Group items tagged

This article isn't really about politics, but it made me think about the election's trail through the internet. True, I didn't spend as much time on the internet in 2008 as I do now, but I never really thought about this much until this article. I have to say that my experiences on the internet have caused me to see that it has a clear sway in its beliefs and is always liberal. This makes sense because young people are on the internet more than old people, say, and young people are more commonly liberal than older people. 

I think that the internet is a great way to attract young people who might not otherwise be engaged in the election. I think that often, young people vote much more on the personalities of the candidates than on their policies (I'm sure most 18 year olds couldn't give you their beliefs on what tax policies would be best) and the internet conveys personalities quite well. Additionally, this might contribute at least partially to why the internet is more liberal: most people would agree that Obama is a more charismatic candidate than Romney.

I have not seen many ads for either party, either that or I may just have ignored them. I know, however, that places like Reddit tend to be hyper-liberal and are often the sources for many of the liberal propaganda that circulates throughout the internet. I cannot think of any conservative sites that compare in size to any of the predominantly liberal websites that make up a large portion of the internet.

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?

This article outlines topics that The Atlantic believes should be debated about more. This is a very liberal source; do you guys think that a conservative source would have a very different list? What topics do you want to see debated?

I agree with Will, I don't think the list they have are topics that should be debated more, I personally believe that the issues on this list are more about moral issues. If there was a more conservative list I feel like most of the topics would not be on the list.

I agree Yadira, that the issues on this website are more social/moral. But I think it can be argued that the climate change is not social/moral but an issue that is going to seep into everyone's wife. Will, I'm going to have to disagree. I think women's rights and Gay rights can be linked. Women are focusing on rights that they need to keep them financially secure (are they financially able to have a child) while Gay couples want rights to combine assets etc. like straight married couples for stability.

Interesting changes in supreme court justices! i was just wondering what the group's general opinions on these cases, I sure hope that they end up voting in favor of most plaintiffs in these cases. As long as the court votes liberally on social issues and conservatively on fiscal ones, I will be happy. Justices have greater influence on social conditions than one might think.....

Slate comes through, as always, with a very critical description of GOP politics. In this article, William Saletan picks apart Romney's RNC speech and uses it to predict the remainder of Mitt's campaign. Read with a grain of salt, as Slate often tries to trick you into thinking its articles are objective. 

I, personally, found the article to be very similar to our class discussions, especially on the topic of tactics that Romney used in his speech, including calculated jabs and heart-warming stories. That being said, this article is pretty critical of Romney.

I felt like this article broke down Romney's speech very well. I felt like the tone was not necessary liberal, but more of a neutral tone that was trying to explain Romney speech was trying to accomplish in his speech.

Wow, very interesting and enlightening article that I feel like a lot of Obama supporters aren't aware of. Certainly goes against everything that Obama argued for, which I thought was very interesting. Statistically, it checks out.

I agree with Sabrina that it's interesting to see the Huffington post writing this. I really did enjoy the way this article was formatted though, it was a nice change to most of the articles I have been reading. It also left points that will stick with me as they were concise and came with visual as well.

James, you are right. College graduates from 2008-2012 are more likely to be overqualified for their jobs more than ever, in addition, short term unemployment has increased by 3% and long term unemployment under Barack has doubled. And besides, if you look at the current rates of which we are spending, failing to ignore the next four years of "more progress" that Obama wants to implement, our national debt will be 23 trillion dollars. This is the pure definition of fiscal irresponsibility, Obama alone will have spent twice as more as all of the presidents before him. And this is if his current policies stay the same, not taking into account on whether he will spend more money. This is all neglecting the 520 billion dollar interest, and neglecting the fact that less than half of each dollar being spent will be our own, the rest China's. I can't think of a more fiscally irresponsible president. These are some statistics I never hear mentioned at the DNC and am ecstatic that even a liberal news site recognizes their magnitude.

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.

This article raises interesting questions about Obamacare and what the states will decide to do with their own individual systems. I personally dislike the bill because of its fiscal problems and feel like forcing americans to purchase something from a third party is unconstitutional. 

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?

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.

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?

This is something to read bits and pieces of--not every single word. I think of Rush Limbaugh as a conservative version of John Stewart. He's a source of entertainment as well as a political commentator so he has no responsibility to consider anything objectively.

I thought the part where he talked about how the poles right now are just to shape your vote was really strong. Seeing the poles two months before the election can change but, if you see Obama is ahead, it can shape your vote to believe Romney has already lost or the other way around.

I thought the part where he talked about people who are being supported by the government are too scared to not vote for Obama was really interesting. I don't think it's fair to say "The fact that he's destroyed the economy will actually benefit him...The fact that he's destroyed the economy is gonna benefit Obama because all those people who are now on some sort of welfare-like assistance are gonna be scared to death to get rid of Obama because then what will become of their meager existence?"

This isn't just your average 'look who is on top article', it has this really cool chart at the bottom that shows public opinion over time. You can see how the RNC didn't have as big of an effect on Romney as the DNC did for Obama. This article also remarks on Romney's recent fallback (though does not include on graph) but doesn't say anything about his recent "47%" blunder, which actually suprises me because the Huffington Post tends to be more liberal.

That is super interesting. I wonder if (actually, I hope!) the reason that the 47% thing isn't mentioned is because the Huffington Post is willing to accept that for what it is-a mistake that doesn't need to be brought up again and again. Another option is that it really didn't have a significant impact on voters.

Yep, the good thing is that both politicians have lied substantially and their lies seem to be forgotton by others.