Group items tagged

He can't change his policies but he can change the way he expresses his policies, and that's half the battle. Also, (unsurprisingly) Romney acts as if it was not Obama's lack of energy at the debate that made him lose his lead but his policies, but it's not like the debate was the first time the people had heard these policies.

Obama was definitely rusty compared to a fresh-out-of-the-primaries Romney and I believe that if he wants to generate the same levels of enthusiasm that he had four years ago, he has to raise his own energy levels.

I definitely think it's a issue. I don't know if there is a good solution to it but it's definitely something to be considered.

I agree with you that the most pressing issue of this election has been shifted, at the moment, away from the status and future of the economy to the pressing foreign affairs occurring within Libya and Egypt. These riots represent the beginning of an Anti-American movement sweeping through the Middle East and without proper care, the feelings toward the U.S could push the economy to drop even more. This is why I think the most pressing issue of the election has shifted from the economy to foreign policy.

I thought this article summarized pretty much how I felt about the debate. They both did a good job and were fairly evenly matched but in my opinion, Biden may have done just a tiny bit better. That being said the poll asking people who they thought won (taken of the people who watched the debate) confirmed my suspicion that many republican viewers thought Ryan did as well, if not better than Biden.

I thought Biden and Ryan's debate was completely different from the presidential debate. I know many democrats were disappointed in Obama's lack of critical response to Romney's points, arguing that he could have shot them all down easily and logically. Biden seemed to compensate for that completely, making Ryan seem like he didn't really know what he was talking about. What I thought was interesting about this debate, though, was that who won seems completely subjective based on personality equally if not more than policy. Many might thing Ryan won because Biden was laughing in a perhaps rude way the whole time, while many might think Biden won because he deserved to laugh at Ryan for saying things that didn't entirely make sense. I think this almost has more to do with personality preference than policy preference because in our debate chat room, where most of us were democrats, there were arguments both that the laughing was rude and that the laughing was called for, passionate, and helpful in Biden's claim. Overall, Biden's casualness was a great contrast to the formal, almost scripted attitude of Ryan. This is why the debate seems to be so varied in public response, and to me, why it depends on what the individual listener wants to hear to decide who really won the debate.

In my opinion, Biden won, but it certainly wasn't a runaway like it was for Romney. I agree with you all that they were pretty evenly matched, and that a lot of who won is based on who you already like. I don't think that this debate will have a significant impact on the election.

I believe that Biden won for his ability to: connect to the viewers, shoot down all of Ryan's ideas, and emphasize all of the good things that have happened under his and Obama's office. Like Sabrina said, however, Biden did not blow away the competition like Romney did to Obama, but he did seem to do better than Ryan. Also, like Sabrina said, this debate won't mean much to the voters even though they did raise some policy issues.

Personally, this debate did mean something to me as a voter. It did not make me want to change my position or anything, but it did boost my confidence in my already-made choices. I am wondering if this has become more of the reasoning behind these debates, or if they are still created to make people decide on who they are voting for?

This is a really cool study, where did you find it Eli? It's not very surprising to me though. I am often inclined to agree with something just because a certain group of people that I relate to (I can't think of an actual example at the moment) support the cause/issue/opinion.

I agree with you about how it might make the President seem a bit more relatable to the public when he went on to the television show "The View" but right now was an awful time for him to do it. He is avoiding the world leaders that have come here for the United Nations General Assembly and he is shirking his responsibility to them and this country. He put his campaign in front of the foreign policy he is supposed to be in charge of. Sure as Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton should be the one to handle the majority of the foreign policy affairs, but Obama still has to do his part, which he failed to do according to this article, by putting his campaign in front of meetings with Global Leaders.

James, I couldn't agree with you more. Why should the president be trying to appeal to the masses right now? If anything, his adamant resolution to work things out with Israel says way more about his integrity than going on some talk show to try to impress the masses, which, in most cases, aren't exactly adamant followers of international news. Obama selfishly chose the election over America, and just went down even more in my book.

I also think that in this case, Obama should have spoken with world leaders instead of going on a talk show. He is campaigning, but he's also the President of the United States, and that should still be his most important job right now.

I agree that Obama did not make the best decision in putting the talk show above metting with world leaders. I think it is a hard thing to balance when trying to figure out what the American people will think of either choice but I do believe that as the president, it would not have hurt his campaign and could have possibly helped his campaign if he had put international affairs above a tv show.

I agree with you Savannah on the clear liberal sway seen on the internet today, I believe this shows an interesting trend for the future of our politics. I also look forward to changing technology and seeing how politics will adapt to the new things that will come into our lives in the future.

I think you're spot on Savannah with your comment that the internet sways liberal because of the younger people. We had a speaker come into Urban this past week to talk about some campaigning strategies. In his company, they used targeted mailing to campaign but we got to a discussion about media. He made a good point that the people who are following Obama or Romney on twitter, fb etc. are likely affiliated with that party already. I have so much to do online and it's already distracting. So I know for me, I don't really seek out political "tweets" and what not so it doesn't really lure me in.

I as well am not really lured by political advertising on the internet, I may notice, but not to the extent where I would change my vote or consider a different candidate. I do agree though that the media had more of an impact in the 2008 election, but because it was such a different election from what America was use to.

This is an interesting point. When thinking of what Danielle brought up, that the internet is more a place where already-passionate liberals and conservatives express themselves (rather than a place where parties try to advertise their beliefs), I see that the question changes from "can the internet persuade an individual to like a certain party" to "what is the power of the internet in terms of political advantage". By this I mean that, if the internet does sway to the left, does this affect society? Who benefits from having a similar political view to that of the internet? Is the older generation who might be more conservative being left out in any way?

Yes, every politician in history behaves differently around their donors and voters. Even Obama. Just look at how socialist of statements he makes in university speeches, calling directly for "spreading the wealth around" and "those who have more should be expected to give much more" (all excerpts from a speech to Loyola university) are vastly different to those he made at the DNC claiming that he wasn't necessarily for an increase of taxes in the 250,000+ category. All I'm trying to say is that any politician that ever went anywhere did so doing just this.

Yes, fairness means that everyone pays their fair share, which is a very republican ideal, which is why i am in favor of removing the exorbitant death taxes and in favor of the fair tax, which i feel like would point our country in a less socialistic direction, which, lets face it, since 2008 we have been plummeting rapidly towards socialism with ACA and greater government influence in our economy. Going back to the Romney quote you mentioned, I'm not sure what you really meant by "it seems unfair" Are you really suggesting that those who work harder than others should be punished with a larger tax? And keep in mind that he's talking about income tax, not money already sitting in the bank. So Romney worked for that money, and should not be punished for it. Taxes are punishments, and that sort of backwards tax structure is one exhibited by the USSR before it collapsed, mind you. Taking more from the rich is not "fair" . The term for it is socialism. If you want another historical example, look at Britain's economy when it implemented Adam Smith's lazziez faire economics (their economy grew exponentially, scientific developments were off the charts, relatively peaceful era) and then look at the France's economy shortly after when it implemented a more "fair" system in the 1800s-1900s, they constantly got decimated by economic struggles and went nowhere. And even if you still believe that the rich should pay more, consider this. The government's biggest problem is not a lack of revenue. We're spending 104% of our GDP. If you plan on paying taxes, which, by the way, our current government lets you be exempt if you decide to take a year off of your well-paying job to sit at home and 'discover' yourself, then you will already be 140,000$ in debt thanks to Obama's excessive spending. No, Bush did not "start it", Obama has added more debt than all of the presidents before him combined. Why do you think that it is "fair" for the harder workers in our s

ociety to have to pay more when they are the ones working harder? And, if anything, it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage. He, unlike Obama, has business experience and is fiscally responsible, so I respect him more for this, not less.

Yeah, I'm going to with Savannah on this one. I think the rules of tax should obviously apply to everyone, rich or not. I also think that getting tax deductions is part of the "taxing" process so why shouldn't everyone take advantage of that? Regardless of how much money someone has...

Savannah, I'm not suggesting that people should be punished for working hard. But how much money you make is not always an accurate representation of how hard someone works. And I'm not sure about what I think is "fair". Yes, everyone paying the same taxes would be fair in one way. But some people work extremely hard and still don't have a lot of money and still need help from the government. Some people make exorbitant amounts of money and don't work all that hard. Doesn't it seem fair for people who need help to be able to get it? That's what I'm suggesting. I'm not encouraging laziness or punishing people for hard work. As for what you said, "it makes me respect Romney more because he knows how to work the system to his (and America's) advantage", it seems to me that there are two parts of this. One is that he understand the system. That's a good thing. The other is that he knows how to manipulate it to appear as something that he is not. That's not a good thing.

In my opinion, I do not believe that taxes are a punishment. Taxes are something we, as American citizens, agree to pay to do our part in making sure that all of our opportunities are made possible (in building roads ect.) Maybe they are not used the best right now, that's opinion but as a generalization I don't think taxes should be considered a punishment. Also agreeing with Sabrina, I believe that someone who works multiple jobs and happens to be doing manual labour that pays minim wage is in many cases working equally as hard if not harder than a wealthy CEO working long days in the office. They are different types of work and the amount of money they make is no reflection of the amount of work they put into that job.

Abby, I still don't see how you consider taxes to not be a punishment. If you enjoy forking over your hard earned cash to those who didn't for whatever reason, then I congratulate you for being a socialist. The biggest problem in our government is not a lack of money, but a lack of structure, so why are you so focused on increasing revenue if it won't make a difference under a fiscally irresponsible president with no business experience whatever? I don't enjoy the fact that I will end up paying money to a government that is incapable of spending it and do not think that people should have an increase of taxes just for working hard. And Sabrina, this is federal income tax, not capital gains or inheritance tax, so it doesn't take into account money that one is already sitting on or based on investments. The way income tax works, you can have a mansion and 5 cars but take a year off to work on a painting from your well-paying job and legally file with an income of 0 and get food stamps. And back to your example of the CEO and the blue-collar worker, the CEO probably went to school and got a degree, which would make me consider him to have worked harder than the blue-collar worker who chose not to get a high school degree. Also, let's change the discussion about working "hard" to one about working "smart"? Comparing manual labor efforts to the intellectual efforts of others really isn't comparing apples to apples. We should be discussing productivity rather than effort. If someone studies really hard but fails a test, and someone studies more effectively (but less hard) yet receives a high grade, should the high score student be penalized and the poor performer subsidized? Linking this back to the economy, without CEOs, the minimum wage workers wouldn't even have jobs. There would be no company, therefore, no jobs. CEOs are perhaps burning fewer calories when they work, but that does not mean that they are less productive. Take out a minimum wage worker from a co

But about Romney's tax exemptions-that's not what happened. He purposely overpaid to match an earlier estimate that he made. He didn't claim all the exemptions that he could have. Maybe that wasn't clear in the article I posted, but here's a quote from another one: "We know, for instance, that Romney paid a rate of 14.1 percent on $13.7 million in income on his 2011 tax return, which he achieved by purposely overpaying. Though he was entitled to deduct $4 million in charitable contributions, Romney deducted only $2.25 million to keep his tax rate above 13 percent." Here's the link to that article: http://www.propublica.org/article/what-we-still-dont-know-about-mitt-romneys-taxes

In this article, Romney expresses views on energy that oppose actions he made towards conserving energy in the past as state Governor. This seems to go along with a theme of wishy-washyness of beliefs that Romney displays throughout his campaigning this election season. Do you think that his lack of faith in his "beliefs" he is campaigning for will affect his presidency if he wins the election?

I feel like in a way his lack of faith in his beliefs make him seem less confident and secure. The perception he is giving to the people is confusing because relating this to Abby's article about how he and Paul Ryan feel extremely confident in winning the election. This is problematic. The way I see him at least is not confident.

What Romney's wishy-washiness says to me is that he really, really wants to be president. His own ideals matter much less to him than picking the views that will appeal to the most voters. This could be seen as a good thing or a bad thing; he's either not faithful to anything, really, or he is willing to cater to the needs of the majority.

Romney's back and forth ideals also concern me Yadira. I want a president that is totally confident in his beliefs and doesn't sway. I don't think it has to do with him not being confident necessarily but I think it makes him look less trustworthy. I think this will make voters feel uneasy...

Romney's inconsistency with being specific and clear is a big problem because it makes him seem unprepared. Watching the debate this week shed some light to what Romney proposes to do, but he still was unclear on some issues. As a voter I would be frustrated because I would want to be inform with what Romney plans to do. I mean without a plan what he will do as president. Will we just have to wait till he is president to claim what he will actually do? I think it's important that Romney feels confident about winning the election because he is representing himself as a strong leader. A strong leader gives the people a sense of relief because they can feel like they can trust him.

I think that as the incumbent Obama has automatically been criticized more easily. Romney can say basically anything but has not been president whereas Obama can be attacked for anything and everything he has done. Romney's changing opinions I think can be seen one of two ways: concerning or sometimes brave for allowing his opinions/beliefs to change publicly with time. I think those supporters of Romney will forgive his wavering whereas Obama supporters will not. I'm unsure how the swing voters will react to this...we'll have to wait and find out.

I actually can't wait until thursday's debate, I think it will be just as exciting as the first one was. Ryan is extremely intelligent and a statistical slammer, so it should be interesting to see how he debates.