Group items tagged

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.

If Romney wants to get a solid female fan base, he defiantly needs to get more with Obama's stances on abortion and birth control. Does he need to get more comedic? Maybe some other person would say so, but I personally prefer a leader who does not waste time telling jokes or stories about his family, to me it is unprofessional. I don't want someone relatable, I want someone who does their job well and is known for that. This stage in the game Americans can't afford to be presented with the opportunity to pick someone based on who seems more relatable, they need numbers.

I agree with you Savannah, that at this late stage in the game it is very important for candidates to provide numbers and statistics while they are campaigning but I think that it is just as important for them make themselves relatable to the people who will be voting for them. An example of this is Romney's sister, Lynn, who has a child with Down Syndrome and he talks about the many difficulties that she faces along with the support she receives from himself and the rest of his family. These stories had a strong effect on some female voters in Ohio and I believe if Romney continues with this milder strategy of making himself seem more relatable to the people, he will have a better chance at winning this election.

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.

I'm wondering how Romney will try and win over certain groups that Obama has not "captured" yet. The article said he may have to reach out to men and college students if he wants to be competitive with Obama's appeal to women and minorities. In Romney's RNC speech he seemed so focused on women and in general, I haven't seen him reach out to men.

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 think this storm is a great chance for the candidates to show America how they would run in the case of a disaster. Romney's head quarters are in Boston, which may be hit by a power outage meaning that the would have to find a different way to campaign. I think if Romney manages to deal with his campaigning situation that will be impressive to the American people. I think this as well will be true for Obama. His challenge though would be dealing with the storm in a way that may not seem like he is campaigning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To answer your question on who I think won, I would agree that Romney won the debate. Before the debate I had been reading a lot of articles which claimed that unless Romney pulled through with the debate, he had pretty much already lost the election. I think that debate helped him to 'bounce' back and have a shot to stay in the race rather than fall out even if it did not give him a real boost to be ahead. Additionally, the article showed wide gaps in the peoples' opinions on the less political traits of the candidates (relatable, likable, ect.) I am curious how much those polls actually matter if the difference is so vast between the candidates.

There is absolutly no way to say that Romney didn't win the debate. There was a strict set of facts that Obama could have used to harm the GOP in general, but he didn't. He stumbled through his last bits and filled his speech with tons of 'um', and spent the entire time looking down. Unfortunatly, a good bit of the population votes based on who they like as a person, and that can't be changed.

I am a little bit confused by the poll results, 51% of voters like Romney and 56% like Obama, but the article claims that Romney definitely won. If you are looking at, which candidate is liked better, there is not a huge difference between Romney and Obama, but Obama is obviously liked more. I would agree that Romney won the debate since he seemed more confident and secure with what he was trying to get across. I got to see a side of Romney that made him seem more powerful then Obama because I felt like Romney got more into the debate and was defending/attacking Obama.

I agree that this race will be very close, but, like the article we read, polls aren't always reliable.

I hope that Donald Trump's announcement wouldn't affect the swing voters. I think these "October Surprises" are intended to keep people engaged and riled up before the election. But I don't think he can say/do much for people to change their opinions regarding Obama. I haven't heard followup on this story--do you know what happened?

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 think that it could be seen either way: as a commitment to the people or as a weakness in lack of ideals. While it seems nice to be always doing what the people want, I feel like our government was created to create equal opportunity for all, which means both gains and sacrifices for all people. If Romney lacks an ideal or a focus, how/where will we go forward? As we have learned from our history and even in Obama's decisions as president, too much compromise can get us nowhere, so where do we draw lines in order to reach our goals...if we have any?

Too much stubbornness can get us nowhere as well, remember. Our government is built on the principals of compromise, and Romney has a much more solid track record than Obama when it comes to business as well as pre-presidential government experience, which speaks way louder than anything else. Would Romney have been as successful if he weren't willing to compromise? No.

I'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.

This reminds me of the conversation we had in class the other day about fact-checking. It seems like the accessibility of media would make presidential candidates stick to a clear point of view rather than altering opinions depending on the audience. It doesn't seem like the media is stopping Romney from changing his story. I also was really bothered by this quote: "We're not going to round up people around the country and deport them". The language in that rubbed me the wrong way and it makes me feel that Romney isn't taking the uprooting of lives as seriously/respectfully as he should be.

Romney's idea of "self-deportation" seems ridiculous and unrealistic to me-maybe I just don't understand it enough. It seems like saying that people should go home but the government won't make them is the worst possible option; it doesn't welcome undocumented immigrants into the country nor does it remove them. It sounds like another example of Romney changing his message based on his audience.

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

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

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

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