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 more about Iran than the election, but it brings up the prospect that the Obama administration chose not to release the information until after election day for political reasons. I don't think it's important whether he did or not, but I come to the question: how much does a political agenda sway what a media outlet or any entity that publishes information chooses to cover? Beyond tone, rhetoric and biased descriptions, could entire events have been passed over in the way of allegiance to one party or the other?

I believe that a political agenda has great influence on what information is released to the media and what stories are hidden from the public's eye. An example of this is the attack in Benghazi and the significant delayed release of information pertaining to the attack. It seemed that Obama's administration attempted to keep the details of this attack in the dark, in an attempt to preserve its reputation. I believe there will always be a political agenda behind what is and isn't released and I do believe that there have been events in the past that have been passed over in order to preserve someone's reputation but in this modern time with the interent, I believe it to be impossible for significant events to be hidden from the public and I believe that there will now be more events covered and talked about than there have been in the past.

James, I do not believe that Obama's "political agenda" delayed the release of the information pertaining to the attacks in Libya, or that the information was intentionally delayed. I do agree with your opinion that the government does have sway over the media, but I do not believe that this was one of those situations. Obama, himself, released the information and he did not receive the complete story.

It's so frustrating to me that campaigns seem to be all about money. Shouldn't they be about the candidates ideas?

I agree that it is frustrating how much a campaign is dependent on money but when I think about it, money is what gives candidates the ability to share their ideas with the most people. Whether or not something just as a TV commercial is more about a candidates ideas or solely bashing another candidiate, the advertisement is reaching a population who may not ordinarily have much interest in the election. Money is what enables candidates to travel around the nation to give speeches ect. So although it is extremely frustrating, money does play a crucial role in even just spreading the candidates ideas.

It frustrates me too. It seems that all of the money spent campaigning could go to something much more useful in our government. But I agree with you Abby that for many people, commercials and any media are some of the only exposure that people have to the current election, which is why they are so crucial.

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 article highlight's Romney's lack of specificity on the issue of immigration at a speech where he had a hispanic audience. This also slightly goes into a comparison of Obama and Romney's views on immigration. 

I think that this same message applies to many other parts of the campaign. Giving only ideas without any propositions of how it is going to happen as well as being extremely vague.

Yes, Romney isn't specific at times, but then again, he is a politician. Like Obama, or other smart politicians, he is shifty on his politics to appeal to the masses. When Obama gives speeches to colleges, he talks about tax cuts for the middle class and "spreading the wealth around" (direct quote from 1998 speech) and then when he talks to the DNC he talks about how he isn't nessicarily in favor of increasing taxes for the wealthy. So what if Romney is shifty, Obama is too.

This article is able about how Obama recently went on the The View while Mrs. Clinton met with presidents from the Middle East. This article got me thinking about media and how presidents seem more relatable by going on talk shows than talking to political leaders. 

I agree that assisting needs in foreign affairs should come before campaigning. In terms of campaigning, however, it is hard to say which is more important between the two, because while to the well-informed population of America dealing with presidential issues would definitely be more helpful towards his campaign, the large number of uninformed American citizens rely on things like talkshows to understand the views and beliefs of the candidate more so than their work as a member of the government.

I agree with you sami! I think that to people who are interested in and know about foreign affairs would have appreciate Obama attending the meeting rather than going to the view. Right now I feel like Obama should be focusing on his campaign since the elections are soon. Also Obama probably deals with foreign policy on a regular bases so it is mot like he never has meet with these officials before.

Article talks about Romney's BIg Bird comment. It brought a lot of controversy in Woodstock , Connecticut the home town of Big Birds creator.  It just further more proves how the debates are more of a chance to observe the candidates.  

I think that it was more inappropriate that he directly told Jim Lehrer that he was going to cut his job. Yes Big Bird is an icon, but he is fictional. Jim Lehrer is a real person who was specifically told that he is going to get fired if Romney wins.

Will brings up a good point. Romney's campaign is all about making jobs, but should we think about those who work for federally run businesses? Jim Lehrer would just be one of many to actually lose their job if government spending was decreased...

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].