Group items tagged

I completely agree that the candidate that is running against the incumbent main focus is to try to bring "zingers" against the president. Romney in a way has a fresh start because no one has seen him in action yet so he has main focus is to prove that he can be better than Obama. By focusing on Obama's flaws Romney will be able to prove that he is a better candidate than Obama.

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 as the incumbent Obama has automatically been criticized more easily. Romney can say basically anything but has not been president whereas Obama can be attacked for anything and everything he has done. Romney's changing opinions I think can be seen one of two ways: concerning or sometimes brave for allowing his opinions/beliefs to change publicly with time. I think those supporters of Romney will forgive his wavering whereas Obama supporters will not. I'm unsure how the swing voters will react to this...we'll have to wait and find out.

Although Obama stresses the positive outcomes from "reviving" General Motive,s I'm wondering why he didn't (maybe it just wasn't discussed in this article) continue talking about the jobs he will create. The unemployment rate is still high despite the Auto-industry bailout and I would think Ohio needs to hear what he WILL do along with what he has accomplished.

I think Obama is making a smart move to reflect on the improvements he has made in Ohio, but I agree with Danielle that it's strange that he doesn't mention future progress. He also revisits a risky idea that he mentioned in his DNC speech: that the road to recovery is long and far from easy, and we're just starting.

I agree with you that the most pressing issue of this election has been shifted, at the moment, away from the status and future of the economy to the pressing foreign affairs occurring within Libya and Egypt. These riots represent the beginning of an Anti-American movement sweeping through the Middle East and without proper care, the feelings toward the U.S could push the economy to drop even more. This is why I think the most pressing issue of the election has shifted from the economy to foreign policy.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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

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

He can't change his policies but he can change the way he expresses his policies, and that's half the battle. Also, (unsurprisingly) Romney acts as if it was not Obama's lack of energy at the debate that made him lose his lead but his policies, but it's not like the debate was the first time the people had heard these policies.

Obama was definitely rusty compared to a fresh-out-of-the-primaries Romney and I believe that if he wants to generate the same levels of enthusiasm that he had four years ago, he has to raise his own energy levels.

I know that it may seem horrible for me to say, but I do not view Gay Rights as a "key issue." I am all for the protection of the rights of the LGBTQ community, but I would not say that it is one of the most important issues at the moment. I believe that homosexual equality is necessary in a perfect country, but I do not believe that it is more important than any of the other issues on that list. The Gay Rights movement has many supporters because there is a visible opposition, but I think that we should focus on the current state of our economy or the current state of our planet before we put a large amount of effort towards any social issue. Mind you, these are just my thoughts. I support the cause, but I would rather see Climate Change solved, first.

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.

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,"

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.

Eli, what part of the article did you find subjective/biased? I thought it gave a relatively neutral overview of the messages from his convention speech.

I, too, found the article somewhat subjective in the tone of the writing. As far as the content goes, it was interesting how so much of the election campaigns are based on the people's ignorance or unawareness. For example, Romney referring to our current economy as the "Obama economy", even though it is not the direct result of Obama's economical beliefs/plans, is effective through its inaccuracy because many people listening to his speech are probably unaware of how the economy got to where it is today.

This article does a good job of pointing out the disappointment that many Americans are probably feelings towards the government, but I agree with Eli that the tone is very Liberal. This was especially apparent in phrases like this one: " the GOP convention showed how broadly Republican leaders and delegates loathe the president". I also liked the point that you can like someone personally and still disagree with them politically-this is an email that comes up a lot in Democratic speeches. It was also interesting to read about whether Romney is running as a business man or a governor.

This article helped me go more in depth into Romney's speech as it analyzed what he was trying to say. The article brought into focus how all of Romney's key points are directly against what Obama has done so far as well as what Obama plans to do in the future.

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.

On one hand, creating jobs is an exceedingly difficult thing to do, and it's certainly not the only part of the campaign. On the other hand, if Obama specifically promised to lower unemployment by a certain amount, it's frustrating that he hasn't been able to. But you can't take that as the only fact in the question "are you better off than you were four years ago?".