Group items tagged

Although Romney is trailing by a pretty large percentage, the article is positive that Mitt can regain his loss by targeting certain voter groups, such as college students.  The article never says that Mitt has lost a group of voters %100.  The article, in general, seems hopeful that Romney can and will pull it together before the election.

It's interesting that Romney is having trouble holding on to wealthier voters, as a lot of his policies would seem to benefit them. Also, the group of "men" seems exceedingly broad to me. "Women" and "racial minorities" are both groups that have been marginalized in the past, so it makes sense to reach out to them. "Men" have always been the group in power, and it confuses me that they're considered a voting bloc.

Does anyone know anything about how exactly the polls are calculated? I am just curious where the numbers actually come from.

This article talks about the importance for a Candidate to win Florida. In 2008, Obama won Flora by only 3% and four years previous, Bush won Florida by a slightly larger 5%. Because Florida has a total of 29 electoral votes, it is the biggest and therefore one of the most important swing states. Not only that, but the majority of the state does not matter as compared to a small section known as the I-4 who really do determine this election themselves. 

This is going to be an interesting swing state due to its larger population of senior citizens and with Romney appealing significantly to the senior citizen population with a 52-41 percent lead over Obama according to an associated press-GfK poll with seniors likely to vote.

It's interesting to me that it seems that the entire election can come down to one swing state, and the whole state to one county. I think this is a example of why the electoral college isn't right-no one county should have that much power.

This article talks about Obama's and Romney's responses to the recent violence in Libya. Obama is criticized with not speaking forcefully and being too apologetic in regards to the recent situation as well as some of the recent stuff going on in the Middle East. The article then goes on to say that despite the foreign affairs news, the economy is still the pressing issue of the election (not sure if I agree with that fully).

If things continue to escalate in the middle east, as they have been lately, than foreign policy will continue to be a major issue in the election. Danielle, I feel like you are right and that most americans will focus on the economy, but the two issues are intertwined, and bad news for one is bad news for the other if things continue to escalate. How much money are we willing to spend dealing with other countries? We already have out of control spending, but if things get worse then we will have to decide what is more important to our country: security, or money.

What seems frustrating to me about this whole situation is that both sides seem to be using Libya as an excuse to say "look at me, look at how good I am at foreign policy!" I wish that they would work together to actually solve problems instead of trying to prove what good problem solvers they are.

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 seems offensive when Romney says Obama "made a big effort on small things" when referring to his focus on minority groups in America. Do you think it is important to think about how it is the people who are voting, not our economy? Will rights and opportunities always override economic issues? Can emphasis on a failed past excuse Romney's ignorance toward the future? 

This article discusses Obama's acceptance speech. It is interesting how he emphasized the ways in which we Americans are alike despite the fact the election itself is a giant, nation-wide debate about the ways in which we differ. "We are not as divided as our politics suggests," he says. Also, do you think "the best is yet to come?" Will Obama be able to face the challenges at hand, or will he disappoint the nation?

This is  short piece which predicts a few questions the candidates will have to answer in the coming debates. It claims that an exceeding expectations tactic "doesn't even fool anyone". Do you guys agree? Will the winner of the debates actually be the person who gives the soundest answers or will it be the most successful politicker? What other questions have to be answered? 

It's interesting that all the questions pretty much boil down to "What would you do differently than Obama has been doing?". I think that this type of question could give Romney an advantage because it's easier for him to separate himself from Obama's last four years that it is for Obama to separate from himself. I really hope, especially because there's been a lot of craving for specifics, the candidate with the soundest answers will win.

It will be interesting to see how the candidates do answer questions like these. The one that stood out to my was Romney and health care since it really is a vast change in viewpoint that he will be forced to discuss. I think the debates will give new perspective to the specifics of both candidates which in many cases through the campaigns have been avoided.

These are graphs that show the different demographics that voted for which presidents.  It also shows the results to which states both Obama and Romney won. I think it's interesting that this year Florida did not play much of an important part as it usually does. 

The question about about handling medicare, the economy and the deficit are really telling. The implication of such a vast majority of voter agreeing with their candidates view on these specific issues is that a vast majority of voters based their choice on these issues.

I find it shocking that the african american community voted significantly more in favor of Obama than any other community combined. I side red with a ton of these issues. I'm still a little confused why people think that Obama's foreign policy is considered as being good considering that he completely covered up the fact that they CIA had been to libya two weeks before the attack and requested help, yet nothing was done. This is infuriating to me. I do not trust Obama to handle foreign policy, he is far to loose with Ahmadinejad, Iran's nuclear program has skyrocketed since 2008. Nothing about that seems 'successful' to me.

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 article discusses Romney's ad in Ohio saying that, under Obama's supervision, Chrysler and GM auto company is getting rid of jobs here in America and creating jobs in China. This seems to be a critical point to attack Obama's presidency, but the GM and Chrysler auto company took this offensively, saying that they are opening more businesses in China but are simultaneously increasing jobs here in America, not getting rid of them. Is Romney's seemingly desperate attempts at  criticizing Obama in the last few days before the election worth offending such large corporations? Will the short term message expressed in his commercial have a greater affect on the people than the long term controversy of Romney's use of false information? How do you think this type of manipulation will play out in the future?

Going off of what Abby said, some people may not look into the truth of the add. In that case, I think it could benefit Romney. But for people who have been following the campaign, they know that one of Obama's main platform is to bring jobs back the US...so I think they will be skeptical of the ad.

Romney's attempt to make Obama look bad backfires on him because he offends these car companies. I think it might affect him greatly, but it will make people think twice about Romney in the way that he offend an american company, that is important to america.

Overall, this article is very critical of Romney, claiming that Obama is making bigger leads in swing states. Romney is extremely shifty in his views and doesn't make it clear what finances he has planned. Also, this article hints towards the end the slight opinion differences of Romney and ryan which could be very problematic.

"sixty days is like sixty years in campaign time" seems like an overplay of hopefulness. I take from this article that Romney's people can only really argue that Mitt still has a chance while Obama's people believe he will more than likely win.

Romney really does need to get his act together. Ryan seems to be running the show a little bit more than he should, but with the debates soon to start, Romney will have a little more hope on his side. Also, unemployment has risen from 1.9% through Obama's term, and statistically when unemployment is greater than 7.2 the incumbent doesn't win. The election has even changed drastically since I posted this article: The libyan assassination, the Romney 47% dependent on Government, etc, I do agree that 60 days can seem like 60 years. Romney does have to cover a lot of ground.

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.

This audio clip could serve to do just what Romney's blunder did: Solidify the other party against him. It has a video of Obama's Speech, saying that he wants to "spread the wealth" and that he "believes in re-distribution", very communistic remarks in general. Now, the republicans are going to be calling him a communist more than ever. This will definatly defiantly isolate moderates just like Romney's mixup will do.

The big difference between this clip and Romney's are that this is from years ago, whereas Romney's is much more recent. I think that we all need to just move past these video clips and focus on what the candidates are really putting out there rather than something they just said once.

Yes, but you could easily argue that Obama's clip still holds true today, look at how socialist as a country we've become. We're getting pretty close to numerically socialist, our spending to GDP is 42%, 8 short points from official socialism. Medicine is socialized. The alarming part is that Obama still seems like he is holding true to this. He hasn't changed. And while Romney's 47% statement wasn't exactly politically correct, it is accurate. 47% of Americans don't pay taxes, and, this statement is taking into consideration the SSI and retirees. You can even do the math yourself, just go to Obama's government sponsored Debt Clock and plug in the numbers.

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?

This article talks about how the lead that Obama had going into the debates has diminished after Obama's debate against Romney. This gives new hope for the GOP going into the Vice President Debate on Thursday.

Having watched both the presidential debate and the VP one I agree in that, "Mr. Romney has gained ground against Mr. Obama in virtually all measures" from his articulate responses in last week's debate. But I think it's important to realize that the hard-core democrats and the republicans probably are not going to change their vote regardless of who wins the debate. I think both Biden and Ryan did a good job last night and that they both also seemed weak at a few points. For me, Biden's laughing/eye rolling was really distracting and made him seem arrogant. His mannerisms were off putting and made me feel uncomfortable which made me almost favor Ryan by the end. Who do you all think "won"?

Danielle, I think Biden won. He was so energetic in the way that Democrats really needed after the first presidential debate. Additionally, the article says that "six percent [of voters] remain undecided". This baffles me a bit. At this point in the campaigns, how could anyone not know who they support? The candidates are so different! Although I suppose that, especially for voters who don't delve deeply into the policies, it's hard to decide who will fix the country faster and better.

-"Romney's manner was engaging, informative, and confident. Obama, on the other hand, seemed either ill prepared or ill at ease. " - On the debate. -What skills should our President have? - He goes in depth on our needs as a country. -This source relates the campaign process to the hiring process, saying that the debates are like job interviews.

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 quotes Paul Ryan being extremely confident that he and Romney will win the election. He accepts that they have made mistakes but also adress that they will make it clear in the upcoming debates that the American people are choosing between a brighter future and failed policies of the past four years. I particularly noticed this quote: "Ryan said Romney has been specific, but declined to say which loopholes, saying, "It would take me too long to go through all of the math."" I think this is interesting because as he is saying they are specific, he is avoiding being specific. The article continues to talk about Obama commenting on to Republican Campaign not being specific as well.

Yadira touched on this, but they HAVE to be confident: if you say "I don't think I'm going to win" you're definitely not going to win. The article says "Paul Ryan acknowledged Sunday the campaign has made some missteps"; I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he considers those missteps to be.

Yeah I agree Sabrina. Putting on the confident face definitely makes you a more attractive candidate. But I think he has not been very specific with his campaign which makes me trust him less. His confident persona matched with his flakey statements leave me confused!

I think that it is nice to see some hope towards compromise at the white house, but at the same time respect Boehner so much more for saying that he simply will not accept any tax plan that isn't balanced. We  really can't afford to be increasing our budget deficit any more. At current rates, our debt to gdp ratio will be up 40% by the end of 2016, and we cannot afford to be increasing our deficit. By 2016, the interest on our massive debt because of our skyrocketing budget deficit will have tripled. We are financially headed in a horrible direction, and I am trusting Boehner to shut down any attempts to pass more debt-skyrocketing bills. I agree with this article's position on tax cuts to the wealthy, increasing taxes will only hurt the private sector even further. Even the CBO agrees that if bush tax cuts were to expire unemployment would rise to a whopping 9%, and as such should not be allowed to expire.The private sector, not the government, creates jobs, and this article confirms to me why the government should make it easier for the private sector to create jobs by allowing the bush tax cuts to continue. 

News reports are coming out with information on hurricane sandy and the warnings set out in various parts of the country. It is interesting to see how the different candidates are being and going to be effected by this. It seems from this article that in terms of swing states, Obama is going to be hit harder although Virginia may be tough for Romney with the conservative parts being hit harder. Romney definitely does have a disadvantage with his headquarters in Boston though. I am interested to see how much of an effect on the election this storm has. Thoughts and predictions?

I'm wondering if the storm will affect the voters more than the candidates (eg: making them unable to vote), and in this way it will affect the election. Like Yadira said, though, the storm can be symbolic for many who have experienced it as they think about what really matters in life and what they want America to look like. I would think in the non-swing states, the storm would only make people more enthusiastic about their choice, thinking America is due for a 'rebirth' of some sort, with their preferred leader at the head. And, also like Yadira said, if the storm affects an undecided voter personally, the way in which the president deals with their lives/the governor proposes he would deal with their lives could determine their decision of who to vote for.

I think that the storm will make a lot less people vote, especially the undecided voters who the candidates have been trying so hard to sway. However, I think that the voters who are passionately decided will not be affected by the weather.