Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

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? 

It's interesting that all the questions pretty much boil down to "What would you do differently than Obama has been doing?". I think that this type of question could give Romney an advantage because it's easier for him to separate himself from Obama's last four years that it is for Obama to separate from himself. I really hope, especially because there's been a lot of craving for specifics, the candidate with the soundest answers will win.

It will be interesting to see how the candidates do answer questions like these. The one that stood out to my was Romney and health care since it really is a vast change in viewpoint that he will be forced to discuss. I think the debates will give new perspective to the specifics of both candidates which in many cases through the campaigns have been avoided.

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 discusses the how the rate of unemployment has decreased and it's affects on Obama's campaign.  Although this is good according to Romney, it is not the best that we can do. Does the fact that the percent it decreased is not a lot? Is it still an accomplishment?

I agree. I think what is key about the article is the quote, "Indeed, the economy has added jobs for 24 straight months." What resinates with me which the article touched on and our speaker on the economy in class went in detail with is the idea that because of the growth in population, to have job growth, not only does Obama have to create more jobs than before, but he has to do that on top of an addition number of jobs that account for the increase in population. This is something I never really thought about before but makes a huge difference in how I look at his success in making more jobs.

However, unemployment inequality has increased and college students are coming out of college with jobs that they are vastly overqualified for. Also, long term unemployment rates have increased, which in my opinion is a more important number than the short term. If Obama wants to be respected in my opinion, he has to create more long term jobs, which he hasn't done. He has only made our country more dependent on government influence. Just because unemployment is 7.8 does not mean that the economy is actually getting better. The 7.8 is taking into account part time employment, which does not indicate economical well being, especially since 2 million will be laid off before the holiday season. And I'm curious to hear what this speaker you are talking about said, please explain.

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?