Group items tagged

This article is about the struggle to win Ohio-a very divided state that seems to be necessary for either candidate to win. It outlines the tactics that each candidate is taking there while campaigning this weekend.

It seems like both candidates are criticizing the other pretty harshly. Do you think this tactic will convince Ohio either way? It's hard for me to get my confusion cleared up when there's all this political "punching".

I feel like this article makes me think there is something seriously wrong with the electoral college. Hearing that one state, Ohio, is the main focus of both candidates' campaigns as well as the part of the article that stated that no Republican president has ever been elected without winning Ohio made me feel like Ohio has an unfair say in the election which leads me to believe that the electoral college system needs to be reformed.

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].

This article talks about the problems with voting it Ohio. It discusses the voting laws that have changed when the state had republican vs democratic secretary's of state. As of now, Obama is ahead with early votes but with the Republicans changing around restrictions and laws making it harder for people to vote they article said that: " the polls could be wrong and the totals could easily be close enough that long enough lines and tossed ballots will make the difference." I find it really upsetting that the article had to say: "Now it's up to the voters to do the only thing they can: Try to vote." It is really sad that it has become hard to vote - it's a right that should be accessible to all.

I agree with Danielle that a popular vote would be fairer, but I'm not sure how it would help in this situation. I think that the electoral college is outdated and no longer works as the best way to implement democracy.

It seems though with these law being pass are trying to get the most accurate votes as possible, but is it really fair to create laws where your vote and your voice will not be heard. This article makes these laws seem terrible because it is a trap.

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.

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?

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 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.

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. 

This article talks about the second presidential debate, which will be happening tonight. It explains how Obama will get a second chance to make up for his first debate. What do you guys think about this second chance? Is it really a chance? 

I mentioned this in Abby's article but I think a better performance can help Obama, it can't undo what has already happened. When I think about his attitude during the first debate it makes me question: Is he tired of being President? Have the hardships gotten to him? The article also mentions, "Obama needs strong support from women voters if he hopes to beat the Republican" and in my opinion if someone is voting based upon rights for women...they would have to vote for Obama.

This part of the article stood out for me: "Both sides claimed victory". Both sides think they won, whereas after last week's debate Obama admitted that he had lost. Why do you guys think this is? Do they both legitimately think that they won, or do they just want to seem confident?

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.