advantage from winning people's trust in the past 4 years.

Yeah I agree. I don't think the article went into enough detail with enough facts to convince me of anything. Of course people who support Obama and want him to win are going to see him in a better way then people supporting Romney. And I think depending which part of Obama you choose to focus on, there is a good and bad just like with the policies or actions of any other politician.

Sabrina, I disagree with you in just about nearly everything that you said. The economy is not getting better. He's put more long term damage on us than I thought imaginable 4 years ago. I don't think that he has helped our economy, and here is why: Yes, he did help save us from total collapse, but even then, it wasn't him, it was TARP, signed into law under Bush, which even permitted his actions as acceptable. Gas prices have raised by 1.30/gal and the amount of americans on food stamps has doubled. Sure, short-term unemployment is down from a couple of weeks ago, but the fact of the matter is that at this time in 2008 it was 13M, and it is now 22M. Yes, I understand that Obama has to deal with the Bush era's layover, but in 2016 he will have only improved this number slightly to 19M, not nearly enough to say that he is helping our economy. Under Obama, income inequality was greater than in 2008. Long term unemployment rates have doubled, which in my opinion, is a better indicater of long term well being. The big 5 made 48% of our GDP this year, compared to 32% in 2008, thanks to Dod Franklin. He's increasing middle class tax burden by about 3,000$ with the passing of Obamacare. ACA will increase our debt by 500M a year because it calls for 1T in funds, but only allows tax raises totalling half of that, causing our budget deficit to increase rapidly. At current rates, excluding the increases in deficit from ACA and others, in 2016 our spending will be 130% of our GDP, which is simply instable and can in no way be considered 'helpful' to our economy. Let's not forget the high intrest on our debt, so this number will only drastically increase in the long run. Some of you will be paying taxes by 2016, and as a taxpayer you will owe the government around 220K apeice, because at that point in time an even lower fraction of our population will be paying taxes than currently. I do not like Obama as a politician at

In this article, Romney expresses views on energy that oppose actions he made towards conserving energy in the past as state Governor. This seems to go along with a theme of wishy-washyness of beliefs that Romney displays throughout his campaigning this election season. Do you think that his lack of faith in his "beliefs" he is campaigning for will affect his presidency if he wins the election?

I feel like in a way his lack of faith in his beliefs make him seem less confident and secure. The perception he is giving to the people is confusing because relating this to Abby's article about how he and Paul Ryan feel extremely confident in winning the election. This is problematic. The way I see him at least is not confident.

What Romney's wishy-washiness says to me is that he really, really wants to be president. His own ideals matter much less to him than picking the views that will appeal to the most voters. This could be seen as a good thing or a bad thing; he's either not faithful to anything, really, or he is willing to cater to the needs of the majority.

Romney's back and forth ideals also concern me Yadira. I want a president that is totally confident in his beliefs and doesn't sway. I don't think it has to do with him not being confident necessarily but I think it makes him look less trustworthy. I think this will make voters feel uneasy...

I think, that with the economy the way it is coupled with the lack of enthusiasm for either candidates, donators and contributors are not as inclined to give money to the campaigns of politicians. I also believe that donations will not (would not have) matter(ed) very much, especially relative to the money that the campaigns already amassed.

It seems very strange to me that someone would donate to both campaigns; if I couldn't decide I would donate to neither. In response to Danielle's question, it seems to me that money could still make a difference. Ads are a huge part of why people vote for who they do, and you need money to buy ads.

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.

Well, unsurprisingly, I disagree with Rush Limbaugh. I certainly think that the campaign isn't over by a long shot. It could go either way, and that's exactly why Obama needs to keep campaigning. (And, side note: I don't think that Rush Limbaugh and Jon Stewart are exactly comparable. Jon Stewart sometimes criticizes Democrats as well, and Rush Limbaugh is so much angrier. But I agree that both of their programs are not objective.)

I agree with you Savannah on the clear liberal sway seen on the internet today, I believe this shows an interesting trend for the future of our politics. I also look forward to changing technology and seeing how politics will adapt to the new things that will come into our lives in the future.

I think you're spot on Savannah with your comment that the internet sways liberal because of the younger people. We had a speaker come into Urban this past week to talk about some campaigning strategies. In his company, they used targeted mailing to campaign but we got to a discussion about media. He made a good point that the people who are following Obama or Romney on twitter, fb etc. are likely affiliated with that party already. I have so much to do online and it's already distracting. So I know for me, I don't really seek out political "tweets" and what not so it doesn't really lure me in.

I as well am not really lured by political advertising on the internet, I may notice, but not to the extent where I would change my vote or consider a different candidate. I do agree though that the media had more of an impact in the 2008 election, but because it was such a different election from what America was use to.

This is an interesting point. When thinking of what Danielle brought up, that the internet is more a place where already-passionate liberals and conservatives express themselves (rather than a place where parties try to advertise their beliefs), I see that the question changes from "can the internet persuade an individual to like a certain party" to "what is the power of the internet in terms of political advantage". By this I mean that, if the internet does sway to the left, does this affect society? Who benefits from having a similar political view to that of the internet? Is the older generation who might be more conservative being left out in any way?