Group items tagged

In this article, the question is raised of if Romney has two different sides, one that appeals to voters and one that appeals to donors. I found two parts of the article very interesting. One, that Romney answers a lot of questions from the donors but avoids them from the voters. And the second, that Romney actually goes in depth with his policies with the donors when tends to be vague with the voters.

While I would love to think that a candidate's statements remain solid no matter who the audience is, I know that isn't the truth. I think that it is somewhat inevitable that certain points are highlighted and others are downplayed in someone's platform when trying to win the support of a certain group.

A reason I can think of for this is that when you are trying to convince someone to vote for you, it's more about the big picture, "what direction do you want for our country" kind of campaigning. A vote for you means a vote in the right direction. When speaking to donors, it's about what their large donations are going to go towards specifically. It's much more of a commitment than just a vote, so it makes sense that there would be more information. I'm not saying this is the right way to handle it, and I agree that messages should stay consistent, but it might be a reason why.

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 discusses a different type of undecided voter, the undecided donor. This portion of swing voters cannot decide who to donate their money to. These people connect to different aspects of each candidate and often end up donating to both. Do you think donating money makes a difference at this point in the election? At the end of the day, what determines an undecided person's vote? 

yeah I agree, I don't get why anyone would donate to both campaigns. Although I could see donating to organizations who will support different candidates based on the different aspects of the candidates you believe in

I agree that it does not make sense to donate to both campaigns, but I can also see why you would. I mean donating gives undecided voters a chance to either pick both sides, or either one without having to commit to one candidate.

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 lists each of the factors that are going to decide the last 2 months of the election, including money, debates, and swing states, all of which I expected. However, one factor that I didn't think about is Johnson's influence in the overall election. He seems to be gaining votes from republicans more than democrats, which could harm Romney more than I would have thought.

It's interesting to me that which candidate people vote for seems to have nothing to do with ideas or plans for the country, just how much advertising there is. Are people really this easily influenced by advertising? Also, it's funny that they have mock debates, Obama going against John Kerry as Romney. And, Savannah, I was surprised about Gary Johnson, too. I've never heard of him before.

I'm really bothers me that "Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney have to build substantial room into their schedules for fund-raising, including more time than they would like traveling to places that are not competitive politically but are flush with wealthy donors, starting with New York and Los Angeles." I don't like how so much of the election is spent raising money rather than making more explicit platforms and addressing important issues.