Group items tagged

This article talks about a breakfast with all of Romney's largest donors and aides after the campaign. He have remarks which put blame and surprise on why he lost the election and actually got emotional as he gave his thanks to his campaign donors. I found this article really interesting because I always have wondered how a losing candidate goes back to life after spending a year on a presidential campaign.

I can not imagine it is easy especially after all the time and energy so many people put into his campaign. This quote stood out to me: "When he was finished, Mr. Romney lingered for a long time, shaking hands and delivering hugs. It seemed, those in the room said, like he did not want to leave. "He stayed until the last person left," said an attendee." I know Romney was criticized as "stiff" but it doesn't seem like this is the case. At the end of the day, I think both Obama and Romney are very smart and genuinely want to make America a better place.

I mean it would be difficult to not be emotional after losing because Romney put a lot of time and effort to not lose. This whole campaign has been physically and emotionally exhausting, so for Romney to not be upset would be inappropriate and weird. Romney "faulted the Obama campaign for characterizing him as an enemy of women, singling out advertisements that claimed he opposed abortion in all cases and opposed contraception." I think saying this is ironic because I am sure that Romney as well characterized as an enemy of women, etc... I mean that is what campaigning is about. Finding the faults of the other candidates and exposing them.

This article is about how the debates lifted moral for those supporting Romney and Ryan. To me, the article provided an interesting perspective because I usually follow the moral of the Democratic party. Do you think the lifted spirits of GOP members will affect the election? It was also interesting because towards the end, the article states that the debates show the "real Romney-Ryan agenda," although after watching the debates I thought that Ryan was unable to name specific agendas for the Romney-Ryan campaign. Do you think that, because I as a more liberal-leaning American find it hard to see a "real" Romney-Ryan agenda through the debates while conservatives argue that their agenda is more clear than that of Obama and Biden, the debates have little to do with showing people the beliefs of the candidates and more to do with lifting the spirits of the candidates' supporters?

I definitely think that being a more liberal American makes it harder to see the Republican campaign's policies. I agree that in the debate, Ryan seemed to be avoiding questions about policy and did not make it clear. But, I think that if you agree with the general premise of what someone is saying, it is much easier to look over specifics knowing that the principles behind it are what you believe in. When they are not, you are more likely to question them and scrutinize them until you find they haven't told you any specifics.

I completely agree with Abby - you hear what you want to hear. I was also interested in this quote from Romney: "People recognize this is not an ordinary campaign, this is a critical time for our country." Is this true? Or do we always say this? Doesn't every time seem critical?

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.

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?