Group items tagged

Obama is really emphasizing the Auto-industry bailout and the positive outcomes that have resulted from his revenue injection. Also, Romney is gaining ground.

I understand why Obama's campaign continues to focus on their success in the past four years because it is a lot easier for people to pick out the negatives themselves than the positives. That being said, I agree that it is important that he focus a lot on future progress which I think he usually does tend to do.

I feel like this speech that Obama made at the car maker factory is similar to what Romney was doing at his stump speech at the oil company. They were both relating to their audience. This makes sense since North Carolina is a swing state. Obama was trying to appeal to them and gain their vote.

This article identifies who Obama needs to focus on in the Swing State of North Carolina, African Americans. They were one of the main reasons that North Carolina sided with the democrats for the first time in decades. After 4 years with Obama's policies, some of these people who were originally very enthusiastic about voting for Obama are now uncertain about this new election. This is a state that could provide a big influence in the election and it will be interesting to follow it and see what happens.

This article calls to attention something that I never thought about before: "I guess part of it is that history has already been made." A lot of people who voted for Obama in 2008 may have done so so that they could feel like they were changing history, being a part of the first black president, and now that excitement may have worn off.

I saw that too, Sabrina. I think that Obama has to highlight what it means for the African American population if Romney is elected. He can't rely on energy that he generated in 2008.

This video and short article is about the upcoming presidential debate and the possible "zingers". It discussing how Obama is going to speak to the "American people" while Romney has been working on "zingers and special lines for months". I'm going to be very disappointed if this debate turns into a bashing session so I'm hoping to be surprised. But if anyone (in general) were to make use of digs, I think the candidate running against the incumbent has more of a so-called reason to. 

I think that Obama choosing to avoid to make zingers could be a mistake. They may not be the most respectful approach, and Obama's respectfulness is something I really appreciate about him, but they are what people remember about the debates, and the most memorable person is often the one who wins.

Interesting article and I definitely think that you could see this play out in the first debate. I think there are positives and negatives to both sides. It is definitely true that people will remember "zingers" very clearly and probably best but, I think the purpose of the debate, is, or at least should be, to have your policies scrutinized and then show your ability to defend them. I think Obama's strategy in this sense is a better one even if less effective.

I think this article sort of depresses my vision of the future. After the election I felt a serious lack of excitement and I think this article shows why. With the reelection, hearing Obama call upon a need for bipartisan work is nothing new. With the Republicans saying no raise and democrats saying raise, once again, little is going to be accomplished in moving across party lines.

Yep, Sabrina I'm with you. This reminds me of the frontline film we watched that said how important it is for presidents to understand how to work "the system".

I completely agree with Sabrina, I mean Obama can try to create and try to pass many things that might be beneficial for America, but congress does have more power over him because congress is made up mostly of republicans. I like that Obama wants to work with both political parties, but how willing are both parties willing to work with each other?

Obama's campaign posts a video of Barack Obama breaking into tears after thanking his campaign staff and volunteers. I do not think I have ever seen a president cry in public, what do you guys think?

it's interesting cause the last article I posted was about Romney tearing up when he was thanking his staff. I guess when people devote a full year of their life to getting you elected it's sorta a big deal and I could look at it either way - Romney has more of a reason cause he lost or Obama cause they helped him win. But I sort of think of it like how people often cry when they graduate from school or something - like the end of a journey

I warn you now this piece is extremely opinionated but I am interested to hear all of your thoughts on the subject. Scott Paulson, a political commentary for the Examiner is making the claim that the early voting in Ohio is ridiculous and unnecessary. He mentions that a lot can change in 35 days (from when early voting starts to election day) and that it is giving Obama a huge advantage which could potentially win him the state. What are you thoughts on the early voting laws?

Early voting is a wonderful democracy inhibitor, just look at how different Romney and Obama were 7 weeks ago, that was before both presidential debates. If they allowed California or Utah to vote early then it wouldn't matter because its not like either of those states are unpredictable or anything, but the fact that it is Ohio makes it crazy, there is no way that swing voters could be expected to make a valid decision considering how eventful the last 7 weeks have been, just look at their precedent in the debates. Of course Obama thinks it will facilitate democracy, it will probably end up in his favor more than Romney's.

Savannah, I think that the people who are voting early are the ones who likely aren't going to change their opinions on Obama or Romney based on debates or any "October surprise". Also, I'm interested as to why you think it'd end up in Obama's favor. Wouldn't this suggest that Obama is, in fact, more popular than Romney?

This article highlights the role of women in the election. It discusses the necessity for each candidate to receive the votes of women. Obama criticizes Romney for his changing views on abortion but women have also felt the tough economy under Obama's administration. Do you think there are other issues besides the issue of contraceptive health care that would persuade women to vote for Romney or Obama?

I think it all comes down to either sacrificing women's rights or women's stance in the economy. Romney who does not support abortion but may be able to fix the economy, while Obama does support women's rights but might delay in fixing the economy. Thinking about a women's votes in this election, I wonder what the "Walmart moms " prefer, fixing the economy or their rights? Either way whoever gets elected not everyone will be happy. They will have to sacrifice one or the other.

I would think women would be more connected to a candidate supporting their rights, but I realize there are other perspectives. A few of my female relatives are very conservative and are prolife, and they are women too. I feel that in his campaign, Obama is doing a better job of making women feel comfortable in their vote while Romney is making it seem like women's rights is a separate issue from people's rights, which may make women feel all the more disrespected.

Colin Powell, and Bush-era White House Chief of the Military and Chief of Staff.  He is endorsing Obama even though he has been a long-time Republican.

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?

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.

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.

This article is about the jokes that Romney and Obama made at a charity dinner. It also highlights the fact that they are focusing on women as the undecided voters and talks about the advertisements they put out to sway undecided women in their direction. This is interesting in that it combines two things we discussed in other articles on diigo: ad campaings and women voters. Do you think it would be more affective for Romney/Obama to take a more comedic or critical approach to winning these female undecided voters, and how do you think their advertisements affect their decisions if at all?

While I think that decisions about something as important as who the president should be SHOULD be based on statistics and facts, this late in the game people who haven't yet decided are going to latch on to anything, factual or personal, that appeals to them. Because of this, I agree with James that appealing to voter as a person is just as important as appealing to them as a candidate.

Yeah I agree completely. Although in reality the numbers may be most directly related to who is going to be a successful president, in terms of getting elected I think the stories are equally if not more convincing to voters.

Yet another failed company under the Obama Administration. I think what frustrates me the most about these investments isn't that Obama has picked some winners and some losers, but that he has picked only losers, wasting 340,000,000$ so far. Do you guys think that the government should have this big of a role in investing in society, or should it just let green energy succeed or fail on its own? While Green energy is better for the environment, I feel that if the government is only capable of making bad investments or not making investments, then it shouldn't be wasting taxpayer dollars on companies that do nothing but fail. 

Hmm. I'm conflicted about this as well. I think that it's great that the government is supporting green energy, but gambling with taxpayer's money does not sound like a good idea. Interestingly, this is a kind of similar idea to privatizing Social Security, which Obama is very strongly opposed to but Republicans (including Romney) have supported in the past.

In my opinion, this becomes an issue of rights vs. economy. Is green energy a right or an economic luxury? Is it the government's job to ensure energy rights or to let it become an issue of the market? From a broader perspective, do we need regulation to prevent the long-term issue of the destruction of our earth? Sometimes when we think "business, business, business", we forget about ethics/morals. It also becomes an issue of whether or not we want to lead the world in a clean-energy revolution. At the same time, our economic issues present moral issues as well. It is a hard thing to think about because our priorities get all jumbled up. I guess it depends on what the individual thinks is important.

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?"

Now, despite small annual improvements, the deficit for the fiscal year that ends on Sunday will surpass $1 trillion for the fourth straight time. Against that headline-grabbing figure, Mr. Obama's explanation - that the deficit he inherited is actually on a path to be cut in half just a year later than he promised, measured as a percentage of the economy's total output - risks sounding professorial at best. This article highlights Obama's failing economic policies and challenges whether or not he will be up for fixing the problem if he is re-elected in 2012. It also highlights Romney's policies and what he plans to do if he ends up in office in January. What do you guys think? Who's plan is better and what could Obama have done better during his term as President to fix our economy?

I agree with Obama in his plans. I think that Romney is just saying what he thinks people want to hear without thinking of the consequences or the practical applications. However, I wish that Obama would stop saying that he inherited the problem. Yes, he did. But he needs to follow his campaign and look forward instead of back.

I think this quote is interesting: "The fiscal imbalance on Mr. Obama's watch, however much a result of economic and demographic factors beyond his control as well as his own policy choices, has increased the nation's accumulated debt by about 40 percent and has saddled him with one of his biggest vulnerabilities." I know that things have been beyond his control. Sabrina, this reminds me of Michael Potepan's talk the other day. He mentioned that the government has a really hard time of getting anything done right now which is maybe why nothing has changed, regardless of his campaign.

This article shows in videos as well as analyzes the most common body language (hand and head signals) that each of the candidates use. It shows there example videos for each of the movements as well as analyzes them as to what the candidate may be trying to get across when using them. It also shows how often and where/when they used that particular motion in their convention acceptance speech. I found it really interesting because I can recognize every movement the article talks about and it reading this will force me to notice these particular movements in the future as I watch the candidates speak.

I loved this article. I think that gestures can really help viewers because even though you're not thinking about them, the gestures a candidate makes can make you trust or distrust them. I think it would be great if the candidates actually had some kind of gesture training, where experts told them what motions to make and how to connect them with what they're saying.

I would bet that they have had coaching on their body language. I also find that Romney's Head Tilt is very assuring. It is interesting to think that we are being bombarded with so many subliminal messages just by watching these two speak.

Well, Obama won the election and will continue to be president for the next four years. The next question that should be asked is whether or not he will be able come to a compromise with the republicans in the senate and in the house of representatives. As stated by the speaker of the house, John Bohner, the politicians are ready to be lead not as republicans or democrats, but as Americans. Do you think there will be compromise and will there continue to be conflicts, leading to more problems with this nation's economy?

I really hope that they are able to compromise. It seems a little ironic that a Republican is making the cry for bipartisanship because in the past four years Republicans have been making it nearly impossible for Obama to get anything done, and I'm afraid that that will continue to happen.

I'm hoping that with Obama's four years of experience, he has better learned how to navigate the system. But this deadlock in Washington remains a concern for many, I think.

Something that I find interesting in this article is that it seems that Cunningham, who has been less-than-successful in the past four years, attributes his failings in life to the Obama administration. I don't know if this is true or not, but it seems that this is the way a lot of people look at the election: if you have been happy in the past four years, reelect Obama. If you have been unhappy, elect Romney.

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.

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.

Romney is using Obama's failed promises to lower the unemployment rate below 8% as one of his most convincing points against the president's last four years.

Yes job creation is not the only question in "are you better off than you were four years ago?" but it is a big one. Having a job is a key to having a good life. It is one of the issues that most directly affects each American person. Even someone who pays no attention to politics or policy whatsoever is directly affected by jobs. So if Obama cannot create jobs now, I can see why the Romney campaign would choose to focus on criticizing that so strongly.

Unemployment has become such a pressing issue for many families that Romney is smart to bring up Obama's failed promises to lower the unemployment. Because having jobs is important to everyone, it makes sense that Romney is using this to the best of his advantage. That said, there is only so much control that Obama has and I don't think his "failed promise" leads directly to "are you better off than you were four years ago?"

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.