Group items tagged

Romney's inconsistency with being specific and clear is a big problem because it makes him seem unprepared. Watching the debate this week shed some light to what Romney proposes to do, but he still was unclear on some issues. As a voter I would be frustrated because I would want to be inform with what Romney plans to do. I mean without a plan what he will do as president. Will we just have to wait till he is president to claim what he will actually do? I think it's important that Romney feels confident about winning the election because he is representing himself as a strong leader. A strong leader gives the people a sense of relief because they can feel like they can trust him.

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.

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

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...

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 am not sure of why someone would want to vote early. If there is no difference or advantage, then what is the use. It is weird though that democrats are pushing to vote early. I mean it does give flexibility to people who are busy a longer period of time for when to vote, but otherwise what is the use?

I think early voting is fine, as long as you are sure this is who you want to vote for. I feel like the people who would vote early would not change their minds in the last 35 days. While it does seem strange because there is no huge benefit, I feel that voting early could take a load off people so that they get it over with and don't over think it. It could also spark from enthusiasm. Also, in Will's article, it Obama argues that it helps people have easier access to vote (if for some reason they couldn't vote on election day). Because of this, I see more benefit than burdon from voting early.

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.

What I found interesting in this article was Ryan's statement that "You know, it depends on the quality of the agreement," which indicates that his ideals aren't very set and could easily be changed by a convincing argument. Also, this seems to disagree with what Rush Limbaugh said about Obama just giving up. This race is still open to either candidate.

What stood out to be in this article was the quote from Charlie Cook saying, "the case for firing President Obama is really pretty obvious, but the case for hiring Mitt Romney is one that has yet to be made." I think this is a really strong point. Romney has made his points of why we should get Obama out of obvious very clear but I think for the remainder of the election it might be a smart move to start convincing people why he should be the replacement.

I was struck by the same quote that Sabrina mentioned that "You know, it depends on the quality of the agreement" (Ryan). I think there is plenty of time left in the election and I think Romney will be pushed to clarify his ideals.

I'm curious to follow Romney's and Obama's campaigning in Florida until the election. From my other reading, It seems as though Obama has secured the "minority" votes compared to Romney so wouldn't that continue over in Florida?

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.

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.

I completely agree that the candidate that is running against the incumbent main focus is to try to bring "zingers" against the president. Romney in a way has a fresh start because no one has seen him in action yet so he has main focus is to prove that he can be better than Obama. By focusing on Obama's flaws Romney will be able to prove that he is a better candidate than Obama.

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?

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.

This is getting totally blown out of proportion. Romney was just using Big Bird as an example of something that he would like to cut-and whether you approve of those cuts is another matter-but it wasn't like he was attacking Big Bird or its creators. I think this is an example of people latching on to the most colorful thing said in the debate and making it seem like the biggest issue of the election.

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath. The quote "Big Bird is an important part of every child's education" also seems a bit ridiculous although I do love Sesame Street. I do think debates are a great time to observe the candidates (like Yadira said) but it doesn't seem like this is an effective use of the discussion afterwards.

Agreeing with what has been said, it was one small comment that got totally blown out of proportion. After the debate I was watching some commentary on it and heard a lot being mentioned about that comment. Apparently, throughout the debate after it was said, twitter was cluttered with people discussing that singular comment. According to one of the news reporters I was watching discuss the debate (who I do not remember the name of), she said that in this debate it particular, and partially because Obama not going for making so many jokes (as Danielle's article talks about), this was one of the few things viewers were able to blow out and discuss which is why it has gotten so much attention.