This piece describes many of Obama's biggest foreign policy challenges in the next four years. It's nice to see Iraq off the list, but People said extremely similar things about Afghanistan after the last election. Also a big switch on Israel Palestime--he started his presidency pressuring Netanyahu to stop forming settlements.

This post election analysis breaks up each candidates votes by ethnic demographics and finds that 88% of Romney voters were white. 56% of Obama voters were white. It claims that the white establishment no longer has the capacity to decide an election, and accuses the Romney campaign of running purely on his appeal to white people. 

This article is more about Iran than the election, but it brings up the prospect that the Obama administration chose not to release the information until after election day for political reasons. I don't think it's important whether he did or not, but I come to the question: how much does a political agenda sway what a media outlet or any entity that publishes information chooses to cover? Beyond tone, rhetoric and biased descriptions, could entire events have been passed over in the way of allegiance to one party or the other?

This is  short piece which predicts a few questions the candidates will have to answer in the coming debates. It claims that an exceeding expectations tactic "doesn't even fool anyone". Do you guys agree? Will the winner of the debates actually be the person who gives the soundest answers or will it be the most successful politicker? What other questions have to be answered? 

This is a psychology study describing how a person's party affiliation has an overriding impact on whether or not they agree with a policy. I recommend reading the abstract at the top, the "overview of studies" section", and the actual descriptions of the studies, labeled "study 1" study 2", "study 3" and "study 4". The whole thing is interesting but it's long and dense, and we can make the same interpretations as the professor. 

This is something to read bits and pieces of--not every single word. I think of Rush Limbaugh as a conservative version of John Stewart. He's a source of entertainment as well as a political commentator so he has no responsibility to consider anything objectively.

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.