Group items tagged

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.

Governor Chris Christie (r) of New Jersey, a campaign supporter of Romney, went on TV to speak about the hurricane that had just hit his state.  In his interview, he praised Obama for his speedy response and said that all gratitude was due towards Obama.  Do you think that this will have a major effect on voters?  Do you think Hurricane Sandy will have an effect?

I also think that Chris Christie's endorsement meant a lot for voters. Additionally, and kind of unrelatedly, I think that Chris Christie will probably run for president in 2016.

I think hurricane sandy definitely had an effect on voters. Chris Christie acknowledging and appreciating Obama's support, shows how much Obama is willing to help out Americans no matter who they are.

This article emphasizes the importance of the toss-up state of Wisconsin and how crucial it will be to this election. This state has been democrat for the last 6 elections, although it has been a close call for the past two elections. Romney's addition of Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, this state will be a true battleground for both parties.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

"The president's ad barrage seems to have succeeded in bringing blue-collar women into his coalition -- and boosting his chance at reelection"

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.

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 outlines topics that The Atlantic believes should be debated about more. This is a very liberal source; do you guys think that a conservative source would have a very different list? What topics do you want to see debated?

I agree with Will, I don't think the list they have are topics that should be debated more, I personally believe that the issues on this list are more about moral issues. If there was a more conservative list I feel like most of the topics would not be on the list.

I agree Yadira, that the issues on this website are more social/moral. But I think it can be argued that the climate change is not social/moral but an issue that is going to seep into everyone's wife. Will, I'm going to have to disagree. I think women's rights and Gay rights can be linked. Women are focusing on rights that they need to keep them financially secure (are they financially able to have a child) while Gay couples want rights to combine assets etc. like straight married couples for stability.

Puerto Rico has voted in favor of statehood.  This could men that the US could have 51 states!  How do you guys think that this will affect our country?  Do you think it will be good for the rest of America?  Will it change anything at all?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

this article lists each of the factors that are going to decide the last 2 months of the election, including money, debates, and swing states, all of which I expected. However, one factor that I didn't think about is Johnson's influence in the overall election. He seems to be gaining votes from republicans more than democrats, which could harm Romney more than I would have thought.

It's interesting to me that which candidate people vote for seems to have nothing to do with ideas or plans for the country, just how much advertising there is. Are people really this easily influenced by advertising? Also, it's funny that they have mock debates, Obama going against John Kerry as Romney. And, Savannah, I was surprised about Gary Johnson, too. I've never heard of him before.

I'm really bothers me that "Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney have to build substantial room into their schedules for fund-raising, including more time than they would like traveling to places that are not competitive politically but are flush with wealthy donors, starting with New York and Los Angeles." I don't like how so much of the election is spent raising money rather than making more explicit platforms and addressing important issues.