Early Voting - What are the effects?
According to Reuters, up to forty percent of votes cast this election may be before November 6th. Both camps have been seeking supporters to cast their votes early in order to help lock up votes before election day. Obama even became the first president ever to cast his vote early. But will this new emphasis on early voting change the election? Does the guarantee of votes from supporters that may not be available on election day give either party a strong advantage? While I'm not sure the answer to those question, I have a feeling it will come down to the demographics of each side's supporters. Thoughts?
"The Home Stretch"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/24/post-abc-tracking-poll-obama-wins-final-debate-romney-gains-supporters/
This article argues that although Obama "won" the third presidential debate, Romney was able to sway more voters with his performance. It talks about how Obama seems to stay steady in the race, but Romney has gained ground, making them neck and neck. What do you think? Do you think Romney's debate performances were stronger than Obama's?
Paul Ryan Promises to fight Gay Equality
Well people, if we have learned anything from this article it's that Paul Ryan is not very worldly. During an interview with Jim Daly, President of Focus on the Family, a notorious anti-gay group, Paul Ryan reassured them that he would, "protect traditional marriage and the rule of law and we will provide the Defense of Marriage Act the proper defense in the courts that it deserves." If you wish to listen to the audio it is in the link.
The most important thing I take away from this is my thankfulness of state's rights. Remember, states control a good portion of power in the United States. We have a duty to act as we fill fit, and further to remember that our votes can truly change things. Hooray for state's rights!
Mitt Romney
Friday, the 26th, Mitt Romney is talking at Iowa State. It just so happens that I am going down there this weekend for their homecoming. I will be attending this and am so excited to see what he has to say! Do any of you want me to pay attention to certain things or let you know what he says to these college students? I am impatiently waiting for this and am hoping I get a chance to ask a question ;)
So i saw this on facebook and just thought this was a awesome. Apparently some people are offended that the school took the time out of teaching them math and science to do this, but that just seems a little over board.
this is the song
"Colorado remains big prize as Romney, Obama hold Campaign rallies"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/colorado-remains-big-prize-as-romney-obama-hold-campaign-rallies/2012/10/24/7a105440-1e02-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html
Washington Post has claimed that the "Rocky Mountain West" is becoming an important area to be looking at this fall before the election. In the past, this area has been a big spot for Republican support but in this race, Democrats have been vying for the support of the West.
The day after the last debate Romney spent a lot of time flying to appearences in the West including Las Vegas and his final appreance in Denver. Denver is the most competitive spot and the Republicans need a win there to help beat the Democrats.
The West is a new place for high competition. It was just four years ago that it became a hot spot. This year it hasn't seen much action because a lot of the competition has been in the mid-west (Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin). Candidates are now looking at the West closely because it may change the outcome for the Presidential race and Washinton Post claims that it also poses the question of how changing demographics are changing politics in America.
Do you think that demographics play a role in politics?
Is it a smart decision for the candidates to focus their energy on the West rather than the midwest?
What is the best course of action for the candidates now?
Ritchie Urges Newspapers to Feature Proposed Amendments
I thought that this article would be interesting to our class because our good buddy, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is featured in it. It's about him asking Minnesota newspapers to print and feature the full text of both of the proposed amendments before election day. This article includes the letter that Ritchie wrote to newspapers to ask them to do this.
According to Ritchie, the question on the ballot to vote yes or no to the amendments leaves out some important parts of the amendments, especially the Voter ID amendment. He believes that it is only fair that Minnesotans know exactly what they are saying yes to because constitutional amendments are semi-permanent. 20 years ago, the proposed amendments were always featured in newspapers as a legal notice, now they do not have to be printed at all because of budget issues.
Do you agree that newspapers or other media outlets should be required to, or at least feel obligated to feature the full text of any amendments that are proposed? Why do you think they don't do this anyway? What does this says about our society, that we are voting on something that most of us don't have a full grasp on?
NPR article on the Worlds view of US's presidential candidates
It is without a doubt that this election is "neck and neck." I could not tell you how many times I have heard that phrase in the past two months...However, a recent article on the NPR website shows what some parts of the world think of our own presidential candidates, and Obama seems to have a lot of outside support from countries other than his own. A poll was taken in 21 countries through BBC World Service that showed results of each of the 21 countries.
Is this information at al shocking or interesting? Maybe this is a universal phenomena for people in their own countries to criticize their own president and not others. What do you think?
"Facebook 'unfriending' up as election nears"
I'm sure you all are eagerly anticipating the final Presidential Debate tonight. But, if you're like me, you're probably looking equally as forward to commentating your thoughts on the debate on Facebook as you watch. But, before you do that, you may want to be careful what you post.
According to this story from KARE 11 (link below), political posts on Facebook are driving the 'unfriending' rate way up. Some people are even going as far to unfriend family members, even their own sister!
I guess it isn't too shocking that this would be happening, because people tend to share a little too much on Facebook as it is, and with something as big as a presidential election, a little too much opinion is bound to make it's way in a status. I'm probably guilty myself (No need for comment on this from any of my Facebook friends) :)
But is unfriending really necessary? I appreciate that KARE 11 shared that it is possible to simply block a person's post from your newsfeed until the election is over. Isn't this enough? Have any of you had to resort to unfriending?
I love reading other people's opinions, as long as they are articulate, respectful, and of course wittiness is a plus. How do you all feel about political posts in general on Facebook, or Twitter, or whatever else the kids are using these days?
So kiddies, be careful what you post tonight (if you care). I look forward to seeing my newsfeed during the debate and I hope I don't feel compelled to unfriend anyone, or cause anyone else to feel compelled to unfriend me...
Link:
http://www.kare11.com/news/article/995636/391/People-unfriending-on-Facebook-as-election-nears
David Sedaris "Undecided Voters"
David Sedaris is a well known American writer and humorist. This link to his article "Undecided Voters" is dated back to the 2008 election season, but as this year is the president's incumbency, I think we can still apply many of the perspectives Sedaris expresses about undecided voters in this story. What do you think he is trying to say in this story about undecided voters? Is it obvious? How can we apply what Sedaris has implied about undecided voters of the last election season to this one?
