Skip to main content

Home/ Palin Group/ Group items tagged support

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Will Rothman

Obama casts early ballot in Chicago - Americas - Al Jazeera English - 2 views

  • "For all of you who have not yet early voted, I just want everybody to see what an incredibly efficient process this was,"
  • early voting just might make the difference in some areas.
  • "If something happens on election day, you will have already taken care of it.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • It also allows the campaign to concentrate their efforts on people who need more persuasion.
  • I think he's the greatest president ever," gushed Chatae Black, 26, a waitress who was excited to be casting an early ballot in the same polling station as the president.
  • Angela Rand, 32, brought a picture of Obama to the community center in hopes he might sign it. She's unemployed but doesn't blame the president for the sluggish economy. "It's not his fault," she said as she walked up to cast her early ballot. "I think he's done a good job with the job he was handed."
  • "They must not think they're going to get old, or they've got enough money it doesn't matter to them," the stay-at-home mom said.
  •  
    Obama cast his ballot early and explains why it is better to plan ahead.  It also contains some interviews with Obama supporters.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    "Early voting is a major component of Obama's mobilization strategy, and is useful for ensuring that supporters who may have trouble getting to a polling station next month end up casting their ballots." This quote is really interesting and timely because of the storm that is about to spread across the east coast. I know early decision college applications have been pushed further out so I wonder what will happen if the election falls during this bad upcoming storm. Voting early seems to help many people who would not otherwise be able to get to the polls, but at some point-doesn't the process have to be standardized?
  •  
    This was really interesting to me particularly after reading it just after posting my most recent article against early voting. Obama's campaign has been pushing hard for people to vote early in the opinion of Scott Paulson, it is an advantage to Obama. It will be interesting to see how that plays out but I am also curious why it would be good for Obama to have his supporters vote early but Romney isn't pushing it?
  •  
    I as well am curious to what the advantage of voting early would be. The article states that Obama said "It means you don't have to figure out whether you need to take time off work, figure out how to pick up the kids and still cast your ballot." To me it seems as it is just securing your vote in case of an emergency that might prevent you from voting. Also it my be strategic by making a person vote early not able to change their vote later if something happens that might make that voter change his/her mind.
  •  
    I agree with the idea of early voting, but I'm not sure how far it could be pushed back. What limit should we put on how early you can vote? A few weeks? A few months? It becomes absurd at some point, but at what point?
James Foster

Lucky Obama: The News Is Bad, But the Mood Is Good - 4 views

  •  
    President Obama's reelection campaign is catching a break: The economic news has been bad, but the public hasn't seemed to notice. On Thursday, for example, came news of unexpected weakness in leading economic indicators and jobless claims. This post represents a key problem facing the GOP, which is if Romney can't beat Obama in such a poor economy, than there is something really going wrong within the GOP considering that Romney was picked because he was the "best" choice. What do you guys think is wrong within the GOP and what should they do to fix it?
  • ...4 more comments...
  •  
    The article says "Democrats are likely to look at the economy with rose-colored glasses because they want their candidate to win in November" which doesn't really address anything. If they believe that the economy is bad and that Obama isn't going to fix it, why are they going to vote for him? The article doesn't give any reasoning at all for why people would want to vote for Obama, just makes them seem crazy for wanting to do so. As for your questions, James, I think they did pick the best candidate at the time. I just think that Obama is a really remarkable politician and public speaker, whether you agree with him or not, and Romney can't compete with that. That, and many people really do believe that Obama is improving the economy.
  •  
    I'm not seeing the true point of this article. I think the "rose-colored glasses" refer to people that will support Obama regardless of the campaign. I think that there are people who like what he has done and trust him so will vote for him regardless of the economic state right now...but is that hard to believe? Not really. He probably has some advantage from winning people's trust in the past 4 years.
  •  
    Yeah I agree. I don't think the article went into enough detail with enough facts to convince me of anything. Of course people who support Obama and want him to win are going to see him in a better way then people supporting Romney. And I think depending which part of Obama you choose to focus on, there is a good and bad just like with the policies or actions of any other politician.
  •  
    Sabrina, I disagree with you in just about nearly everything that you said. The economy is not getting better. He's put more long term damage on us than I thought imaginable 4 years ago. I don't think that he has helped our economy, and here is why: Yes, he did help save us from total collapse, but even then, it wasn't him, it was TARP, signed into law under Bush, which even permitted his actions as acceptable. Gas prices have raised by 1.30/gal and the amount of americans on food stamps has doubled. Sure, short-term unemployment is down from a couple of weeks ago, but the fact of the matter is that at this time in 2008 it was 13M, and it is now 22M. Yes, I understand that Obama has to deal with the Bush era's layover, but in 2016 he will have only improved this number slightly to 19M, not nearly enough to say that he is helping our economy. Under Obama, income inequality was greater than in 2008. Long term unemployment rates have doubled, which in my opinion, is a better indicater of long term well being. The big 5 made 48% of our GDP this year, compared to 32% in 2008, thanks to Dod Franklin. He's increasing middle class tax burden by about 3,000$ with the passing of Obamacare. ACA will increase our debt by 500M a year because it calls for 1T in funds, but only allows tax raises totalling half of that, causing our budget deficit to increase rapidly. At current rates, excluding the increases in deficit from ACA and others, in 2016 our spending will be 130% of our GDP, which is simply instable and can in no way be considered 'helpful' to our economy. Let's not forget the high intrest on our debt, so this number will only drastically increase in the long run. Some of you will be paying taxes by 2016, and as a taxpayer you will owe the government around 220K apeice, because at that point in time an even lower fraction of our population will be paying taxes than currently. I do not like Obama as a politician at
  •  
    all. Also, I think that Romney much better as a debater, Obama stumbled through the entire debate and was unable to use statistics to his advantage, and I personally believe that an argument without statistics is a flop and as a result do not think that Obama is a good debater.
  •  
    Even though the article does not provide much proof, I think our debate here provides good evidence to this issue. Being in San Francisco, I know and have spoken with many people who seem very dedicated to Obama because of his persona, but are very ignorant to facts and news about our current national position. I think that Savannah's point is also valid, and can understand why many people would be on the GOP's side. Thus it is difficult to say one point should be more valid than the other, and these arguments amongst ourselves seem to prove why many still favor Obama and why many today favor the GOP.
Will Rothman

Chris Christie Goes off Fox Script, Praises Obama and Dismisses Romney - 0 views

  •  
    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?
  • ...4 more comments...
  •  
    I do think it will have an effect on voters but in two different ways. I think for a lot of people they will opt out of voting because they have more immediate things on their minds. Or others, I think that in hard times people are grateful for bigger governments and it could potentially convince voters to vote for Obama rather than Romney.
  •  
    I don't think that Hurricane Sandy will have a significant effect on voters in the states that were hit. Sure there will be some people who simply can't get to voting machines or voting machines won't be working in their area but these people won't have a significant effect on the outcome of the election. It seems that the states hit by this hurricane have really stepped up in figuring out new ways for the people living in their states to vote. For example I read that a state, I believe it to be New Jersey, created an email ballet to make it convient for those people who can't reach a working polling machine to vote.
  •  
    James, I guess my question was more based on the politics of the natural disaster, like FEMA aid or Christie's response.
  •  
    I want to go off of Abby's point in that I also think people feel safer with larger governments in times of natural disasters. But I don't necessarily think people will change their votes after Hurricane Sandy. I also think it's important to remember that (at least I think/hope) any President would take a step back during these disasters and stop campaigning to focus on the people in need. But sure, Governor Christie's praise for Obama is a nice reminder that at the end of the day, both republicans and democrats have similar values.
  •  
    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.
Danielle Polevoi

Week 9: Obama Says His Opponent Has a Case of 'Romnesia' - NYTimes.com - 2 views

  •  
    This article highlights the role of women in the election. It discusses the necessity for each candidate to receive the votes of women. Obama criticizes Romney for his changing views on abortion but women have also felt the tough economy under Obama's administration. Do you think there are other issues besides the issue of contraceptive health care that would persuade women to vote for Romney or Obama?
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I think that, like mentioned in the debate, their views on equal pay and hiring women can also play a huge role in who women vote for. Additionally, though, women are people: they have the same desire for a strong economy and a safe country just like men. I think that Obama's campaign probably appeals more to women as they are women, but Romney's campaign may appeal more to women as they are people.
  •  
    Interesting point Sabrina and I agree. I'd like to add though that it's interesting how Obama is taking the comedian approach to these issues. At least from this article, I definitely took the event to sound like a place I would have been laughing a lot. I wonder if that is the best approach to handling the situation or if he would be more successful emphasizing the issues with a serious tone?
  •  
    I think it all comes down to either sacrificing women's rights or women's stance in the economy. Romney who does not support abortion but may be able to fix the economy, while Obama does support women's rights but might delay in fixing the economy. Thinking about a women's votes in this election, I wonder what the "Walmart moms " prefer, fixing the economy or their rights? Either way whoever gets elected not everyone will be happy. They will have to sacrifice one or the other.
  •  
    I would think women would be more connected to a candidate supporting their rights, but I realize there are other perspectives. A few of my female relatives are very conservative and are prolife, and they are women too. I feel that in his campaign, Obama is doing a better job of making women feel comfortable in their vote while Romney is making it seem like women's rights is a separate issue from people's rights, which may make women feel all the more disrespected.
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

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?
Sabrina Rosenfield

8 Key Issues Missing From the Debates So Far - David A. Graham - The Atlantic - 2 views

  •  
    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?
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    I know that it may seem horrible for me to say, but I do not view Gay Rights as a "key issue." I am all for the protection of the rights of the LGBTQ community, but I would not say that it is one of the most important issues at the moment. I believe that homosexual equality is necessary in a perfect country, but I do not believe that it is more important than any of the other issues on that list. The Gay Rights movement has many supporters because there is a visible opposition, but I think that we should focus on the current state of our economy or the current state of our planet before we put a large amount of effort towards any social issue. Mind you, these are just my thoughts. I support the cause, but I would rather see Climate Change solved, first.
  •  
    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.
Yadira Rodriguez

Obama gets second chance in debate rematch with Romney | Reuters - 1 views

  • Obama's camp promised
  • he came out swinging in the first matchup
  • energetic
  • ...29 more annotations...
  • The strong debate performance helped Romney reverse his slide in the polls, and recent surveys put the race for the White House at a virtual dead heat just three weeks ahead of the November 6 election.
  • 46 percent to 43 percent.
  • showed Romney ahead of Obama by 4 percentage points
  • Gallup/USA Today pol
  • Obama
  • intense debate preparation for days, even cramming in an hour of homework as late as Tuesday afternoon.
  • strong
  • passionate
  • Almost all of the pressure will be on Obama
  • agenda is for the future
  • Romney also did some last-minute mock debate work, with Ohio Senator Rob Portman playing Obama.
  • The audience of about 80 people was picked by the Gallup polling firm for being undecided local voters f
  • more intimate town-hall format of this debate
  • passive respons
  • too timid
  • record to run o
  • element of uncertainty
  • cannot predict the questions the audience of undecided voters might pose
  • connecting with the voters
  • "talk directly to people and look them in the eye and try to connect, which has not been a strength for either of them
  • criticized for not challenging Romney
  • without seeming nasty or too personal.
  • accused of failing to connect with ordinary people,
  • The economy is expected to be a dominant topic
  • continue the conversation with voters about what the right economic policies are for the country
  • tay on the offensive
  • subsidies for green energy
  • Democrats, hoping to shore up support with women voters,
  • highlighted the importance of female voters
  •  
    This article talks about the second presidential debate, which will be happening tonight. It explains how Obama will get a second chance to make up for his first debate. What do you guys think about this second chance? Is it really a chance? 
  •  
    I mentioned this in Abby's article but I think a better performance can help Obama, it can't undo what has already happened. When I think about his attitude during the first debate it makes me question: Is he tired of being President? Have the hardships gotten to him? The article also mentions, "Obama needs strong support from women voters if he hopes to beat the Republican" and in my opinion if someone is voting based upon rights for women...they would have to vote for Obama.
  •  
    This part of the article stood out for me: "Both sides claimed victory". Both sides think they won, whereas after last week's debate Obama admitted that he had lost. Why do you guys think this is? Do they both legitimately think that they won, or do they just want to seem confident?
Danielle Polevoi

Week 10: Obama Takes Early Lead in Hurricane Sandy World Series : The New Yorker - 1 views

  •  
    This article talks about Obama's calm and collected response to the upcoming storm hitting back east. Obama has expressed concern about the storm to America but not in a panicked manner. I think made the right move by not focusing on the election here but rather everyone's safety. Having a president who makes Americans feel safe is important. One question that I have is will the weather affect the polls next week? 
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    I actually really enjoyed this article just in the way it was written. There have been a lot of articles on how it will affect the polls and for the most part there seem to be losses for both candidates. I think Obama handled the situation well but I think it could go either way if it will gain him support for his efforts off lose him support from the suffering people will be going through
  •  
    I agree, I think it was a smart idea that Obama did not panic about the storm. I think if here were to have, then that would have probably stressed the people out making him seem unprepared for this disaster. I think this would have had an impact in the polls, but since he took the news of the storm in calm manner that I do not think it will affect the polls.
  •  
    I think the storm was really interesting because it makes people forget about politics for a second and think about life. It turns from Republican or Democrat to life or death, so people's minds must be really turned around right now. I think Obama's gentle care - and if he continues to have success in calming the people - will be majorly to his advantage because he helped people in a time when their lives were at threat. This seems more memorable than a critical TV campaign, so I'm thinking the storm will help Obama if anything.
  •  
    Well, if Obama didn't do anything about the storm, then he would have probably lost votes in a lot of states affected in the area. Just look at how much bad press Bush got after Katrina. Obama needed a standing for America moment after skipping out on national security matters to go on TV.
  •  
    I think people will always like a candidate that tends to pressing issues instead of campaigning because this is another sort of campaigning: actions speak louder than words! Obama made the right move in helping with the hurricane, but it was a political decision as well.
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?
Savannah L

Electric-car battery maker A123 Systems files for Chapter 11, fuels political fight - T... - 2 views

  •  
    Yet another failed company under the Obama Administration. I think what frustrates me the most about these investments isn't that Obama has picked some winners and some losers, but that he has picked only losers, wasting 340,000,000$ so far. Do you guys think that the government should have this big of a role in investing in society, or should it just let green energy succeed or fail on its own? While Green energy is better for the environment, I feel that if the government is only capable of making bad investments or not making investments, then it shouldn't be wasting taxpayer dollars on companies that do nothing but fail. 
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    I'm not sure what I feel about the government investing. I don't think I know enough about this topic to weigh in.
  •  
    Hmm. I'm conflicted about this as well. I think that it's great that the government is supporting green energy, but gambling with taxpayer's money does not sound like a good idea. Interestingly, this is a kind of similar idea to privatizing Social Security, which Obama is very strongly opposed to but Republicans (including Romney) have supported in the past.
  •  
    In my opinion, this becomes an issue of rights vs. economy. Is green energy a right or an economic luxury? Is it the government's job to ensure energy rights or to let it become an issue of the market? From a broader perspective, do we need regulation to prevent the long-term issue of the destruction of our earth? Sometimes when we think "business, business, business", we forget about ethics/morals. It also becomes an issue of whether or not we want to lead the world in a clean-energy revolution. At the same time, our economic issues present moral issues as well. It is a hard thing to think about because our priorities get all jumbled up. I guess it depends on what the individual thinks is important.
Sami Perez

Ohio Unions Face Tough Battle With 'Super PACs' - NYTimes.com - 4 views

  • Conservative “super PACs,” financed with unlimited donations from corporations and wealthy individuals, have saturated Ohio and other battleground states with ads against President Obama.
    • Sami Perez
       
      Relates to reading "What You Should Know About Politics...But Don't." PACs affecting swing states, potentially determining results of election...
  • Republican super PACs are going to outspend Obama massively
  • labor’s true importance will be highlighted
    • Sami Perez
       
      Can the work of the people hold more influence over voters than the money and power of large corporations? 
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Some conservatives raise an eyebrow over unions’ claims that they are outgunned in the money game.
  • no Republican in modern times has been able to capture the White House without winning the state
  • — was due in no small part to labor’s get-out-the-vote push.
  • President Obama’s victory in 2008 here in Ohio
    • Sami Perez
       
      Evidence that the election depends on Ohio's stance, and Ohio's stance depends on the ability of the party to persuade voters through media and advertisement
  • anti-Mitt Romney script
  • which asserted that he had played a role in factories that closed, wages that dropped, workers who were fired
  •  
    page one of two
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I'm wondering how effective knocking on people's doors in the hopes of persuading them towards a particular candidate can be. This strategy seems ineffective from how I imagine the conversation going, if a person even gets a door opened. Also, how I'm curious how many people in Ohio participate in the election?
  •  
    Battling for voters' attention is extremely difficult, especially when the two candidates seem to be saying exactly opposite things. And, in a case like this, money can talk, and the Republicans are funded by a lot of wealthy groups. It seems so frustrating to me that money plays such a huge factor in how people vote, but it some cases, money can demonstrate popular opinion. The more donations a campaign receives, the more money people are willing to invest in that candidate.
  •  
    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].
Danielle Polevoi

Obama the Front-Runner Plays it Safe with His D.N.C. Speech : The New Yorker - 3 views

  •  
              I wanted to share this article as sort of a follow up to my previous one which discussed Obama before his DNC speech. This article discusses Obama played his DNC speech safe. His speech did not have many new ideas and proposals. Instead he tried to appeal to an audience beyond the Democratic one by stressing that he is willing to work across party lines.          One thing that particularly drew my attention to this article was that is recognized Obama's lack of discussion on health care. For a president that spent much of his first term on a new health-care refe, he barely discussed it. 
  •  
    I feel like at this point, no matter what Obama or Romney do, their own parties will support them and the other will criticize. In relation to this article, if Obama says that his plan is working, Democrats will say that he is confident while Republicans will call him an arrogant liar. If he's aware of his own failings, as he was at his DNC speech, Democrats will say that he's humble and relatable, while Republicans will say that he doesn't even have faith in himself.
  •  
    I agree with Sabrina that their own party will support them no matter what direction they take their speech. I think that what Obama did though, "playing it safe" was a smart move towards independent voters. By not taking a super strong direction in the negative or the positive, it kept him appearing calm while still confident and allowed independent voters to see him in that respect.
Savannah L

14 Things Obama Doesn't Want You to Know - 1 views

  •  
    Wow, very interesting and enlightening article that I feel like a lot of Obama supporters aren't aware of. Certainly goes against everything that Obama argued for, which I thought was very interesting. Statistically, it checks out.
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    This was an interesting article but I feel like it simplified a lot of the issues that Obama was being criticized on. While he didn't create as many jobs as he set out to, he did create many and it seems nit picky to me to discredit him because they were "low-income" jobs.
  •  
    This article isn't discrediting Obama because the jobs he created were "low-income" jobs, but because the many low-income jobs that he created replaced the middle wage jobs that were there before they were lost during the recession.
  •  
    What's most interesting about this article to me is that the Huffington Post, which is very liberal, is very openly criticizing Obama. I think this says a lot for their integrity and not just reporting news that supports their opinions.
  •  
    I agree with Sabrina that it's interesting to see the Huffington post writing this. I really did enjoy the way this article was formatted though, it was a nice change to most of the articles I have been reading. It also left points that will stick with me as they were concise and came with visual as well.
  •  
    James, you are right. College graduates from 2008-2012 are more likely to be overqualified for their jobs more than ever, in addition, short term unemployment has increased by 3% and long term unemployment under Barack has doubled. And besides, if you look at the current rates of which we are spending, failing to ignore the next four years of "more progress" that Obama wants to implement, our national debt will be 23 trillion dollars. This is the pure definition of fiscal irresponsibility, Obama alone will have spent twice as more as all of the presidents before him. And this is if his current policies stay the same, not taking into account on whether he will spend more money. This is all neglecting the 520 billion dollar interest, and neglecting the fact that less than half of each dollar being spent will be our own, the rest China's. I can't think of a more fiscally irresponsible president. These are some statistics I never hear mentioned at the DNC and am ecstatic that even a liberal news site recognizes their magnitude.
James Foster

North Carolina Blacks for Obama, Key in 2008, are Uncertain in '12 - 1 views

  •  
    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.
James Foster

Pew Poll Shows Romney Advancing - 2 views

  •  
    This article talks about how the lead that Obama had going into the debates has diminished after Obama's debate against Romney. This gives new hope for the GOP going into the Vice President Debate on Thursday.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    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.
  •  
    Having watched both the presidential debate and the VP one I agree in that, "Mr. Romney has gained ground against Mr. Obama in virtually all measures" from his articulate responses in last week's debate. But I think it's important to realize that the hard-core democrats and the republicans probably are not going to change their vote regardless of who wins the debate. I think both Biden and Ryan did a good job last night and that they both also seemed weak at a few points. For me, Biden's laughing/eye rolling was really distracting and made him seem arrogant. His mannerisms were off putting and made me feel uncomfortable which made me almost favor Ryan by the end. Who do you all think "won"?
  •  
    Danielle, I think Biden won. He was so energetic in the way that Democrats really needed after the first presidential debate. Additionally, the article says that "six percent [of voters] remain undecided". This baffles me a bit. At this point in the campaigns, how could anyone not know who they support? The candidates are so different! Although I suppose that, especially for voters who don't delve deeply into the policies, it's hard to decide who will fix the country faster and better.
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.
Danielle Polevoi

Week 11:Some Voters Waver Even in Their Political Donations - NYTimes.com - 1 views

  •  
    This article discusses a different type of undecided voter, the undecided donor. This portion of swing voters cannot decide who to donate their money to. These people connect to different aspects of each candidate and often end up donating to both. Do you think donating money makes a difference at this point in the election? At the end of the day, what determines an undecided person's vote? 
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I think, that with the economy the way it is coupled with the lack of enthusiasm for either candidates, donators and contributors are not as inclined to give money to the campaigns of politicians. I also believe that donations will not (would not have) matter(ed) very much, especially relative to the money that the campaigns already amassed.
  •  
    It seems very strange to me that someone would donate to both campaigns; if I couldn't decide I would donate to neither. In response to Danielle's question, it seems to me that money could still make a difference. Ads are a huge part of why people vote for who they do, and you need money to buy ads.
  •  
    yeah I agree, I don't get why anyone would donate to both campaigns. Although I could see donating to organizations who will support different candidates based on the different aspects of the candidates you believe in
  •  
    I agree that it does not make sense to donate to both campaigns, but I can also see why you would. I mean donating gives undecided voters a chance to either pick both sides, or either one without having to commit to one candidate.
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 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.
1 - 20 of 26 Next ›
Showing 20 items per page