Skip to main content

Home/ Palin Group/ Group items tagged close

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
James Foster

Romney takes a 7 point lead in Gallup Poll - 1 views

fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/...gallup-vs-the-world

Obama Romney campaign polls voters

shared by James Foster on 19 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • James Foster on 19 Oct 12
     
    Although this is just one poll vs. many, it shows great progress for Romney as we approach the third and final Presidential Debate. Just a week ago Romney was tied with Obama at an even 48%. What do you guys think of this?
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Danielle Polevoi on 20 Oct 12
     
    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.
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 20 Oct 12
     
    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.
  • Abby Schantz on 23 Oct 12
     
    Although I don't think polls are necessarily reliable, I think anyone looking at this election as a bistander can see that it is going to be a close race and if Romney is up in one poll one day, there is a high change that Obama will be up the next. I think that it can be assumed at this point that the candidates have a tough race to finish off and it is going to be close no matter what the actual results are.
  • Sami Perez on 29 Oct 12
     
    I wonder if the closeness of this race has more to do with the candidates or the people. Are the candidates similar enough to gain the liking of the same amount of people, in contrast to previous elections where a certain candidate is the choice of many? Or has our population become more evenly divided between liberal and conservative views/are we just hungry for a different perspective to help us get out of our somewhat messy current situation? I can't help but think, on a personal level, how would Romney as president affect my life?
Abby Schantz

Ohio: It's hard to vote and the state officials are working to swing the vote to the re... - 1 views

www.nationalmemo.com/...2

obama romney republican democrat secretary state ohio hard to vote ballots difference close try

shared by Abby Schantz on 06 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Abby Schantz on 06 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Danielle Polevoi on 08 Nov 12
     
    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?
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 08 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • Yadira Rodriguez on 09 Nov 12
     
    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.
Will Rothman

Obama Tied With Romney in New Polls of Presidential Voters - SFGate - 2 views

www.sfgate.com/...ey-in-New-Polls-of-3995183.php

Obama Romney Tied Pew Polls

shared by Will Rothman on 31 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are tied among likely voters in a national poll released eight days before Election Day.
  • each supported by 47 percent
  • Oct. 4-7 Pew poll that showed Romney ahead, 49 percent to 45 percent.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • A survey released today of Hispanic Christian voters showed Obama with a 63 percent to 26 percent lead over Romney.
  • In the Pew poll, Obama led, 50 percent to 44 percent, among likely women voters, while Romney led, 51 percent to 44 percent, among men.
  • Will Rothman on 31 Oct 12
     
    Obama Tied With Romney
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 02 Nov 12
     
    I agree that this race will be very close, but, like the article we read, polls aren't always reliable.
  • Abby Schantz on 02 Nov 12
     
    yeah I am starting to find polls less and less useful especially in a close race where there is no way for them to be super reliable
  • Danielle Polevoi on 04 Nov 12
     
    Yeah especially after reading that article about polls, I think we just have to wait this election out.
Sabrina Rosenfield

Romney and his Tax Returns : The New Yorker - 2 views

www.newyorker.com/...omney-and-his-tax-returns.html

romney tax tax returns

shared by Sabrina Rosenfield on 24 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 24 Sep 12
     
    This is an article about the release of Romney's tax returns for 2011, and whether or not he is being completely honest in saying that he paid 14.1% because he can go back later and get returns for his charitable donations. He argues that not doing so would discourage people from donating. I'm not sure about this quote, "As was widely noted, Romney has also said that he considers claiming every possible legal deduction an ethical test, with rather distinctive terms: if you pay any more than you really, really must, you have failed." I think that for many Americans, this is completely true, but for someone with such a high income, it seems unfair. But isn't fairness the same thing for everyone? What do you guys think?
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Savannah L on 25 Sep 12
     
    Yes, fairness means that everyone pays their fair share, which is a very republican ideal, which is why i am in favor of removing the exorbitant death taxes and in favor of the fair tax, which i feel like would point our country in a less socialistic direction, which, lets face it, since 2008 we have been plummeting rapidly towards socialism with ACA and greater government influence in our economy. Going back to the Romney quote you mentioned, I'm not sure what you really meant by "it seems unfair" Are you really suggesting that those who work harder than others should be punished with a larger tax? And keep in mind that he's talking about income tax, not money already sitting in the bank. So Romney worked for that money, and should not be punished for it. Taxes are punishments, and that sort of backwards tax structure is one exhibited by the USSR before it collapsed, mind you. Taking more from the rich is not "fair" . The term for it is socialism. If you want another historical example, look at Britain's economy when it implemented Adam Smith's lazziez faire economics (their economy grew exponentially, scientific developments were off the charts, relatively peaceful era) and then look at the France's economy shortly after when it implemented a more "fair" system in the 1800s-1900s, they constantly got decimated by economic struggles and went nowhere. And even if you still believe that the rich should pay more, consider this. The government's biggest problem is not a lack of revenue. We're spending 104% of our GDP. If you plan on paying taxes, which, by the way, our current government lets you be exempt if you decide to take a year off of your well-paying job to sit at home and 'discover' yourself, then you will already be 140,000$ in debt thanks to Obama's excessive spending. No, Bush did not "start it", Obama has added more debt than all of the presidents before him combined. Why do you think that it is "fair" for the harder workers in our s
  • Savannah L on 26 Sep 12
     
    ociety to have to pay more when they are the ones working harder? And, if anything, it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage. He, unlike Obama, has business experience and is fiscally responsible, so I respect him more for this, not less.
  • Danielle Polevoi on 28 Sep 12
     
    Yeah, I'm going to with Savannah on this one. I think the rules of tax should obviously apply to everyone, rich or not. I also think that getting tax deductions is part of the "taxing" process so why shouldn't everyone take advantage of that? Regardless of how much money someone has...
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 30 Sep 12
     
    Savannah, I'm not suggesting that people should be punished for working hard. But how much money you make is not always an accurate representation of how hard someone works. And I'm not sure about what I think is "fair". Yes, everyone paying the same taxes would be fair in one way. But some people work extremely hard and still don't have a lot of money and still need help from the government. Some people make exorbitant amounts of money and don't work all that hard. Doesn't it seem fair for people who need help to be able to get it? That's what I'm suggesting. I'm not encouraging laziness or punishing people for hard work. As for what you said, "it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage", it seems to me that there are two parts of this. One is that he understand the system. That's a good thing. The other is that he knows how to manipulate it to appear as something that he is not. That's not a good thing.
  • Abby Schantz on 30 Sep 12
     
    In my opinion, I do not believe that taxes are a punishment. Taxes are something we, as American citizens, agree to pay to do our part in making sure that all of our opportunities are made possible (in building roads ect.) Maybe they are not used the best right now, that's opinion but as a generalization I don't think taxes should be considered a punishment. Also agreeing with Sabrina, I believe that someone who works multiple jobs and happens to be doing manual labour that pays minim wage is in many cases working equally as hard if not harder than a wealthy CEO working long days in the office. They are different types of work and the amount of money they make is no reflection of the amount of work they put into that job.
  • Savannah L on 01 Oct 12
     
    Abby, I still don't see how you consider taxes to not be a punishment. If you enjoy forking over your hard earned cash to those who didn't for whatever reason, then I congratulate you for being a socialist. The biggest problem in our government is not a lack of money, but a lack of structure, so why are you so focused on increasing revenue if it won't make a difference under a fiscally irresponsible president with no business experience whatever? I don't enjoy the fact that I will end up paying money to a government that is incapable of spending it and do not think that people should have an increase of taxes just for working hard. And Sabrina, this is federal income tax, not capital gains or inheritance tax, so it doesn't take into account money that one is already sitting on or based on investments. The way income tax works, you can have a mansion and 5 cars but take a year off to work on a painting from your well-paying job and legally file with an income of 0 and get food stamps. And back to your example of the CEO and the blue-collar worker, the CEO probably went to school and got a degree, which would make me consider him to have worked harder than the blue-collar worker who chose not to get a high school degree. Also, let's change the discussion about working "hard" to one about working "smart"? Comparing manual labor efforts to the intellectual efforts of others really isn't comparing apples to apples. We should be discussing productivity rather than effort. If someone studies really hard but fails a test, and someone studies more effectively (but less hard) yet receives a high grade, should the high score student be penalized and the poor performer subsidized? Linking this back to the economy, without CEOs, the minimum wage workers wouldn't even have jobs. There would be no company, therefore, no jobs. CEOs are perhaps burning fewer calories when they work, but that does not mean that they are less productive. Take out a minimum wage worker from a co
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 01 Oct 12
     
    But about Romney's tax exemptions-that's not what happened. He purposely overpaid to match an earlier estimate that he made. He didn't claim all the exemptions that he could have. Maybe that wasn't clear in the article I posted, but here's a quote from another one: "We know, for instance, that Romney paid a rate of 14.1 percent on $13.7 million in income on his 2011 tax return, which he achieved by purposely overpaying. Though he was entitled to deduct $4 million in charitable contributions, Romney deducted only $2.25 million to keep his tax rate above 13 percent." Here's the link to that article: http://www.propublica.org/article/what-we-still-dont-know-about-mitt-romneys-taxes
  • Savannah L on 02 Oct 12
     
    Sabrina, Let's look at this another way. If Romney made $13.7M in 2011, and donated $4M of that to charity, and also paid 14.1% (or < 13%)... he, in effect, only kept 57% of his income. He gave 13-14% to the government, and another 30% to charities -- hardly reprehensible behavior? He is able to more effectively do "good" with his money by giving it freely to those he feels deserve it can those that can be good stewards of the money. Clearly the President has NOT been a good steward of funds, just look at Solyndra and Beacon Energy. I don't know about you, but I would rather my money go to charities close to my heart rather than sham entities that sit there and waste billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars, like Solyndra and Beacon. The tax system is not perfect at all but it does encourage behaviours that are beneficial to society. Why does it matter so much what Romney paid in taxes? Shouldn't we focus on what he gave away to others than to a fiscally irresponsible government?
  • Sami Perez on 04 Oct 12
     
    I agree that the actual numbers of what Romney paid in taxes is somewhat unimportant, but symbolically it represents an ethical value that I've noticed in Romney's policies and beliefs. The Urban School recently had a visitor, a professor of economy, who informed us that the president him/herself does not actually have that much control over the economy as it is determined mostly by the private sector of the market. The president can, however, influence the economy through tax policy, and if Governor Romney is unwilling to pay his contribution to the system, which, as Abby said, is what we do to insure that "all opportunities are made possible," he seems to be implying something about how much the upper class should be paying. I realize that is just an opinion, but if you don't agree I hope you can at least understand my belief that all individuals/families, rich or poor, deserve to at least get an opportunity to make their lives more successful. Although the government may not have the power to fix the economy and everything themselves, they can at least provide that opportunity for the American citizens. A hard laborer with minimum wage may be working hard not smart, but that does not mean they don't have the potential to work smart. I believe that as Americans we should make sure that they can fulfill that potential.
Savannah L

Obama and Boehner Circle Each Other on Budget Impasse - NYTimes.com - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...h-other-on-budget-impasse.html

obama boehner house bush tax cuts

shared by Savannah L on 09 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • The Treasury Department expects the country to hit its debt ceiling, a legal limit on the amount the government is allowed to borrow, close to the end of the year.
    • Savannah L
      Savannah L on 09 Nov 12
       
      Anyone else completely frightnened that we will reach our new debt ceiling by the end of this year? We can't keep raising it to allow for this sort of spending. 
  • Savannah L on 09 Nov 12
     
    I think that it is nice to see some hope towards compromise at the white house, but at the same time respect Boehner so much more for saying that he simply will not accept any tax plan that isn't balanced. We  really can't afford to be increasing our budget deficit any more. At current rates, our debt to gdp ratio will be up 40% by the end of 2016, and we cannot afford to be increasing our deficit. By 2016, the interest on our massive debt because of our skyrocketing budget deficit will have tripled. We are financially headed in a horrible direction, and I am trusting Boehner to shut down any attempts to pass more debt-skyrocketing bills. I agree with this article's position on tax cuts to the wealthy, increasing taxes will only hurt the private sector even further. Even the CBO agrees that if bush tax cuts were to expire unemployment would rise to a whopping 9%, and as such should not be allowed to expire.The private sector, not the government, creates jobs, and this article confirms to me why the government should make it easier for the private sector to create jobs by allowing the bush tax cuts to continue. 
Sabrina Rosenfield

Obama, Romney closing: It's all about jobs - 1 views

www.politico.com/...83216.html

shared by Sabrina Rosenfield on 02 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 02 Nov 12
     
    This article illuminate hows in the final days of the campaign, Obama and Romney are going to back to their original campaign talking points: jobs. Do you guys think that jobs are really the ultimate issue in this election?
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Danielle Polevoi on 04 Nov 12
     
    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,"
  • Abby Schantz on 04 Nov 12
     
    Although I agree that for people struggling to put food on the table ect. jobs is a really important issue I think a lot of other issues are overlooked about it. Just I guess everything affects everything so to me to focus on one particular topic isn't necessarily the best way to run a campaign. That being said, I agree that Romney has a slight advantage over Obama not having failed before. I think to a lot of people they are doubtful that if Obama is reelected anything will change where as Romney is a fresh start for jobs from a more business focused perspective.
  • Yadira Rodriguez on 09 Nov 12
     
    I think anything involving the economy or jobs is this election's main priority. America''s problem right now is that a lot of families can not afford the things that they need in everyday life. I mean we should consider other issues , but as we saw in the presidential debates all the other topics always resulted in talking about the economy and jobs.
Sami Perez

Ohio Unions Face Tough Battle With 'Super PACs' - NYTimes.com - 4 views

www.nytimes.com/...gh-battle-with-super-pacs.html

shared by Sami Perez on 04 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Conservative “super PACs,” financed with unlimited donations from corporations and wealthy individuals, have saturated Ohio and other battleground states with ads against President Obama.
    • Sami Perez
      Sami Perez on 04 Sep 12
       
      Relates to reading "What You Should Know About Politics...But Don't." PACs affecting swing states, potentially determining results of election...
  • Republican super PACs are going to outspend Obama massively
  • labor’s true importance will be highlighted
    • Sami Perez
      Sami Perez on 04 Sep 12
       
      Can the work of the people hold more influence over voters than the money and power of large corporations? 
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Some conservatives raise an eyebrow over unions’ claims that they are outgunned in the money game.
  • no Republican in modern times has been able to capture the White House without winning the state
  • — was due in no small part to labor’s get-out-the-vote push.
  • President Obama’s victory in 2008 here in Ohio
    • Sami Perez
      Sami Perez on 04 Sep 12
       
      Evidence that the election depends on Ohio's stance, and Ohio's stance depends on the ability of the party to persuade voters through media and advertisement
  • anti-Mitt Romney script
  • which asserted that he had played a role in factories that closed, wages that dropped, workers who were fired
  • Sami Perez on 04 Sep 12
     
    page one of two
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Danielle Polevoi on 06 Sep 12
     
    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?
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 08 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Abby Schantz on 08 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Eli Chanoff on 10 Sep 12
     
    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].
Yadira Rodriguez

Romney And Abortion: Another Shift In The Works? : Shots - Health Blog : NPR - 4 views

www.npr.org/...ion-another-shift-in-the-works

abortion shift Mitt Romney women's rights

shared by Yadira Rodriguez on 04 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • proclaimed himself in favor of abortion rights when he ran for office in Massachusetts, then reversed himself before launching his presidential bid.
  • strong supporter of abortion rights both in 1994,
  • I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose," he said in a 2002
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • conversion
  • the life of the mother is threatened,"
  • health and life of the mother."
  • The Romney campaign won't say the candidate misspoke
  • health exception,
  • he tries to go back and forth. "They pay attention. They learn about the issues," she said. "And every time that Mitt Romney tries to reinvent himself, they say, 'But wait a minute, I remember you said ...' They do their homework; they understand the responsibility that comes with voting for the highest office in the land." Last week, Romney's oldest sister Jane told reporters at the convention that her brother wasn't going to ban abortion if he becomes president. "It's not his focus," she told a National Journal reporter. But comments like that, clearly aimed at closing the candidate's sizable gender gap, could come as a rude surprise to social conservatives Romney's worked hard to woo for the past seven years.
  • Yadira Rodriguez on 04 Sep 12
     
    This article looks at Mitt Romney's constant shift on his position on abortion. The unclearness of whether or not he supports it might affect/ not go in line with what the republican's party view on abortion is. 
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Danielle Polevoi on 06 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 08 Sep 12
     
    I'm sure we all have our own beliefs about abortion, but I can't see what's so bad about changing your standpoint on an issue to get more votes. As I look at it, it could seem like just panhandling for votes, but it could also be seen as changing your views to line up with a larger amount of the American people who could elect you. I think what Romney is guilty of in this situation is not changing his mind, but lying about it.
  • Abby Schantz on 09 Sep 12
     
    What stands out to me is that to news reports that have different audiences, he changed in viewpoint. I understanding settling on a policy that works with the rest of your campaign (works with the vp too) but what is not okay him being unclear about his position. If he wants to line his position up with that of the most popular vote, fine, but he needs to be clear about his final decision and stick with it so people know exactly what they are voting for.
James Foster

The Swing State of Wisconsin - 0 views

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...aling-the-state-is-now-in-play

Obama romney swing state

shared by James Foster on 12 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • James Foster on 12 Sep 12
     
    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.
Savannah L

Obama 1998 Loyola Speech Leaked "I Believe in Redistribution" - 0 views

www.huffingtonpost.com/...-redistribution_n_1894625.html

obama 1998

shared by Savannah L on 19 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Savannah L on 19 Sep 12
     
    This audio clip could serve to do just what Romney's blunder did: Solidify the other party against him. It has a video of Obama's Speech, saying that he wants to "spread the wealth" and that he "believes in re-distribution", very communistic remarks in general. Now, the republicans are going to be calling him a communist more than ever. This will definatly defiantly isolate moderates just like Romney's mixup will do.
  • Sabrina Rosenfield on 24 Sep 12
     
    The big difference between this clip and Romney's are that this is from years ago, whereas Romney's is much more recent. I think that we all need to just move past these video clips and focus on what the candidates are really putting out there rather than something they just said once.
  • Savannah L on 26 Sep 12
     
    Yes, but you could easily argue that Obama's clip still holds true today, look at how socialist as a country we've become. We're getting pretty close to numerically socialist, our spending to GDP is 42%, 8 short points from official socialism. Medicine is socialized. The alarming part is that Obama still seems like he is holding true to this. He hasn't changed. And while Romney's 47% statement wasn't exactly politically correct, it is accurate. 47% of Americans don't pay taxes, and, this statement is taking into consideration the SSI and retirees. You can even do the math yourself, just go to Obama's government sponsored Debt Clock and plug in the numbers.
1 - 10 of 10
Showing 20▼ items per page