Skip to main content

Home/ Palin Group/ Group items tagged romney

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Sabrina Rosenfield

Week 7: Romney gains ground on Obama after strong debate | Reuters - 1 views

  •  
    This article explains where each of the candidates stand in polls after the debate. Interestingly, according to the polls shown here, 51% of voters like Romney and 56% like Obama, meaning there are a significant amount of people that like both. Also, it definitively says that Romney won the debate. Who do you think won?
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    To answer your question on who I think won, I would agree that Romney won the debate. Before the debate I had been reading a lot of articles which claimed that unless Romney pulled through with the debate, he had pretty much already lost the election. I think that debate helped him to 'bounce' back and have a shot to stay in the race rather than fall out even if it did not give him a real boost to be ahead. Additionally, the article showed wide gaps in the peoples' opinions on the less political traits of the candidates (relatable, likable, ect.) I am curious how much those polls actually matter if the difference is so vast between the candidates.
  •  
    There is absolutly no way to say that Romney didn't win the debate. There was a strict set of facts that Obama could have used to harm the GOP in general, but he didn't. He stumbled through his last bits and filled his speech with tons of 'um', and spent the entire time looking down. Unfortunatly, a good bit of the population votes based on who they like as a person, and that can't be changed.
  •  
    I am a little bit confused by the poll results, 51% of voters like Romney and 56% like Obama, but the article claims that Romney definitely won. If you are looking at, which candidate is liked better, there is not a huge difference between Romney and Obama, but Obama is obviously liked more. I would agree that Romney won the debate since he seemed more confident and secure with what he was trying to get across. I got to see a side of Romney that made him seem more powerful then Obama because I felt like Romney got more into the debate and was defending/attacking Obama.
  •  
    For me, the most disappointing thing was Obama's lack of enthusiasm. I also think Romney won this debate and clearly made himself seem like a more appealing candidate. Although he did do that on this one particular night, I think the candidate's personality overall, and not just in one night, is more important. I liked this quote from the article because I think it sums up what happened well: "This suggests to me that while the debate was effective in energizing the Republican base and giving Romney a boost, it didn't fundamentally change perceptions of either man a great deal."
  •  
    I, too, would argue that Romney won the debate especially due to both his enthusiasm and Obama's lack of enthusiasm. I think this article raises a good question of whether the debates/policies of the candidates are more important to the election or the likability/relatability of the candidates are more important. While we are being educated in all areas of the candidates and are basing our views off of this educated standpoint, many voters might not know a lot about either Romney or Obama, so do you think the outcomes of the debates will have as big of an impact on the election as one might hope?
Sabrina Rosenfield

Romney and his Tax Returns : The New Yorker - 2 views

  •  
    This is an article about the release of Romney's tax returns for 2011, and whether or not he is being completely honest in saying that he paid 14.1% because he can go back later and get returns for his charitable donations. He argues that not doing so would discourage people from donating. I'm not sure about this quote, "As was widely noted, Romney has also said that he considers claiming every possible legal deduction an ethical test, with rather distinctive terms: if you pay any more than you really, really must, you have failed." I think that for many Americans, this is completely true, but for someone with such a high income, it seems unfair. But isn't fairness the same thing for everyone? What do you guys think?
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    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
  •  
    Sabrina, Let's look at this another way. If Romney made $13.7M in 2011, and donated $4M of that to charity, and also paid 14.1% (or < 13%)... he, in effect, only kept 57% of his income. He gave 13-14% to the government, and another 30% to charities -- hardly reprehensible behavior? He is able to more effectively do "good" with his money by giving it freely to those he feels deserve it can those that can be good stewards of the money. Clearly the President has NOT been a good steward of funds, just look at Solyndra and Beacon Energy. I don't know about you, but I would rather my money go to charities close to my heart rather than sham entities that sit there and waste billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars, like Solyndra and Beacon. The tax system is not perfect at all but it does encourage behaviours that are beneficial to society. Why does it matter so much what Romney paid in taxes? Shouldn't we focus on what he gave away to others than to a fiscally irresponsible government?
  •  
    I agree that the actual numbers of what Romney paid in taxes is somewhat unimportant, but symbolically it represents an ethical value that I've noticed in Romney's policies and beliefs. The Urban School recently had a visitor, a professor of economy, who informed us that the president him/herself does not actually have that much control over the economy as it is determined mostly by the private sector of the market. The president can, however, influence the economy through tax policy, and if Governor Romney is unwilling to pay his contribution to the system, which, as Abby said, is what we do to insure that "all opportunities are made possible," he seems to be implying something about how much the upper class should be paying. I realize that is just an opinion, but if you don't agree I hope you can at least understand my belief that all individuals/families, rich or poor, deserve to at least get an opportunity to make their lives more successful. Although the government may not have the power to fix the economy and everything themselves, they can at least provide that opportunity for the American citizens. A hard laborer with minimum wage may be working hard not smart, but that does not mean they don't have the potential to work smart. I believe that as Americans we should make sure that they can fulfill that potential.
Will Rothman

Political Perceptions: Poll Points to Risks for Romney - Washington Wire - WSJ - 0 views

  • Romney trailing President Barack Obama — perhaps dangerously so,
  • In May, Mr. Romney had a 13-point lead among college-educated whites.
  • But his position has steadily deteriorated.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • Mr. Romney led by six percentage points among people in households earning $100,000 or more – 50% to Mr. Obama’s 44%. More recently, the two candidates have been running even among those voters.
  • This month’s poll contained a surprise: Mr. Obama leads among $100,000 households by a remarkable 16 points—56% to 40%
  • Mr. Romney. He holds an eight-point lead among white voters, topping Mr. Obama 51% to 43%. But that isn’t good enough. Mr. Obama carried 43% of the white vote in 2008—and easily won the election.
  •  
    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.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    I'm wondering how Romney will try and win over certain groups that Obama has not "captured" yet. The article said he may have to reach out to men and college students if he wants to be competitive with Obama's appeal to women and minorities. In Romney's RNC speech he seemed so focused on women and in general, I haven't seen him reach out to men.
  •  
    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.
Sami Perez

Romney Energy Agenda Shifted - NYTimes.com - 5 views

  • energy-efficient car of the future
  • Romney is far more apt to talk about oil drilling than energy-efficient cars.
    • Sami Perez
       
      are these beliefs real or just for the campaign?
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • He has presented a plan to open up more land and coastline to oil and gas drilling, grant speedy approval to the Keystone pipeline to transport crude oil from Canada to the United States, end wind and solar power subsidies and curb regulations that discourage burning coal for electricity.
    • Sami Perez
       
      as president, would he do things like this or like he says in his campaigning?
  • “concluded the costs imposed on the economy would be too high.”
    • Sami Perez
       
      so is it a game or an election?
  • He populated his Massachusetts administration with environmentalists, including one, Gina McCarthy, who now runs the clean air division of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Obama. He railed against the “Filthy Five,” high-polluting power plants in the state. He issued a “climate protection plan” and lauded it as “among the strongest in our nation.” Under his direction, Massachusetts helped create a regional cap-and-trade program — anathema to most Republicans — intended to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that scientists believe cause global warming.
  • Today in Massachusetts, environmentalists credit Mr. Romney with helping to promote smart growth and reducing air pollution by putting in place tough regulations curbing certain toxic emissions from power plants. They also praise him for signing into law a bill embracing oil spill prevention measures. But many feel betrayed by his surprise reversal on the climate change pact.
  • He was ahead of his time and very progressive
    • Sami Perez
       
      it seems true romney is very much a liberal conservative, while campaigning romney is solely conservative
  • George Romney turned the company around by marketing the Rambler — a boxy, no-frills but fuel-efficient vehicle.
    • Sami Perez
       
      is non-green business even good for the economy? is Romney's new republican view actually beneficial in any way?
  •  
    Romney's energy views
  • ...4 more comments...
  •  
    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...
  •  
    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.
James Foster

In Dwindling Days of the Race, Romney Takes a Softer Tack - 1 views

  •  
    This article describes the shift that everyone has seen in Romney as the elections near.He has shifted from a more aggressive stance to a more moderate stance, attempting to show himself to be a candidate that appeals to all different voters. Do you think this shift will help or hurt Romney in this election? Does this shift show inconsistency or does it show his willingness to compromise his ideas for the betterment of America?
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I think that it could be seen either way: as a commitment to the people or as a weakness in lack of ideals. While it seems nice to be always doing what the people want, I feel like our government was created to create equal opportunity for all, which means both gains and sacrifices for all people. If Romney lacks an ideal or a focus, how/where will we go forward? As we have learned from our history and even in Obama's decisions as president, too much compromise can get us nowhere, so where do we draw lines in order to reach our goals...if we have any?
  •  
    Too much stubbornness can get us nowhere as well, remember. Our government is built on the principals of compromise, and Romney has a much more solid track record than Obama when it comes to business as well as pre-presidential government experience, which speaks way louder than anything else. Would Romney have been as successful if he weren't willing to compromise? No.
  •  
    I think that this is an extremely good tactic for Romney: he appealed more to the far right and the people who were very set in their conservative values earlier in the campaign, and is now appealing to the more moderate undecided voters. People who were really excited about him as a candidate aren't going to change their minds about him now, so there's no downside for Romney. However, I'm not sure if his values are actually changing or if he's simply trying to appeal to a wider voter base.
  •  
    Romney wouldn't be this far in the election if he weren't going to 'compromise' because he would be pro-choice and for same-sex marriage and have little support from the republican party at all. Compromise is great but only to a certain level. There has to be some point which people can't across and which we, Americans can depend upon to know that Romney won't change his views on. I would not be comfortable voting for President who changes his viewpoints to line up with the votes he needs the most just because who knows what positions he will hold if he actually does make it into office.
Savannah L

Romney Strggles to Gain Traction in Battlegrounds - 3 views

  •  
    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.
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    What I found interesting in this article was Ryan's statement that "You know, it depends on the quality of the agreement," which indicates that his ideals aren't very set and could easily be changed by a convincing argument. Also, this seems to disagree with what Rush Limbaugh said about Obama just giving up. This race is still open to either candidate.
  •  
    What stood out to be in this article was the quote from Charlie Cook saying, "the case for firing President Obama is really pretty obvious, but the case for hiring Mitt Romney is one that has yet to be made." I think this is a really strong point. Romney has made his points of why we should get Obama out of obvious very clear but I think for the remainder of the election it might be a smart move to start convincing people why he should be the replacement.
  •  
    I was struck by the same quote that Sabrina mentioned that "You know, it depends on the quality of the agreement" (Ryan). I think there is plenty of time left in the election and I think Romney will be pushed to clarify his ideals.
  •  
    "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.
Savannah L

Attacks Fuel Escalation in Presidential Race - NYTimes.com - 2 views

  • “Make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people,”
  • “It is exactly the wrong time to throw political punches.”
  • said Mr. Romney might have done better to pull his punches.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • I always think that discretion is the better way to go,”
    • Savannah L
       
      I side with them completely, Romney was being insensitive and would have helped his popularity if he was pro-america rather than just anti-obama. This would have been an easy cause to rally people under, but he shot himself in the foot by being overly critical of Obama in a sensitive time about a sensitive issue. 
  • Fox News.
    • Savannah L
       
      Being anti-Romney on fox news really says something
  • accusations that you’re trying to exploit thin
  • Libyan government, noting that Libyan security officers fought back against the mob, helped protect American diplomats and took Mr. Stevens’s body to the hospital.
  •  
    Romney criticizes Obama for not speaking out against the attacks on the US Ambassador in Libya. The article uses this to make Romney seem hasty, because Obama did condem the attack eventually. This just seems like another attempt of Romney's to gain the upper hand by nitpicking everything about the Obama administration. Numerous senators are also quoted in the article saying that this isn't a time for political division and Romney needs to be more careful before he says something stupid and insensitive. 
  •  
    The first thing that stands out to me in this article is that the attack is described as a test of crisis skills rather than an actual thing that happened. I think that Obama is right in saying that "Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later", especially with his comments. He's trying so hard to appeal to people that he doesn't always think about the effects of what he says. I don't think that Romney understands that sometimes apology is the best way to handle things.
  •  
    I think this is a time where criticizing the other party is not effective and should not be the main concern. I agree with you Sabrina, that sometimes an apology, or even acknowledgment, is the best way to handle things. But Obama has been criticized for less harsh action on foreign affairs so I'm surprised he didn't condem the attacks first. I guess he won't waver on how he feels he should approach these acts of terror.
Abby Schantz

Obama's New Campaign Focus: You can trust me, you cannot trust Romney - 0 views

  •  
    This article is about Obama's campaign switching over and talking about how Romney changes his policies and can therefore not be trusted. It emphasizes Obama keeping his word and focuses on a rally in Florida. It also discusses Obama referring to "Romnesia" The quote that really stood out to me was, "On the auto industry bailout, the hiring of public school teachers and Medicare, Obama said Romney is aiming to disguise his real positions in order to win the election." Do you think that Romney's position changes are going to have a negative or positive effect on his campaign? And, do you think that these are genuine changes or are for the polls?
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    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.
  •  
    When researching energy for the issues project we just completed, I read an article about an environmentalist who was leaning towards Romney, despite his views on energy resources that harm the environment, because his past positions on green energy gave her hope. Also, on a previous article, we were discussing how people might take Romney's switches as a confirmation of his concern for the people. At the same time, a lack of commitment to his beliefs could prove a lack of commitment to the people and his job. I know I feel more connected to that second argument, but I am very curious to how the rest of the country will look at this.
  •  
    I'm not sure how Romney disguising his real plans would benefit him in any sort of way-if helping the country is not his "real goal", what is his goal in becoming president? And why would he present something other than the best plan he's got if he wants to win votes?
Abby Schantz

Romney at Breakfast blames and claims after the campaign - 0 views

  •  
    This article talks about a breakfast with all of Romney's largest donors and aides after the campaign. He have remarks which put blame and surprise on why he lost the election and actually got emotional as he gave his thanks to his campaign donors. I found this article really interesting because I always have wondered how a losing candidate goes back to life after spending a year on a presidential campaign.
  •  
    I can not imagine it is easy especially after all the time and energy so many people put into his campaign. This quote stood out to me: "When he was finished, Mr. Romney lingered for a long time, shaking hands and delivering hugs. It seemed, those in the room said, like he did not want to leave. "He stayed until the last person left," said an attendee." I know Romney was criticized as "stiff" but it doesn't seem like this is the case. At the end of the day, I think both Obama and Romney are very smart and genuinely want to make America a better place.
  •  
    I mean it would be difficult to not be emotional after losing because Romney put a lot of time and effort to not lose. This whole campaign has been physically and emotionally exhausting, so for Romney to not be upset would be inappropriate and weird. Romney "faulted the Obama campaign for characterizing him as an enemy of women, singling out advertisements that claimed he opposed abortion in all cases and opposed contraception." I think saying this is ironic because I am sure that Romney as well characterized as an enemy of women, etc... I mean that is what campaigning is about. Finding the faults of the other candidates and exposing them.
Sami Perez

Why Obama Is Leading in the Polls - Ronald Brownstein - The Atlantic - 2 views

  • President Obama's lead rests on a surprisingly strong performance among blue-collar white women who usually tilt toward the GOP.
  • Obama is running considerably better than he is nationally among white women without a college education
  • young people, minorities, and college-educated women, these advances among blue-collar women have been enough to propel Obama to the lead over Republican Mitt Romney
  • ...18 more annotations...
  • blue-collar women have been the principal, and most receptive, target for their extended ad barrage portraying Romney as a plutocrat who is blind, if not indifferent, to the struggles of average families.
    • Sami Perez
       
      how advertisements are affective: showing people the faults of the opposing candidate
    • Sami Perez
       
      how do the specific group of "blue-collar white women" affect the election/the population?
  • "The sheer weight of their advertising, and the shows they targeted that advertising on, it is [aimed at] lower-income, white, working women," said the GOP strategist. "They are being pounded with this stuff."
  • The Obama campaign has heavily targeted its ads on daytime shows that attract a large audience of downscale women
  • minority voters, and then whites divided into four groups: men and women, with and without a college education.
    • Sami Perez
       
      why focus on the white women without education?
  • In most respects, the state results track national patterns, suggesting that demography usually trumps geography in shaping voter preferences. The exception is the blue-collar white women.
    • Sami Perez
       
      because blue-collar white women don't have a trend based on geography or demographic
  • he runs better with these women voters than any other group of whites.
    • Sami Perez
       
      what does Obama's appeal to women say about women's rights/issues?
  • portrayal of Romney as obtuse to the problems of working families
  • he has been hurt among blue-collar women by the skirmishes over defunding Planned Parenthood and access to contraception in health insurance.
  • Many of these women view such women's health matters not as moral issues but as practical pocketbook concerns.
  • while about three-fifths of non-college women agreed that Obama "cares about the needs and problems of people like you" roughly an equal number of them said Romney did not.
  • the non-college, white women are the moving piece of the electorate
  • President Obama, they are dissatisfied with the performance, but they do relate to him on a personal level," she said. "For Mitt Romney, the professional resume is there ... but he's not as personable, or relatable, to them.
    • Sami Perez
       
      the importance of policy vs. the importance of relatability
  •  
    "The president's ad barrage seems to have succeeded in bringing blue-collar women into his coalition -- and boosting his chance at reelection"
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    This article is about how Obama's target audience in his advertising is mainly blue-collar women (middle aged white women without education). It brought up two major questions for me: 1. how important is advertising? It seems to be most affective when criticizing the opposing candidate. 2. how important are women (specifically blue-collar women) in this election? How do women's rights tie into the swing votes/why are many GOP-leaning blue-collar women now leaning towards Obama?
  •  
    I found this very interesting, I normally don't really think of what the midwest's demographic is, but to see that it is blue-collar white women is super interesting. I also think the connection between advertising and the women is really powerful. The ads they are showing are definitely working since much of Obama's supports are their targeted audience.
  •  
    It's funny that they focus on such a specific group. This quote stood out to me: "Democrats say blue-collar women have been the principal, and most receptive, target for their extended ad barrage portraying Romney as a plutocrat who is blind, if not indifferent, to the struggles of average families." The ads all seem to be focused on saying how bad Romney will be for these women, rather than Obama helping them. How can they know that Obama is really right for them if all they know is that they don't like Romney?
  •  
    I liked this quote: "Beyond the opposition's portrayal of Romney as obtuse to the problems of working families, both sides agree that he has been hurt among blue-collar women by the skirmishes over defunding Planned Parenthood and access to contraception in health insurance." It makes sense why these women would want a president who would benefit their health/reproductive needs. Sabrina, I think this is probably one of the main points why they know Obama is right for them and why they don't like Romney.
  •  
    It is really interesting to me how much thought goes into the advertisements. Not only are they thinking about a specific group "the blue-collar women", but also increased numbers in certain states (swing states) ect. I also think it is interesting how much advertising there is. Because we live in San Francisco, we don't see many of the presidential campaign advertisements because we are not a place they should waste money on since it is almost certain they will win our votes. This has made me feel like my vote here does not count and I found this realization with seeing all of the advertisements lately to vote yes or no on a particular proposition for California (the education ones are the two main ads I have been seeing lately) What this tells me is where my vote actually has a sway, or could potentially swing the results, I will be seeing a lot of ads and a lot of money will go into me. Where I don't, I have to go looking to find my information or to be reached.
Will Rothman

Obama Tied With Romney in New Polls of Presidential Voters - SFGate - 2 views

  • President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are tied among likely voters in a national poll released eight days before Election&nbsp;Day.
  • each supported by 47 percent
  • Oct. 4-7 Pew poll that showed Romney ahead, 49 percent to 45 percent.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • A survey released today of Hispanic Christian voters showed Obama with a 63 percent to 26 percent lead over Romney.
  • In the Pew poll, Obama led, 50 percent to 44 percent, among likely women voters, while Romney led, 51 percent to 44 percent, among men.
  •  
    Obama Tied With Romney
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    I agree that this race will be very close, but, like the article we read, polls aren't always reliable.
  •  
    yeah I am starting to find polls less and less useful especially in a close race where there is no way for them to be super reliable
  •  
    Yeah especially after reading that article about polls, I think we just have to wait this election out.
Danielle Polevoi

For Democrats, Convention Challenge Is to Repeat 2008 - NYTimes.com - 5 views

  •  
    This article is highlights the need for this coming week's Democratic Convention to mimic the optimism that Obama's previous convention in 2008 had. Being that Obama's speech is after that of Romney's, it will be interesting to see if he subtly responds to anything that Romney said. Regardless, it is clear that Obama must recapture America.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    It's frustrating to me that the advice this article has for Obama is to "Attack Romney". Something that I really appreciate about Obama is that he's always very respectful towards Romney, and I hope he'll continue with that trend. Also, I think it's impossible to achieve the excitement and hope Obama had 4 years ago. It's just not the situation, and we don't live in the same world.
  •  
    I agree that is is impossible to recapture the hope Obama had four years ago. I found it interesting to read this article after listening to his speech because I was able to compare what Obama did to what the article was suggesting. Again I agree that Obama attacking Romney is slightly disappointing and not what I expect or want to see from him normally. I think in his speech he did do a little bit of attacking with his various jokes, the one standing out to me at the moment being when Romney called Russie the nation's greatest enemy.
  •  
    It was interesting to see the different tactics that are suggested that Obama needed to do so that he would perform well at the Democratic convention. After seeing the convention I feel like Obama did follow all of these tactics, but not to his fullest ability. I felt like his attacks on Romney were not as intense as when Romney was attacking Obama at the republican convention. I feel like this is a good thing because the fact that he was not constantly attacking Romney showed that he had an agenda in his speech rather than Romney who consistently attacked Obama in his republican convention speech.
Danielle Polevoi

Romney, After Debate Success, Shows Softer Side - NYTimes.com - 1 views

  •  
    This article begins by acknowledging the softer side that Romney showed during the debate and then tailors off into a discussion about what he has been up to recently that makes him seem so compassionate. I know that during the RNC Mrs. Romney put an emphasis on his fatherly side. Do you think Romney is going over the top selling himself as this compassionate man? Or do you find it endearing? I think I find it somewhat of both. 
Sami Perez

Romney and Ryan bask in newfound momentum - chicagotribune.com - 2 views

  • momentum from their debate performances
  • enthusiasm
  • energy and passion
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • We’re taking back this country, going to get it strong again
  • Against a backdrop of a billowing, three-story-high American flag
  • they are offering no new ideas. The president is simply saying more of the same. Hope and change has become attack and blame.”
  • real Romney-Ryan agenda
  •  
    This article is about how the debates lifted moral for those supporting Romney and Ryan. To me, the article provided an interesting perspective because I usually follow the moral of the Democratic party. Do you think the lifted spirits of GOP members will affect the election? It was also interesting because towards the end, the article states that the debates show the "real Romney-Ryan agenda," although after watching the debates I thought that Ryan was unable to name specific agendas for the Romney-Ryan campaign. Do you think that, because I as a more liberal-leaning American find it hard to see a "real" Romney-Ryan agenda through the debates while conservatives argue that their agenda is more clear than that of Obama and Biden, the debates have little to do with showing people the beliefs of the candidates and more to do with lifting the spirits of the candidates' supporters?
  •  
    I definitely think that being a more liberal American makes it harder to see the Republican campaign's policies. I agree that in the debate, Ryan seemed to be avoiding questions about policy and did not make it clear. But, I think that if you agree with the general premise of what someone is saying, it is much easier to look over specifics knowing that the principles behind it are what you believe in. When they are not, you are more likely to question them and scrutinize them until you find they haven't told you any specifics.
  •  
    I completely agree with Abby - you hear what you want to hear. I was also interested in this quote from Romney: "People recognize this is not an ordinary campaign, this is a critical time for our country." Is this true? Or do we always say this? Doesn't every time seem critical?
Abby Schantz

Romney's Two Sides: Donors and Voters - 1 views

  •  
    In this article, the question is raised of if Romney has two different sides, one that appeals to voters and one that appeals to donors. I found two parts of the article very interesting. One, that Romney answers a lot of questions from the donors but avoids them from the voters. And the second, that Romney actually goes in depth with his policies with the donors when tends to be vague with the voters.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    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.
  •  
    While I would love to think that a candidate's statements remain solid no matter who the audience is, I know that isn't the truth. I think that it is somewhat inevitable that certain points are highlighted and others are downplayed in someone's platform when trying to win the support of a certain group.
  •  
    A reason I can think of for this is that when you are trying to convince someone to vote for you, it's more about the big picture, "what direction do you want for our country" kind of campaigning. A vote for you means a vote in the right direction. When speaking to donors, it's about what their large donations are going to go towards specifically. It's much more of a commitment than just a vote, so it makes sense that there would be more information. I'm not saying this is the right way to handle it, and I agree that messages should stay consistent, but it might be a reason why.
Abby Schantz

Ryan is confident he and Romney will win the election - 1 views

  •  
    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.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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!
Yadira Rodriguez

Romney And Abortion: Another Shift In The Works? : Shots - Health Blog : NPR - 4 views

  • proclaimed himself in favor of abortion rights when he ran for office in Massachusetts, then reversed himself before launching his presidential bid.
  • strong supporter of abortion rights both in 1994,
  • I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose," he said in a 2002
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • conversion
  • the life of the mother is threatened,"
  • health and life of the mother."
  • The Romney campaign won't say the candidate misspoke
  • health exception,
  • he tries to go back and forth. "They pay attention. They learn about the issues," she said. "And every time that Mitt Romney tries to reinvent himself, they say, 'But wait a minute, I remember you said ...' They do their homework; they understand the responsibility that comes with voting for the highest office in the land." Last week, Romney's oldest sister Jane told reporters at the convention that her brother wasn't going to ban abortion if he becomes president. "It's not his focus," she told a National Journal reporter. But comments like that, clearly aimed at closing the candidate's sizable gender gap, could come as a rude surprise to social conservatives Romney's worked hard to woo for the past seven years.
  •  
    This article looks at Mitt Romney's constant shift on his position on abortion. The unclearness of whether or not he supports it might affect/ not go in line with what the republican's party view on abortion is. 
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    I think it's ridiculous that Romney has "changed" his standpoint on abortion. To me it seems that changing your "pro-life/pro-choice" standpoint publicly is to win certain votes. I remember during Romney's RNC speech he brought up protecting the sanctity of life right after a huge applause and I'm sure everyone did not hear him. His wobbly shifts on his position on abortion is something that bothers me.
  •  
    I'm sure we all have our own beliefs about abortion, but I can't see what's so bad about changing your standpoint on an issue to get more votes. As I look at it, it could seem like just panhandling for votes, but it could also be seen as changing your views to line up with a larger amount of the American people who could elect you. I think what Romney is guilty of in this situation is not changing his mind, but lying about it.
  •  
    What stands out to me is that to news reports that have different audiences, he changed in viewpoint. I understanding settling on a policy that works with the rest of your campaign (works with the vp too) but what is not okay him being unclear about his position. If he wants to line his position up with that of the most popular vote, fine, but he needs to be clear about his final decision and stick with it so people know exactly what they are voting for.
Sami Perez

Obama, Romney trade sharp humor at Alfred E. Smith dinner - Chicago Sun-Times - 1 views

  •  
    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?
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    If Romney wants to get a solid female fan base, he defiantly needs to get more with Obama's stances on abortion and birth control. Does he need to get more comedic? Maybe some other person would say so, but I personally prefer a leader who does not waste time telling jokes or stories about his family, to me it is unprofessional. I don't want someone relatable, I want someone who does their job well and is known for that. This stage in the game Americans can't afford to be presented with the opportunity to pick someone based on who seems more relatable, they need numbers.
  •  
    I agree with you Savannah, that at this late stage in the game it is very important for candidates to provide numbers and statistics while they are campaigning but I think that it is just as important for them make themselves relatable to the people who will be voting for them. An example of this is Romney's sister, Lynn, who has a child with Down Syndrome and he talks about the many difficulties that she faces along with the support she receives from himself and the rest of his family. These stories had a strong effect on some female voters in Ohio and I believe if Romney continues with this milder strategy of making himself seem more relatable to the people, he will have a better chance at winning this election.
  •  
    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.
Abby Schantz

What is really Romney's view oh healthcare and taxes? - 5 views

  •  
    This article gives quote by Romney saying he is not going to change all of Obama's healthcare and he is not going to lower taxes for the wealthy. The article shows him trying to "meet the press" 
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    It seems odd that Romney thinks that "he said he wants to make sure young people can stay on their parents' plan 'up to whatever age they might like'" because that could be forever in many cases, if it really is to whatever age they like. It's also interesting that he said "I am not reducing taxes on high-income taxpayers.", because that's definitely something that the Democrats are claiming he will do. Sometimes, it's really hard to tell who is telling the truth.
  •  
    I also think it's interesting that the Obama campaign accused Romney of "unapologetic evasiveness," when from this article, it seems like Romney is being a little bit more clear by saying he will not reduce taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
  •  
    I find it really interesting that Romney does not want to get rid of Obama's health plan, rather he wants to change some parts of the reform like give coverage to kids for as long as they want as well as allowing people with pre-existing conditions. In my opinion just looking at what Romney's wants to do with healthcare is not as bad as it seems, but looking at it more thoroughly it would be a problem.
  •  
    Yadria- I am slightly confused by what you mean with "but looking at it more thoroughly it would be a problem". Do you disagree with his plan? Just wondering. I agree with Ryan. Cutting spending, not taxes is the best way to get ourselves out of debt. The federal budget deficit is roughly a third of our federal spending, and is growing at an alarming rate. Our gross debt to GDP ratio is 104% because of our excessive spending. The per-capitia taxpayer debt (since only a third of americans pay taxes) is around 140,000. The fact of the matter is, no matter what way you want to look at it, we as a country are spending way too much. Yes, tax cuts for the middle class would be nice, but placing the debts on those making more than 250,000 a year is far from a solution because it is punishing those who work hard and stimulate the economy. Those small-buisness-owners, the job creators, are only going to get slammed with tax increases, and they are going to drag the economy down with them. Yes, our tax revenue is increasing, but drastically slower than the rate of our spending, which is a massive problem that can only be solved by cutting spending and reducing our budget deficit, unless Obama wants to try to increase taxes by 150%.
Yadira Rodriguez

Romney Softens Tone on Immigration During Hispanic Voters Forum - Businessweek - 1 views

  •  
    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. 
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    This reminds me of the conversation we had in class the other day about fact-checking. It seems like the accessibility of media would make presidential candidates stick to a clear point of view rather than altering opinions depending on the audience. It doesn't seem like the media is stopping Romney from changing his story. I also was really bothered by this quote: "We're not going to round up people around the country and deport them". The language in that rubbed me the wrong way and it makes me feel that Romney isn't taking the uprooting of lives as seriously/respectfully as he should be.
  •  
    Romney's idea of "self-deportation" seems ridiculous and unrealistic to me-maybe I just don't understand it enough. It seems like saying that people should go home but the government won't make them is the worst possible option; it doesn't welcome undocumented immigrants into the country nor does it remove them. It sounds like another example of Romney changing his message based on his audience.
  •  
    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.
1 - 20 of 72 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page