Palin Group

This article discusses a different type of undecided voter, the undecided donor. This portion of swing voters cannot decide who to donate their money to. These people connect to different aspects of each candidate and often end up donating to both. Do you think donating money makes a difference at this point in the election? At the end of the day, what determines an undecided person's vote? 

yeah I agree, I don't get why anyone would donate to both campaigns. Although I could see donating to organizations who will support different candidates based on the different aspects of the candidates you believe in

I agree that it does not make sense to donate to both campaigns, but I can also see why you would. I mean donating gives undecided voters a chance to either pick both sides, or either one without having to commit to one candidate.

I think this article sort of depresses my vision of the future. After the election I felt a serious lack of excitement and I think this article shows why. With the reelection, hearing Obama call upon a need for bipartisan work is nothing new. With the Republicans saying no raise and democrats saying raise, once again, little is going to be accomplished in moving across party lines.

Yep, Sabrina I'm with you. This reminds me of the frontline film we watched that said how important it is for presidents to understand how to work "the system".

I completely agree with Sabrina, I mean Obama can try to create and try to pass many things that might be beneficial for America, but congress does have more power over him because congress is made up mostly of republicans. I like that Obama wants to work with both political parties, but how willing are both parties willing to work with each other?

This article talks about a breakfast with all of Romney's largest donors and aides after the campaign. He have remarks which put blame and surprise on why he lost the election and actually got emotional as he gave his thanks to his campaign donors. I found this article really interesting because I always have wondered how a losing candidate goes back to life after spending a year on a presidential campaign.

I can not imagine it is easy especially after all the time and energy so many people put into his campaign. This quote stood out to me: "When he was finished, Mr. Romney lingered for a long time, shaking hands and delivering hugs. It seemed, those in the room said, like he did not want to leave. "He stayed until the last person left," said an attendee." I know Romney was criticized as "stiff" but it doesn't seem like this is the case. At the end of the day, I think both Obama and Romney are very smart and genuinely want to make America a better place.

I mean it would be difficult to not be emotional after losing because Romney put a lot of time and effort to not lose. This whole campaign has been physically and emotionally exhausting, so for Romney to not be upset would be inappropriate and weird. Romney "faulted the Obama campaign for characterizing him as an enemy of women, singling out advertisements that claimed he opposed abortion in all cases and opposed contraception." I think saying this is ironic because I am sure that Romney as well characterized as an enemy of women, etc... I mean that is what campaigning is about. Finding the faults of the other candidates and exposing them.

I think this is great progress that we're introducing more diversity into Congress. Although I still think that it would be even better to introduce more diversity (like 50% female) into Congress, this is a step in the right direction and I know that we'll get there eventually. What do you guys think? Is this an important step for Congress?

I think it is progress but like Abby said, it's upsetting that electing women is still a big deal. I guess the next step is to have a woman president...

I agree with both of Abby and Danielle, I think that the fact that everyone is making a big deal out of this is unnecessary. I think it is great we are diversifying the senate, but I think we need to make bigger changes and encourage the diversity more. I mean it's great that 5 women got into the senate, but these numbers should be higher. I think once this happens this will definitely be progress.

Well, Obama won the election and will continue to be president for the next four years. The next question that should be asked is whether or not he will be able come to a compromise with the republicans in the senate and in the house of representatives. As stated by the speaker of the house, John Bohner, the politicians are ready to be lead not as republicans or democrats, but as Americans. Do you think there will be compromise and will there continue to be conflicts, leading to more problems with this nation's economy?

I really hope that they are able to compromise. It seems a little ironic that a Republican is making the cry for bipartisanship because in the past four years Republicans have been making it nearly impossible for Obama to get anything done, and I'm afraid that that will continue to happen.

I'm hoping that with Obama's four years of experience, he has better learned how to navigate the system. But this deadlock in Washington remains a concern for many, I think.

Obama Tied With Romney

yeah I am starting to find polls less and less useful especially in a close race where there is no way for them to be super reliable

Yeah especially after reading that article about polls, I think we just have to wait this election out.

This article is about Obama's campaign switching over and talking about how Romney changes his policies and can therefore not be trusted. It emphasizes Obama keeping his word and focuses on a rally in Florida. It also discusses Obama referring to "Romnesia" The quote that really stood out to me was, "On the auto industry bailout, the hiring of public school teachers and Medicare, Obama said Romney is aiming to disguise his real positions in order to win the election." Do you think that Romney's position changes are going to have a negative or positive effect on his campaign? And, do you think that these are genuine changes or are for the polls?

When researching energy for the issues project we just completed, I read an article about an environmentalist who was leaning towards Romney, despite his views on energy resources that harm the environment, because his past positions on green energy gave her hope. Also, on a previous article, we were discussing how people might take Romney's switches as a confirmation of his concern for the people. At the same time, a lack of commitment to his beliefs could prove a lack of commitment to the people and his job. I know I feel more connected to that second argument, but I am very curious to how the rest of the country will look at this.

I'm not sure how Romney disguising his real plans would benefit him in any sort of way-if helping the country is not his "real goal", what is his goal in becoming president? And why would he present something other than the best plan he's got if he wants to win votes?

This article highlights the October Surprise that Donald trump has in store for the American Public. There have been  some speculations on what it my be about, but he has cleared these speculations by saying that the American public has to wait and see. Do you guys think this announcement may affect the swing voters in any way?

Yeah I'm curious to know what the announcement was - do any of you know? I think it is to keep voters engaged but also to give one last big swing before people are voting and hope that something negative about the other candidate is the last thing on peoples' minds.

It was something totally lame-Trump would donate 5 million dollars to Obama's charity of choice if Obama released his college and passport applications. Hardly a shocking piece of information at all-and shows how easily Trump can throw money around.

Obama cast his ballot early and explains why it is better to plan ahead.  It also contains some interviews with Obama supporters.

I as well am curious to what the advantage of voting early would be. The article states that Obama said "It means you don't have to figure out whether you need to take time off work, figure out how to pick up the kids and still cast your ballot." To me it seems as it is just securing your vote in case of an emergency that might prevent you from voting. Also it my be strategic by making a person vote early not able to change their vote later if something happens that might make that voter change his/her mind.

I agree with the idea of early voting, but I'm not sure how far it could be pushed back. What limit should we put on how early you can vote? A few weeks? A few months? It becomes absurd at some point, but at what point?

News reports are coming out with information on hurricane sandy and the warnings set out in various parts of the country. It is interesting to see how the different candidates are being and going to be effected by this. It seems from this article that in terms of swing states, Obama is going to be hit harder although Virginia may be tough for Romney with the conservative parts being hit harder. Romney definitely does have a disadvantage with his headquarters in Boston though. I am interested to see how much of an effect on the election this storm has. Thoughts and predictions?

I'm wondering if the storm will affect the voters more than the candidates (eg: making them unable to vote), and in this way it will affect the election. Like Yadira said, though, the storm can be symbolic for many who have experienced it as they think about what really matters in life and what they want America to look like. I would think in the non-swing states, the storm would only make people more enthusiastic about their choice, thinking America is due for a 'rebirth' of some sort, with their preferred leader at the head. And, also like Yadira said, if the storm affects an undecided voter personally, the way in which the president deals with their lives/the governor proposes he would deal with their lives could determine their decision of who to vote for.

I think that the storm will make a lot less people vote, especially the undecided voters who the candidates have been trying so hard to sway. However, I think that the voters who are passionately decided will not be affected by the weather.

Something that I find interesting in this article is that it seems that Cunningham, who has been less-than-successful in the past four years, attributes his failings in life to the Obama administration. I don't know if this is true or not, but it seems that this is the way a lot of people look at the election: if you have been happy in the past four years, reelect Obama. If you have been unhappy, elect Romney.

This article talks about Obama's calm and collected response to the upcoming storm hitting back east. Obama has expressed concern about the storm to America but not in a panicked manner. I think made the right move by not focusing on the election here but rather everyone's safety. Having a president who makes Americans feel safe is important. One question that I have is will the weather affect the polls next week? 

Well, if Obama didn't do anything about the storm, then he would have probably lost votes in a lot of states affected in the area. Just look at how much bad press Bush got after Katrina. Obama needed a standing for America moment after skipping out on national security matters to go on TV.

I think people will always like a candidate that tends to pressing issues instead of campaigning because this is another sort of campaigning: actions speak louder than words! Obama made the right move in helping with the hurricane, but it was a political decision as well.

This article describes the shift that everyone has seen in Romney as the elections near.He has shifted from a more aggressive stance to a more moderate stance, attempting to show himself to be a candidate that appeals to all different voters. Do you think this shift will help or hurt Romney in this election? Does this shift show inconsistency or does it show his willingness to compromise his ideas for the betterment of America?

I think that this is an extremely good tactic for Romney: he appealed more to the far right and the people who were very set in their conservative values earlier in the campaign, and is now appealing to the more moderate undecided voters. People who were really excited about him as a candidate aren't going to change their minds about him now, so there's no downside for Romney. However, I'm not sure if his values are actually changing or if he's simply trying to appeal to a wider voter base.

Romney wouldn't be this far in the election if he weren't going to 'compromise' because he would be pro-choice and for same-sex marriage and have little support from the republican party at all. Compromise is great but only to a certain level. There has to be some point which people can't across and which we, Americans can depend upon to know that Romney won't change his views on. I would not be comfortable voting for President who changes his viewpoints to line up with the votes he needs the most just because who knows what positions he will hold if he actually does make it into office.

I warn you now this piece is extremely opinionated but I am interested to hear all of your thoughts on the subject. Scott Paulson, a political commentary for the Examiner is making the claim that the early voting in Ohio is ridiculous and unnecessary. He mentions that a lot can change in 35 days (from when early voting starts to election day) and that it is giving Obama a huge advantage which could potentially win him the state. What are you thoughts on the early voting laws?

Early voting is a wonderful democracy inhibitor, just look at how different Romney and Obama were 7 weeks ago, that was before both presidential debates. If they allowed California or Utah to vote early then it wouldn't matter because its not like either of those states are unpredictable or anything, but the fact that it is Ohio makes it crazy, there is no way that swing voters could be expected to make a valid decision considering how eventful the last 7 weeks have been, just look at their precedent in the debates. Of course Obama thinks it will facilitate democracy, it will probably end up in his favor more than Romney's.

Savannah, I think that the people who are voting early are the ones who likely aren't going to change their opinions on Obama or Romney based on debates or any "October surprise". Also, I'm interested as to why you think it'd end up in Obama's favor. Wouldn't this suggest that Obama is, in fact, more popular than Romney?

This article is about the jokes that Romney and Obama made at a charity dinner. It also highlights the fact that they are focusing on women as the undecided voters and talks about the advertisements they put out to sway undecided women in their direction. This is interesting in that it combines two things we discussed in other articles on diigo: ad campaings and women voters. Do you think it would be more affective for Romney/Obama to take a more comedic or critical approach to winning these female undecided voters, and how do you think their advertisements affect their decisions if at all?

While I think that decisions about something as important as who the president should be SHOULD be based on statistics and facts, this late in the game people who haven't yet decided are going to latch on to anything, factual or personal, that appeals to them. Because of this, I agree with James that appealing to voter as a person is just as important as appealing to them as a candidate.

Yeah I agree completely. Although in reality the numbers may be most directly related to who is going to be a successful president, in terms of getting elected I think the stories are equally if not more convincing to voters.

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. 

Hmm. I'm conflicted about this as well. I think that it's great that the government is supporting green energy, but gambling with taxpayer's money does not sound like a good idea. Interestingly, this is a kind of similar idea to privatizing Social Security, which Obama is very strongly opposed to but Republicans (including Romney) have supported in the past.

In my opinion, this becomes an issue of rights vs. economy. Is green energy a right or an economic luxury? Is it the government's job to ensure energy rights or to let it become an issue of the market? From a broader perspective, do we need regulation to prevent the long-term issue of the destruction of our earth? Sometimes when we think "business, business, business", we forget about ethics/morals. It also becomes an issue of whether or not we want to lead the world in a clean-energy revolution. At the same time, our economic issues present moral issues as well. It is a hard thing to think about because our priorities get all jumbled up. I guess it depends on what the individual thinks is important.

Although this is just one poll vs. many, it shows great progress for Romney as we approach the third and final Presidential Debate. Just a week ago Romney was tied with Obama at an even 48%. What do you guys think of this?

Although I don't think polls are necessarily reliable, I think anyone looking at this election as a bistander can see that it is going to be a close race and if Romney is up in one poll one day, there is a high change that Obama will be up the next. I think that it can be assumed at this point that the candidates have a tough race to finish off and it is going to be close no matter what the actual results are.

I wonder if the closeness of this race has more to do with the candidates or the people. Are the candidates similar enough to gain the liking of the same amount of people, in contrast to previous elections where a certain candidate is the choice of many? Or has our population become more evenly divided between liberal and conservative views/are we just hungry for a different perspective to help us get out of our somewhat messy current situation? I can't help but think, on a personal level, how would Romney as president affect my life?

This article highlights the role of women in the election. It discusses the necessity for each candidate to receive the votes of women. Obama criticizes Romney for his changing views on abortion but women have also felt the tough economy under Obama's administration. Do you think there are other issues besides the issue of contraceptive health care that would persuade women to vote for Romney or Obama?

I think it all comes down to either sacrificing women's rights or women's stance in the economy. Romney who does not support abortion but may be able to fix the economy, while Obama does support women's rights but might delay in fixing the economy. Thinking about a women's votes in this election, I wonder what the "Walmart moms " prefer, fixing the economy or their rights? Either way whoever gets elected not everyone will be happy. They will have to sacrifice one or the other.

I would think women would be more connected to a candidate supporting their rights, but I realize there are other perspectives. A few of my female relatives are very conservative and are prolife, and they are women too. I feel that in his campaign, Obama is doing a better job of making women feel comfortable in their vote while Romney is making it seem like women's rights is a separate issue from people's rights, which may make women feel all the more disrespected.

This article outlines many of Romney's Ryan's views on Obama and his plans and policies for the country. I found this to be especially interesting: "Obama is simply offering more of the same." Do you think this is true? Is Obama offering exactly the same plans he did four years ago?

The quote you pulled out also stood out to me, Sabrina. While I think Obama in many ways will be the same, I think being in office for four years will inevitably change him. From listening to the issue presentations we have seen that many of his policies have changed. For instance his policies on Israel have shifted and he is still working on his immigration policy. I don't think we should expect a totally new president, but rather one that has learned and grown from his past experience with his same ideals.

Logically, we should not expect the same president. Romney probably isn't the only one noticing Obama's mistakes, and I believe that he will use things that he was not successful in to improve his skills.

Colin Powell, and Bush-era White House Chief of the Military and Chief of Staff.  He is endorsing Obama even though he has been a long-time Republican.