Palin Group

This article begins by acknowledging the softer side that Romney showed during the debate and then tailors off into a discussion about what he has been up to recently that makes him seem so compassionate. I know that during the RNC Mrs. Romney put an emphasis on his fatherly side. Do you think Romney is going over the top selling himself as this compassionate man? Or do you find it endearing? I think I find it somewhat of both. 

This article emphasizes the importance of the toss-up state of Wisconsin and how crucial it will be to this election. This state has been democrat for the last 6 elections, although it has been a close call for the past two elections. Romney's addition of Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, this state will be a true battleground for both parties.

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.

That is super interesting. I wonder if (actually, I hope!) the reason that the 47% thing isn't mentioned is because the Huffington Post is willing to accept that for what it is-a mistake that doesn't need to be brought up again and again. Another option is that it really didn't have a significant impact on voters.

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

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.

The big difference between this clip and Romney's are that this is from years ago, whereas Romney's is much more recent. I think that we all need to just move past these video clips and focus on what the candidates are really putting out there rather than something they just said once.

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.

Although Romney is trailing by a pretty large percentage, the article is positive that Mitt can regain his loss by targeting certain voter groups, such as college students.  The article never says that Mitt has lost a group of voters %100.  The article, in general, seems hopeful that Romney can and will pull it together before the election.

It's interesting that Romney is having trouble holding on to wealthier voters, as a lot of his policies would seem to benefit them. Also, the group of "men" seems exceedingly broad to me. "Women" and "racial minorities" are both groups that have been marginalized in the past, so it makes sense to reach out to them. "Men" have always been the group in power, and it confuses me that they're considered a voting bloc.

Does anyone know anything about how exactly the polls are calculated? I am just curious where the numbers actually come from.

These are graphs that show the different demographics that voted for which presidents.  It also shows the results to which states both Obama and Romney won. I think it's interesting that this year Florida did not play much of an important part as it usually does. 

The question about about handling medicare, the economy and the deficit are really telling. The implication of such a vast majority of voter agreeing with their candidates view on these specific issues is that a vast majority of voters based their choice on these issues.

I find it shocking that the african american community voted significantly more in favor of Obama than any other community combined. I side red with a ton of these issues. I'm still a little confused why people think that Obama's foreign policy is considered as being good considering that he completely covered up the fact that they CIA had been to libya two weeks before the attack and requested help, yet nothing was done. This is infuriating to me. I do not trust Obama to handle foreign policy, he is far to loose with Ahmadinejad, Iran's nuclear program has skyrocketed since 2008. Nothing about that seems 'successful' to me.

Obama's campaign posts a video of Barack Obama breaking into tears after thanking his campaign staff and volunteers. I do not think I have ever seen a president cry in public, what do you guys think?

it's interesting cause the last article I posted was about Romney tearing up when he was thanking his staff. I guess when people devote a full year of their life to getting you elected it's sorta a big deal and I could look at it either way - Romney has more of a reason cause he lost or Obama cause they helped him win. But I sort of think of it like how people often cry when they graduate from school or something - like the end of a journey

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.

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 is an interesting opinion piece. It brings up an important discussion topic about he inequalities in political voice and participation. 

While I wish that there was more equality in the system, most of the time the people with more money are more educated and know more about making policies anyway, and I definitely don't believe that people who aren't experienced should be making policy.

It make total sense that someone with more money is more educated, but I disagree with the fact that they may know more about making policies. I would say people who are less educated but have experienced with the government system and daily struggles are would be more valuable in helping create policies than someone who does not really experience challenges or obstacles.

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.

This article talks about the problems with voting it Ohio. It discusses the voting laws that have changed when the state had republican vs democratic secretary's of state. As of now, Obama is ahead with early votes but with the Republicans changing around restrictions and laws making it harder for people to vote they article said that: " the polls could be wrong and the totals could easily be close enough that long enough lines and tossed ballots will make the difference." I find it really upsetting that the article had to say: "Now it's up to the voters to do the only thing they can: Try to vote." It is really sad that it has become hard to vote - it's a right that should be accessible to all.

I agree with Danielle that a popular vote would be fairer, but I'm not sure how it would help in this situation. I think that the electoral college is outdated and no longer works as the best way to implement democracy.

It seems though with these law being pass are trying to get the most accurate votes as possible, but is it really fair to create laws where your vote and your voice will not be heard. This article makes these laws seem terrible because it is a trap.

Governor Chris Christie (r) of New Jersey, a campaign supporter of Romney, went on TV to speak about the hurricane that had just hit his state.  In his interview, he praised Obama for his speedy response and said that all gratitude was due towards Obama.  Do you think that this will have a major effect on voters?  Do you think Hurricane Sandy will have an effect?

I also think that Chris Christie's endorsement meant a lot for voters. Additionally, and kind of unrelatedly, I think that Chris Christie will probably run for president in 2016.

I think hurricane sandy definitely had an effect on voters. Chris Christie acknowledging and appreciating Obama's support, shows how much Obama is willing to help out Americans no matter who they are.

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.

This article illuminate hows in the final days of the campaign, Obama and Romney are going to back to their original campaign talking points: jobs. Do you guys think that jobs are really the ultimate issue in this election?

Although I agree that for people struggling to put food on the table ect. jobs is a really important issue I think a lot of other issues are overlooked about it. Just I guess everything affects everything so to me to focus on one particular topic isn't necessarily the best way to run a campaign. That being said, I agree that Romney has a slight advantage over Obama not having failed before. I think to a lot of people they are doubtful that if Obama is reelected anything will change where as Romney is a fresh start for jobs from a more business focused perspective.

I think anything involving the economy or jobs is this election's main priority. America''s problem right now is that a lot of families can not afford the things that they need in everyday life. I mean we should consider other issues , but as we saw in the presidential debates all the other topics always resulted in talking about the economy and jobs.

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?

I believe that a political agenda has great influence on what information is released to the media and what stories are hidden from the public's eye. An example of this is the attack in Benghazi and the significant delayed release of information pertaining to the attack. It seemed that Obama's administration attempted to keep the details of this attack in the dark, in an attempt to preserve its reputation. I believe there will always be a political agenda behind what is and isn't released and I do believe that there have been events in the past that have been passed over in order to preserve someone's reputation but in this modern time with the interent, I believe it to be impossible for significant events to be hidden from the public and I believe that there will now be more events covered and talked about than there have been in the past.

James, I do not believe that Obama's "political agenda" delayed the release of the information pertaining to the attacks in Libya, or that the information was intentionally delayed. I do agree with your opinion that the government does have sway over the media, but I do not believe that this was one of those situations. Obama, himself, released the information and he did not receive the complete story.

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 is certainly one of the biggest problems that the GOP is facing. It is ancient, and religion is seizing a hold of its policies to an extent that makes a good bit of americans strongly dislike.

Puerto Rico has voted in favor of statehood.  This could men that the US could have 51 states!  How do you guys think that this will affect our country?  Do you think it will be good for the rest of America?  Will it change anything at all?

This article discusses the GOP's response to Mitt Romney after losing the election. It argues that his lack of "emotional foothold" with the party means that the party has little desire to hold on to him, but also has no need to angrily push him out.  It also argues that he is now focusing on "what was wrong with the voters, not what was wrong with his campaign." Given that the party is trying "to get away from the stereotype that is...by and for white," do you think that Romney's ideas will be rejected by Republicans from now on? Do you think his personality has led them to dislike him? In terms of being a "puppet" like candidate, what do you think Romney's role was in this election?