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. 

I think that it is nice to see some hope towards compromise at the white house, but at the same time respect Boehner so much more for saying that he simply will not accept any tax plan that isn't balanced. We  really can't afford to be increasing our budget deficit any more. At current rates, our debt to gdp ratio will be up 40% by the end of 2016, and we cannot afford to be increasing our deficit. By 2016, the interest on our massive debt because of our skyrocketing budget deficit will have tripled. We are financially headed in a horrible direction, and I am trusting Boehner to shut down any attempts to pass more debt-skyrocketing bills. I agree with this article's position on tax cuts to the wealthy, increasing taxes will only hurt the private sector even further. Even the CBO agrees that if bush tax cuts were to expire unemployment would rise to a whopping 9%, and as such should not be allowed to expire.The private sector, not the government, creates jobs, and this article confirms to me why the government should make it easier for the private sector to create jobs by allowing the bush tax cuts to continue. 

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. 

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. 

Interesting changes in supreme court justices! i was just wondering what the group's general opinions on these cases, I sure hope that they end up voting in favor of most plaintiffs in these cases. As long as the court votes liberally on social issues and conservatively on fiscal ones, I will be happy. Justices have greater influence on social conditions than one might think.....

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.

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.

This audio clip could serve to do just what Romney's blunder did: Solidify the other party against him. It has a video of Obama's Speech, saying that he wants to "spread the wealth" and that he "believes in re-distribution", very communistic remarks in general. Now, the republicans are going to be calling him a communist more than ever. This will definatly defiantly isolate moderates just like Romney's mixup will do.

Yes, but you could easily argue that Obama's clip still holds true today, look at how socialist as a country we've become. We're getting pretty close to numerically socialist, our spending to GDP is 42%, 8 short points from official socialism. Medicine is socialized. The alarming part is that Obama still seems like he is holding true to this. He hasn't changed. And while Romney's 47% statement wasn't exactly politically correct, it is accurate. 47% of Americans don't pay taxes, and, this statement is taking into consideration the SSI and retirees. You can even do the math yourself, just go to Obama's government sponsored Debt Clock and plug in the numbers.

This isn't just your average 'look who is on top article', it has this really cool chart at the bottom that shows public opinion over time. You can see how the RNC didn't have as big of an effect on Romney as the DNC did for Obama. This article also remarks on Romney's recent fallback (though does not include on graph) but doesn't say anything about his recent "47%" blunder, which actually suprises me because the Huffington Post tends to be more liberal.

Yep, the good thing is that both politicians have lied substantially and their lies seem to be forgotton by others.

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. 

this article lists each of the factors that are going to decide the last 2 months of the election, including money, debates, and swing states, all of which I expected. However, one factor that I didn't think about is Johnson's influence in the overall election. He seems to be gaining votes from republicans more than democrats, which could harm Romney more than I would have thought.

Overall, this article is very critical of Romney, claiming that Obama is making bigger leads in swing states. Romney is extremely shifty in his views and doesn't make it clear what finances he has planned. Also, this article hints towards the end the slight opinion differences of Romney and ryan which could be very problematic.

Romney really does need to get his act together. Ryan seems to be running the show a little bit more than he should, but with the debates soon to start, Romney will have a little more hope on his side. Also, unemployment has risen from 1.9% through Obama's term, and statistically when unemployment is greater than 7.2 the incumbent doesn't win. The election has even changed drastically since I posted this article: The libyan assassination, the Romney 47% dependent on Government, etc, I do agree that 60 days can seem like 60 years. Romney does have to cover a lot of ground.