Palin Group

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.

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?

This article discusses Obama's acceptance speech. It is interesting how he emphasized the ways in which we Americans are alike despite the fact the election itself is a giant, nation-wide debate about the ways in which we differ. "We are not as divided as our politics suggests," he says. Also, do you think "the best is yet to come?" Will Obama be able to face the challenges at hand, or will he disappoint the nation?

It seems offensive when Romney says Obama "made a big effort on small things" when referring to his focus on minority groups in America. Do you think it is important to think about how it is the people who are voting, not our economy? Will rights and opportunities always override economic issues? Can emphasis on a failed past excuse Romney's ignorance toward the future? 

This article discusses Romney saying he wanted to cut government programs such as FEMA, the program for natural disasters, and that hurricane Sandy really damaged this point. Do you think the disaster was big enough to shift America''s general views on cutting government spending now that we've seen many citizens suffering and in need of government aid?

This article discusses Congress coming back into session and the democratic members deciding that Romney's tax plan is a good move for the nation. What do you guys think?

This article talks about the speaker of the house, John Boehner, and his fight to get the House G.O.P to end the " nasty showdowns that marked so much of the last two years." Although there is still a large gap between the President and John Boehner, they both seem open to compromise, leading me to believe that America will be able to avoid the fiscal cliff that we are approaching and hopefully Obama's second term will get more done with the aid of John Boehner.

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.

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.

Obama's lack of opinion on Iran is personally frightening. Ahmadinejad is insane and needs to be handled as such. He has said more than once that he isn't opposed to nuclear war, and considering that their nuclear program has quadrupled since 2008, Obama needs to continue (if not increase) sanctions in order to protect America.

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.

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. 

This article discusses Romney's ad in Ohio saying that, under Obama's supervision, Chrysler and GM auto company is getting rid of jobs here in America and creating jobs in China. This seems to be a critical point to attack Obama's presidency, but the GM and Chrysler auto company took this offensively, saying that they are opening more businesses in China but are simultaneously increasing jobs here in America, not getting rid of them. Is Romney's seemingly desperate attempts at  criticizing Obama in the last few days before the election worth offending such large corporations? Will the short term message expressed in his commercial have a greater affect on the people than the long term controversy of Romney's use of false information? How do you think this type of manipulation will play out in the future?

Going off of what Abby said, some people may not look into the truth of the add. In that case, I think it could benefit Romney. But for people who have been following the campaign, they know that one of Obama's main platform is to bring jobs back the US...so I think they will be skeptical of the ad.

Romney's attempt to make Obama look bad backfires on him because he offends these car companies. I think it might affect him greatly, but it will make people think twice about Romney in the way that he offend an american company, that is important to america.

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 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.

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.

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 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.