Group items tagged

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.

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.

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 I think that the electoral college is outdated and no longer works as the best way to implement democracy.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.

Slate comes through, as always, with a very critical description of GOP politics. In this article, William Saletan picks apart Romney's RNC speech and uses it to predict the remainder of Mitt's campaign. Read with a grain of salt, as Slate often tries to trick you into thinking its articles are objective. 

I, personally, found the article to be very similar to our class discussions, especially on the topic of tactics that Romney used in his speech, including calculated jabs and heart-warming stories. That being said, this article is pretty critical of Romney.

I felt like this article broke down Romney's speech very well. I felt like the tone was not necessary liberal, but more of a neutral tone that was trying to explain Romney speech was trying to accomplish in his speech.

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" 

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%.

This article is able about how Obama recently went on the The View while Mrs. Clinton met with presidents from the Middle East. This article got me thinking about media and how presidents seem more relatable by going on talk shows than talking to political leaders. 

I agree that assisting needs in foreign affairs should come before campaigning. In terms of campaigning, however, it is hard to say which is more important between the two, because while to the well-informed population of America dealing with presidential issues would definitely be more helpful towards his campaign, the large number of uninformed American citizens rely on things like talkshows to understand the views and beliefs of the candidate more so than their work as a member of the government.

I agree with you sami! I think that to people who are interested in and know about foreign affairs would have appreciate Obama attending the meeting rather than going to the view. Right now I feel like Obama should be focusing on his campaign since the elections are soon. Also Obama probably deals with foreign policy on a regular bases so it is mot like he never has meet with these officials before.

This article shows in videos as well as analyzes the most common body language (hand and head signals) that each of the candidates use. It shows there example videos for each of the movements as well as analyzes them as to what the candidate may be trying to get across when using them. It also shows how often and where/when they used that particular motion in their convention acceptance speech. I found it really interesting because I can recognize every movement the article talks about and it reading this will force me to notice these particular movements in the future as I watch the candidates speak.

I loved this article. I think that gestures can really help viewers because even though you're not thinking about them, the gestures a candidate makes can make you trust or distrust them. I think it would be great if the candidates actually had some kind of gesture training, where experts told them what motions to make and how to connect them with what they're saying.

I would bet that they have had coaching on their body language. I also find that Romney's Head Tilt is very assuring. It is interesting to think that we are being bombarded with so many subliminal messages just by watching these two speak.

This article discusses the GOP's response to Mitt Romney after losing the election. It argues that his lack of "emotional foothold" with the party means that the party has little desire to hold on to him, but also has no need to angrily push him out.  It also argues that he is now focusing on "what was wrong with the voters, not what was wrong with his campaign." Given that the party is trying "to get away from the stereotype that is...by and for white," do you think that Romney's ideas will be rejected by Republicans from now on? Do you think his personality has led them to dislike him? In terms of being a "puppet" like candidate, what do you think Romney's role was in this election?

I think this article sort of depresses my vision of the future. After the election I felt a serious lack of excitement and I think this article shows why. With the reelection, hearing Obama call upon a need for bipartisan work is nothing new. With the Republicans saying no raise and democrats saying raise, once again, little is going to be accomplished in moving across party lines.

Yep, Sabrina I'm with you. This reminds me of the frontline film we watched that said how important it is for presidents to understand how to work "the system".

I completely agree with Sabrina, I mean Obama can try to create and try to pass many things that might be beneficial for America, but congress does have more power over him because congress is made up mostly of republicans. I like that Obama wants to work with both political parties, but how willing are both parties willing to work with each other?

Obama's campaign is fighting to say that the country is better off than it was 4 years ago in response to Republicans saying otherwise.

This question of whether America is better of now than it was four years ago is really hard to measure. What does better of mean? Obama has been able to accomplish things like kill Osama bin Laden, create obamacare, and stop the war in Iraq. These things that Obama has done make me believe that we are better of.

This article really highlights their wars over the middle class and shows different definitions on what is considered to make the country better off. I'm not surprised that both the GOP and the democrats are trying their hardest to make themselves better in the eyes of the middle class, which is the 'swing state' of the financial world. I agree with the republicans completely on this, I feel like 50,000 dollars per citizen in debt, a doubling of our long term unemployment rates, the 40% of every dollar being spent that is borrowed, and that our national debt under him is growing at a rate fast enough to equal our gdp in a couple of months are all overshadowing anything else from obama's presidency. ACA is only going to increase our national debt at the steep price of those it is trying to help, not to mention the wars on terrorism are far from over even though Osama is dead.

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.

This article isn't really about politics, but it made me think about the election's trail through the internet. True, I didn't spend as much time on the internet in 2008 as I do now, but I never really thought about this much until this article. I have to say that my experiences on the internet have caused me to see that it has a clear sway in its beliefs and is always liberal. This makes sense because young people are on the internet more than old people, say, and young people are more commonly liberal than older people. 

I think that the internet is a great way to attract young people who might not otherwise be engaged in the election. I think that often, young people vote much more on the personalities of the candidates than on their policies (I'm sure most 18 year olds couldn't give you their beliefs on what tax policies would be best) and the internet conveys personalities quite well. Additionally, this might contribute at least partially to why the internet is more liberal: most people would agree that Obama is a more charismatic candidate than Romney.

I have not seen many ads for either party, either that or I may just have ignored them. I know, however, that places like Reddit tend to be hyper-liberal and are often the sources for many of the liberal propaganda that circulates throughout the internet. I cannot think of any conservative sites that compare in size to any of the predominantly liberal websites that make up a large portion of the internet.

This video and short article is about the upcoming presidential debate and the possible "zingers". It discussing how Obama is going to speak to the "American people" while Romney has been working on "zingers and special lines for months". I'm going to be very disappointed if this debate turns into a bashing session so I'm hoping to be surprised. But if anyone (in general) were to make use of digs, I think the candidate running against the incumbent has more of a so-called reason to. 

I think that Obama choosing to avoid to make zingers could be a mistake. They may not be the most respectful approach, and Obama's respectfulness is something I really appreciate about him, but they are what people remember about the debates, and the most memorable person is often the one who wins.

Interesting article and I definitely think that you could see this play out in the first debate. I think there are positives and negatives to both sides. It is definitely true that people will remember "zingers" very clearly and probably best but, I think the purpose of the debate, is, or at least should be, to have your policies scrutinized and then show your ability to defend them. I think Obama's strategy in this sense is a better one even if less effective.

This article raises interesting questions about Obamacare and what the states will decide to do with their own individual systems. I personally dislike the bill because of its fiscal problems and feel like forcing americans to purchase something from a third party is unconstitutional. 

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

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

This article talks about Obama's and Romney's responses to the recent violence in Libya. Obama is criticized with not speaking forcefully and being too apologetic in regards to the recent situation as well as some of the recent stuff going on in the Middle East. The article then goes on to say that despite the foreign affairs news, the economy is still the pressing issue of the election (not sure if I agree with that fully).

If things continue to escalate in the middle east, as they have been lately, than foreign policy will continue to be a major issue in the election. Danielle, I feel like you are right and that most americans will focus on the economy, but the two issues are intertwined, and bad news for one is bad news for the other if things continue to escalate. How much money are we willing to spend dealing with other countries? We already have out of control spending, but if things get worse then we will have to decide what is more important to our country: security, or money.

What seems frustrating to me about this whole situation is that both sides seem to be using Libya as an excuse to say "look at me, look at how good I am at foreign policy!" I wish that they would work together to actually solve problems instead of trying to prove what good problem solvers they are.