Monday, September 24, 2012

myTwitter Roundup - Part Two: The Presidential Debates

BACKGROUND: Our goal is to prepare students for responsible citizenship and life-long engagement in the political process. More specifically, we aim to create Twitter feeds as personalized, annotated miniblogs that connect students to searchable current affairs and political analysis.

See @ParishGOV for more details.

TODAY'S ASSIGNMENT (daily work grade):
  1. Google "Presidential Debates" and do a little background research first. You'll want to be able to answer the following essential question: According to political scientists and political analysts, why are the Presidential Debates important?
  2. Use your academic Twitter feed to find a story that relates to the Presidential Debates (which begin soon... as you've no-doubt discovered).
  3. Re-tweet the link to the story.
  4. Write 3-4 sentences of reflection: start with a brief summary, then maybe share your opinion about the story, perhaps explain the story's connection(s) to our study of government.
  5. Post an excerpt from your writing as a comment to our blog - remember to add a link to the story!
  6. Tweet a comment - of your own (!) - about the Presidential Debates. Add a hashtag: #ParishGov
 

170 comments:

Andrew Boyd said...

Iowa Caucuses: What to Expect (Short of Results) http://on.wsj.com/sIVoEi
The WSJ Washington Wire tweeted this to give followers some background as well as things to look for during the 2010 Iowa Caucuses. The article reminds us that the Caucuses contain a lot more than just the presidential vote, however, the article reminds us that the presidential vote is of course the big reason why people attend; stating that most caucus goers will leave after the presidential vote. The Iowa Caucuses receive so much attention because it is the first major electoral event of the nominating process for President of the United States. Personally, I am excited to see the results of the presidential vote. The Republican candidates have all been bucking heads and the results will provide an undeniable favorite to be nominated as the Republican candidate. Hopefully late tonight the winner will be announced, changing the Republican campaigns immensely.

Larson McQuary said...

I chose to read the article posted by ABC News in their tweet “The Note: Decision Day In Iowa: Why Mitt Might Win The Caucuses http://abcn.ws/vplAuD @amyewalter @michaelpfalcone report” about the different approaches Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have taken in regards to gaining the popular vote in Iowa. Senator Santorum has been crisscrossing the state and spending much of his time with Iowans. Romney, on the other hand, has spent less time and money in Iowa over the year up until this last week when he started campaigning vigorously with radiating confidence. Now the question is which of these two front-runners approaches will work best?
It will be interesting to see which of these two candidates leads the Iowa caucuses because their strategies are so different. Santorum has been a constant campaigner, visiting all 99 counties in the state and he has developed his own reputation the state of Iowa because they have gotten to know him rather than just seeing him on TV. Romney on the other hand, has given little attention to Iowa up until this week but his charisma and enthusiasm has already influenced Iowans. The personality and strategy of politicians definitely play a large part in influencing voters and this will be evident in the Iowa caucuses.

Mr. Ostroff said...

Thanks for your comment, Andrew - welcome back to school! Quick question: you wrote that "results will provide an undeniable favorite to be nominated..." I'm curious - WHY do you think the winner of the Iowa Caucuses will the favorite to win the GOP nomination??

Mr. Ostroff said...

Thanks, Larson! I appreciate your point that Sen. Santorum and Gov. Romney have chosen different strategies in Iowa. Curious: which strategy (if either) do you think is more likely to lead to best results? What sort of strategy would you recommend??

Andrew Boyd said...

I believe it will give a republican canidate the push they need to become the definite front runner to win the nomination.

Larson McQuary said...

I think that Mitt Romney's plan will work better because I think him campaigning hard over this week will be more effective than Santorum's long-term plan. He has more energy and is a new, exciting person in Iowa and will get more attention.

Brooke Bode said...

What's going to happen in the #IACaucus? Your guess is as good as that of any 'experts'. http://huff.to/uSy0Wf (via @dceiver)
The article satirizes the mystery enveloping the Iowa Caucus because it is hard to tell who the Iowa Republicans will vote for. One can always try to predict the outcome of the caucus, but there are chances that they could be incorrect. So far Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are very close together in popularity which can allow experts to make predictions but there is no one hundred percent chance that they will be correct.
The article does comfort me in the fact that not many people can predict the outcome of the caucus based on such little information, but now I think it is strange that an elected nominee would be determined by the population of one state. However the caucus does influence other members of the Republican party to vote for the most popular candidate to ensure that their candidate could win the presidential election. However, many people will still have their own opinions and may choose to ignore the caucus and vote for their candidate of choice, which would benefit them personally since perhaps not everyone in Iowa will vote. Many different factors will affect the outcome of the election such as if people decide to even vote in the election, or if they are actually Democrats who just signed up as Republicans. The caucus relates back to the study of government in the way that people are given an opportunity to control their representative for the election. People are allowed to make their own decisions but they can be influenced and swayed by many other factors.

kellyem said...

Decision Day In Iowa: Why Mitt Might Win The Caucuses
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/decision-day-in-iowa-why-mitt-might-win-the-caucuses-the-note/
Michael Falcone and Amy Walter predict what candidates will come out on top and win the Iowa Caucuses. They believe that Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum may be able to win because of his hard work ethic and his campaign the last few weeks. Because Santorum visited every one of the 99 counties of Iowa, it is said by Falcone and Walter that Santorum, “has put down roots in the state so deep he might as well be an honorary resident.” Second, Mitt Romney is believed to be in the lead also because of his great campaigning the past week and his pitiful opponents, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry.
The article has some truth in it, but I also believe that the caucuses do not have the final effect on the candidates because of the limited voting spectrum used. Only about one in five Iowans vote, and even that is not a true representation of all the voters in America. I do believe Santorum will do well because of his hard work and Romney too. The article does show that the media can have a huge impact and what the people see and ultimately what they believe and vote. America is a democracy and people are free to believe what they choose, but the media does have an influence on the decisions of America.

Anonymous said...

Gingrich: Romney is lying to the American people: http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9917768-gingrich-romney-is-lying-to-the-american-people?ocid=twitter

During an interview on CBS's "The Early Show," Gingrich declined to predict he'd win Tuesday night's Iowa caucuses, but said "I don't think anybody knows who's going to get what right now." Gingrich, even though he says that the Iowa caucuses are up in the air at this point, has much confidence in himself after accusing fellow republican, Mitt Romney of lying to the American people, “"I just think he ought to be honest with the American people and try to win as the real Mitt Romney, "He ought to be candid and I don't think he's been candid." Gingrich attacked Romney for harmful television ads that have wounded his standing in the polls, saying Romney has been “disingenuous about large sums of money that a Super PAC has been spending on his behalf for the attack commercials.”
Personally, I don’t think Gingrich should make such accusations against Romney considering it is Romney’s own campaign. Also, whichever one wins, Gingrich or Romney, will become the republican candidate and they should be supportive of each other. Even Gingrich said that Romney would make a better president than Obama, "He would be much less destructive than Barack Obama.” This story connects to our study of government because it demonstrates how crucial it is to sympathize with the public and to be honest throughout political your endeavors.

Taylor Epperson said...

@NBCPolitics: What to watch for in Iowa http://on.msnbc.com/uhfjMa

The republican side of the Iowa caucus has truly been unpredictable so far, with multiple GOP candidates who have stood at or near the top of the polls in Iowa. According to NBC Politics, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul are the front-runners heading into tonight’s caucuses in Iowa, and it’s possible that any of the three could win. As always in politics, the race will most likely be decided on turnout. NBC Politics said that 60% of participants this year will be self-described evangelicals, and a combined 78% thinking that values and saying what you believe are the most important qualities. This highly favors Rick Santorum yet Mitt Romney seems to be the forerunner going into tonight because of his experience in politics, which is very attractive to voters.

The Iowa caucuses serve as important part of the Presidential election process even though only about 1% of the nation's delegates are chosen by the Iowa State Convention. The Iowa caucuses have served as an early indication of which candidates for president might win the nomination of their political party at that party's national convention, and which ones could drop out for lack of support.

The Iowa caucus clearly represents the election pathway in the United States and becomes unnecessarily popular due to the amount of media attention it receives.

Eric M said...

The Iowa caucuses are the first major electoral poll in the presidential candidate nomination process for the United States. This year, the Iowa caucuses are to be held on January 3, 2012. The Iowa caucuses serve as primary evidence of which candidates are truly in the running for the presidential nomination of a particular political party. As a result, the Iowa caucuses receive a lot of media attention not for their particular weight in value in the polls (only 1%), but rather narrows down the candidates that have potential to represent a political party at that party’s national convention.

FoxNews Fox News
Is an Iowa surprise brewing? GOP candidates count on Iowa voters to upend the pundits and polling data http://fxn.ws/tKisau #fnciowa

In this article it is apparent that the Iowa caucus results are not nearly predictable. Throughout the course of the Republican campaign, polls have remained very close. Michele Bachmann is an Iowa native, and this is sure to play a significant role in the elections as she has done extensive traveling throughout the state and has the support of 200 pastors, who play a significant role in the right wing political scene. In addition, Rick Santorum has risen in popularity most recently in his campaign after over a year of hard work. Romney has great confidence going into the Iowa caucuses and says that his record matches up very well against Obama, and that he could easily contest the standing president. In addition, Ron Paul, criticized as not being conservative enough to represent the Republican Party, may have a good chance of strong results as he has gained support from many Democrats as Iowa has voted Democratic in the last 6 presidential elections. Lastly, despite Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich’s poor recent polls, with 41 percent still undecided in the Des Moines Register poll, the race is not over for any candidate.
The Iowa Caucuses are evidence of the media’s ability to affect how people vote in the political process. When the results from the polls are released, the rest of the United States will be sure to consider these results in order to cast a practical vote to support a true candidate. The actual weight of the caucuses in the final nomination is very small, however the information that it tells other voters can have great impact as they will disregard weak candidates.

MaddiM said...

Gingrich: Romney is lying to the American people: http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9917768-gingrich-romney-is-lying-to-the-american-people?ocid=twitter

During an interview on CBS's "The Early Show," Gingrich declined to predict he'd win Tuesday night's Iowa caucuses, but said "I don't think anybody knows who's going to get what right now." Gingrich, even though he says that the Iowa caucuses are up in the air at this point, has much confidence in himself after accusing fellow republican, Mitt Romney of lying to the American people, “"I just think he ought to be honest with the American people and try to win as the real Mitt Romney, "He ought to be candid and I don't think he's been candid." Gingrich attacked Romney for harmful television ads that have wounded his standing in the polls, saying Romney has been “disingenuous about large sums of money that a Super PAC has been spending on his behalf for the attack commercials.”
Personally, I don’t think Gingrich should make such accusations against Romney considering it is Romney’s own campaign. Also, whichever one wins, Gingrich or Romney, will become the republican candidate and they should be supportive of each other. Even Gingrich said that Romney would make a better president than Obama, "He would be much less destructive than Barack Obama.” This story connects to our study of government because it demonstrates how crucial it is to sympathize with the public and to be honest throughout political your endeavors.

Daniel A said...

The Iowa caucuses are the first step in the selection of candidates for the presidential election coming up this year. They are important because it is a chance for candidates to see how much general support they have from the public. Rick Perry, like other candidates have gone and started campaigning in Iowa to increase the support they’ll receive. Perry visited Perry, Iowa and spoke of his views against certain issues and stated that he cares greatly for the country, the children, and their future. Some of the people who saw Perry and Sen. Santorum on Monday compared the two in their method of their campaign across Iowa. A man commented that Santorum, driving around in a pick-up, seemed very modest compared to Perry who campaigned around in a bus, brought professional lighting, and high-profile supporters.
I believe that this relates to our study and to us in particular because Rick Perry is our governor and his beliefs and ideals could change the way our government works. Rick Perry is getting the attention and favor of many people in a fairly nice manor and obtaining rapidly increasing support throughout the state of Iowa. His method of not talking about his competition and solely focusing on the issues and his opinion on them is very important because he not only saves time by disregarding his competition in his campaign but is also making an effort to not soil himself by trashing his competition.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/02/perry-courts-voters-in-perry-iowa/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Nick izzard said...

In the article written by Michael Falcone and Amy Walter, “Decision Day In Iowa: Why Mitt Might Win the Caucuses”, (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/decision-day-in-iowa-why-mitt-might-win-the-caucuses-the-note/) they explain the different strategies to the two top contenders of the upcoming Iowa Caucuses. These two candidates are Senator Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney both of the Republican Party. Opposing Santorum’s strategy of spending his time and effort in winning over the state of Iowa, Romney has focused of a more big picture strategy attempting to “win the nomination, not Iowa”. I would agree with Falcone and Walter’s prediction of Romney’s win due to the fact that he has chosen a more logical and time efficient strategy. Romney has put efforts into more total states that Santorum and even if he has put less effort into his campaign in Iowa itself, his campaign will still have indirectly affected the citizens of Iowa. These things considered, despite Santorum’s dedication to the state of Iowa, Romney may still come out on top.

Tre.V said...

Tonight Iowa Republicans will be gathering at schools, libraries, churches and homes around 7 pm to select a few delegates to the national convention. This is using the pathway of grassroots we learned about at the beginning of the unit. This event is very time consuming and also allows non republicans to register as republicans vote for presidential candidates on caucus day. I don’t think it’s fair to allow democrats to register as republicans for just one special day. If they truly wanted to be democrats then they should accept all that come with being a democrat. Iowa Caucuses: What to Expect (Short of Results) http://on.wsj.com/sIVoEi

Daniela Ramirez said...

Article: http://iowacaucus.com/2012/01/03/whats-ahead-jan-3-linn-gop-throws-out-08-plans-for-caucuses-to-make-room-for-greater-turnout/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Many believe that this year’s Iowa Caucus will just be an updated version of 2008’s however with the amount of people now being involved in the party will cause more frustration for location coordinator Eric Rosenthal. Some factors will apply affecting the amount of people going to the caucus due to the occupy movement and the fact that there will other events nearby. This doesn’t stop Rosenthal from getting an area that will fit an estimated population between 11,000-15,000 and the parking spaces for each attendee. I personally believe that having to locate a place to hold for the caucus is very important because you want to make everyone feel they should care about their next president and are free to come. It is important especially in Iowa since there are not many places to use. Hopefully, there will be room for the attendants because being present in a political debate is essential to the American lifestyle.
IACaucus2012: What’s Ahead Jan. 3: Linn GOP throws out ’08 plans for caucuses to make room for greater turnout: Putting on the... http://bit.ly/tIbAKP

Cassidy H. said...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/decision-day-in-iowa-why-mitt-might-win-the-caucuses-the-note/

Michael Falcone posted an article claiming that the two candidates who have the best shot at winning, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, are the two that have taken completely different approaches on winning Iowa’s electoral votes. Both have campaigned in Iowa’s 99 counties with hard work and care. Santorum visited all counties more than once and held over 380 events regarding his campaign; Where Romney campaigned a little differently. He drove across the state in a bus reading, “Conservative, Businessman, Leader.” He believes that these words have been the crux of his message to all the republican voters. In my opinion, Falcone is correct on the candidates opposite approaches having opposite effects on the state of Iowa.  I also agree with the idea that Romney will end up winning Iowa. Romney has run a disciplined race in the state of Iowa and even nationally.

ellis cupit said...

In this Article “Romney Predicts Victory”( http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/02/romney-predicts-victory/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter. ) Sara Murray talks about how the different republican candidates are stacking up for the upcoming caucus. She says that in the most recent polls the front runners are Mint Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum. Yet there is still a possibility that either Rick Perry or even Newt Gingrich could pose a threat to the top three contenders.
I believe that this article helps more clearly convey how the American people begin to use their right of voting their next president. This caucus is one of the most important to seeing who will lead our country in the coming future, and is a perfect government example of how people can use this pathway to government. In my opinion I believe that this columnist has conveyed a clear and accurate prediction of the upcoming caucus, yet she cannot exactly predict the future.

Anonymous said...

The article I choose about the Iowa caucuses is a poll in which they are asking the general public their opinion on who they believe is going to win in tonight election. And this is very important because this eventually leads to choosing delegates for the presidential nominations.
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9920475-live-vote-predict-the-winner?ocid=twitter
and I think although this article is only a poll its important because it shows you who is favored to win in tonights election of the Iowa caucuses and why that particle person is a favor for that many votes to be received. Which is good because it shows mainly if iowa is considered more right or left wing by who they vote for.
Jeff D.

Lauren C said...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/03/in-anybodys-game-candidates-count-on-iowa-voters-to-surprise-nation/
@FoxNews tweeted this link. This article summarizes the last minute stress of each Republican presidential candidate trying to make themselves more appealing to the voters. Each candidate is quoted by their reason that they believe makes them credible to campaign against President Obama. The ways each candidate goes about winning the Iowa Caucus expresses the election pathways, which we learned in our government class. I agree with this article that it is very important for each of these individuals to keep trying to get the most votes they deserve.

JulianneJacobs said...

I chose to read an article on The Star Phoenix titled "Iowans head to caucus with U.S. election stakes high" http://bit.ly/wA3rhm
This article is a good summary of what is happening with each candidate running in the Iowa Caucus. Those who are struggling like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are still fighting to win the Caucus to remain in the election. The republican candidates like Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul recently attempted to make last-minute pitches to impress voters and they seem to be doing a lot better. A good turnout of voters is predicted because the weather will be dry. I believe Mitt Romney will do very well in the caucus due to his belief in "getting back to American values." Many Iowans feel the same way.

Kianna said...

The live blog from Washington Wire (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/03/live-blogging-the-iowa-caucuses/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) covers the Iowa Caucus. The blog had started earlier this morning. The blog has stories from college students campaigning for candidates, robocalls to another candidate, and the appeal of one candidate to the younger generation. From the little blurbs, it seems like many candidates are targeting the younger generation, with visits to high schools and paying for collage-aged volunteers to help with the campaign. It seems to be a good strategy because the sheer number of students able to vote is high, and their enthusiasm is contagious. This is a good article because it contains many small “blurbs” and is live, meaning that it is updating and changing every hour. This reflects the current government because nothing is ever permanent.

Tucker D. said...

TWEET: Undecided Iowa voters just want a candidate who can beat Obama: http://huff.to/uAc1Ce (via @Off_the_Bus) #iacaucus
In this article by Michael J. Hunt, Hunt discusses how many Iowa voters have not yet decided on a candidate that should be president, but do share one common belief, that the current direction of the country is not where they want it to be. Voters stated in the article that almost all the candidates have some major setback but that this is not going to deter them from the change that needs to be made, in their opinion. The main reason for voters wanting change is that they feel the government is in a standstill and not moving forward to better the country.
In my opinion, I believe that this caucus will show how we, as a country, are divided in our ideas on where we need to go to become a dominant world power again. I think that the views expressed by the voters in the article are the same as those around the country and will prove that a strong candidate has yet to reveal themselves.

Cate Crowe said...

This article talks past Iowa Caucus’ and how they have been unpredictable in their turnouts. No one is ever able to predict who will win. The author mentions how the 1984 and the 2004 elections both changed their courses on the day of the Caucus. The author also mentions that Ron Paul is one of the favored candidates to win the GOP, and that Romney might be the unexpected runner up. This story relates to our study of government because the result Iowa Caucus will set the stage for the choosing of the candidates for the 2012 election. This article has some truth behind it, however nothing is permanent, and not everyone in Iowa votes and even if they did it is not an accurate representation of how all citizens feel.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/03/prepare-to-be-surprised-by-iowa-caucus-results/
Cate Crowe

Michael Mann said...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9917327-first-thoughts-caucus-day?ocid=twitter
This article is basically telling about what to look for during the Iowa caucus. It tells that there are seven candidates participating in the caucus but the two candidates who are leading the polls are mitt Romney and Ron Paul. In my personal opinion I would like to see Ron Paul win the caucus. I think that even if Ron Paul were to win the caucus he wouldn’t win the republican nomination because many of his views on the issues do not represent what republicans traditionally agree with.

Blake Ransom said...

WSJWashington Live Blogging the Iowa Caucuses http://on.wsj.com/v6TyJi

The wall street journal is explaining the way the Iowa caucus is ran. Even though you are not republican you can still register and vote for someone. The caucus usually take a while they have to start with the pledge of allegiance it usually take around 4 hours before the results are in. these votes ar not represented in the right way because not all of these people are republicans. The votes cannot be representing the republican ways in the right way, if there not all republican. There could be ways to make sure these people are republicans by a simple survey of the truth on oath, so that this caucus could be the nest it could be

skimichik said...

What to watch for in Iowa on.msnbc.com/uhfjMa
Retweeted by Sam Kimichik

With seven different GOP candidates, who have each been either close to or at the top during the Iowa polls, NBC News says that the likely winner should be Mitt Romney (The only candidate who has steadily been at the top through out the polls). Even though it’s tough to say who will come out on top, NBC believes they have narrowed it down to the top three candidates: Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich. Even within these three candidates, the disputes have already begun. On an interview with CBS this morning, Gingrich was asked if he called Romney a liar. He replied, “This is a man whose staff created the PAC (Restore Our Future), his friends fund the PAC, he pretends he has nothing to do with the PAC. It’s baloney. He’s not telling the American people the truth.” Even with this accusation, Romney thinks he’s already won the caucuses. In an interview Romney said, "I need every single vote in this room, and I need you to get a couple of other votes from yours in your neighborhood and get to your caucus… We’re going to win this thing with all of our passion and strength and do everything we can to get this campaign on the right track.”

These heavy debates associated with the Iowa Caucuses are a part of our democracy that kicks off the 2012 presidential elections. They relate to our study of economics because they reflect our unique system of democracy. These candidates are chosen, supported, and fueled by the citizens; without the citizens, these candidates would just be normal people. Democracy has blessed us with the freedom to choose our own president, and it the journey begins tonight with the Iowa Caucuses.

Sara MacDowell said...

In the article, "First Thoughts: Caucus Day" (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9917327-first-thoughts-caucus-day?ocid=twitter), MSNBC News reports which of the seven GOP candidates will most likely come out on top at Iowa caucuses. Chuck Todd and Mark Murray, reporters for MSNBC, predict that Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, or Ron Paul will find success in tonight's caucuses because those three have continually hovered at the top of the polls in Iowa. MSNBC reporters quote Romney and Gingrich for their comments regarding the Iowa caucuses; Romney confident of his position in the race whereas Gingrich seems quite unsure whether he will win Iowa's vote as Republican candidate. Reporters realize though that the outcome of the caucuses relies on voter turnout. This electoral event sets the stage for which candidate might win the nomination of their political party and which candidates will drop out due to a lack of support. If Iowa does not act upon their duty to vote, our government and its citizens could be very negatively affected because the wrong Republican candidate will take the lead as the GOP frontrunner. Republican Iowa voters set the stage for every other state in America, so they must take action and vote for the candidate whom they believe would best represent the Republican party. Democrats and Independents have a role of their own in the Iowa caucuses - they can enroll as Republican voters and vote for the Republican candidate whom they believe would best lead our country if their Democratic candidate lost the Presidential election in November. Republicans from Iowa will gather at more than 1,700 precinct locations across their state tonight to vote for the GOP candidate - we will see who comes out on top. When the results are released from the Iowa caucuses, American citizens from every other state will consider these results and possibly cast their votes based on the results in Iowa.

Michael Murph said...

In town that shares his name, Perry hammers home closing argument http://on.msnbc.com/vmdMZ9

This article, by NBC’s Carrie Dann, tells about the Texas Governor Rick Perry and his previous visits in the state of Iowa. It is said that in Governor Perry’s last campaign stops, he has stepped it up and produced much better speech performances than in the past.

In my opinion I believe that Rick Perry has a slim chance of winning due to the fact that he has done a poor job in his campaign thus far, by answering questions poorly and not fully explaining how he would solve problems. This article seems to have faith in Rick Perry but in my eyes not many people do.

Preston Klein said...

TWEET: Rick Perry urges supporters ‘On to victory’ at morning rally http://dmreg.co/yvfAY7 #iacaucus

In this article by Josh Hafner, Hafner speaks about how Rick Perry tries to make one last push in the Iowa caucus. This article states how Governor Perry made a speech addressing members of his 400 member volunteer team, using military rhetoric to inspire one last push for votes before the Iowa caucuses begin.

In my opinion, I believe that Rick Perry has a small chance of winning because of his poor job of presenting himself throughout his campaign. But according to this article, Rick Perry has done a better job by using a positive attitude and his military references and Perry is trying to get the votes of the 41 percent of caucusgoers who said they could still be persuaded in the Des Moines Register’s latest Iowa poll.

Anonymous said...

The Iowa Caucuses twitter feed posted an article saying how “"Voting" is open. "Results" are in. Who will win the Iowa Caucus? http://patch.com/A-pQlM #iacaucus,” with a link displaying the standings of the candidates in the IA caucus, according to the editors own beliefs. The article shows why each candidate is placed the way they are, giving reason to their chances in the presidential election.
I believe these standings are well reasoned, and how they show confidence in each candidate. Rick Perry is shown coming in fourth place due to his faithful supporters who actually seem to like him as a candidate in the election, which I agree with, but I also think that due to his poor campaigning he has lowered himself in the rankings.
-Chris M

Madison V said...

@NBCpolitics Romney edges past Santorum in Iowa caucuses photo finish http://on.msnbc.com

In last night’s Iowa Caucuses, Mitt Romney pulled out a very close victory over fellow republican candidate Rick Santorum. This was very surprising because Romney had not put a ton of money into his campaign in Iowa like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, who will both reassess their campaigns after a weak showing in Iowa. Winning Iowa and a holding a lead in New Hampshire, Romney has all but clinched the Republican nomination.

I find it interesting that one state’s caucus can be so influential on determining the candidate for a party. I also think it’s interesting that even though Romney put in a lot less money and time into the Iowa Caucuses, he still got the majority of the vote. It seems to me that if he can win without much effort, that he is the clear-cut candidate for the Republican party in the 2012 election.


http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9929201-romney-edges-past-santorum-in-iowa-caucuses-photo-finish?ocid=twitter

Luke H said...

KepnesCNN Jeff Kepnes
NEW ON CNN: Iowa outcome: What it means for the president: (CNN) - For Democrats the outcome of the Iowa caucuse...

The Iowa caucus is an early indicator for who might run for the president of the United States in early November. Mitt Romney came out of the caucus with an 8 vote victory. With Ron Paul, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney all suggested being the front runners; this could eventually weaken the Republican candidate.
With no clear front runner for the election it brings to question who the voters for the Republican Party will vote for if their candidate does not come out on top. This can’t be good for the Republican Party and Team Obama is taking note of the situation. If this continues the final candidate for the Republican’s may in fact have less support by the party if there were to be true front runner.

Travis S said...

Romney edges past Santorum in Iowa caucuses photo finish: Romney edges past Santorum in Iowa caucuses photo finish on.msnbc.com/xGZYew

After a long night where two candidates took the lead, it ends with Romney getting 8 votes more than Santorum to win the Iowa caucus. These two candidates ended up with about 25% of the vote each where Texas Representative ended with 21% and third place. Perry after only receiving 10% percent of the vote said that he was going to return to Texas and determine if there is a path forward for him in the race.

Even though Romney pulled through to with the caucus I feel that Santorum has just as good of a chance right now to become the Presidential candidate because 8 votes isn't a big margin. I also think that since Perry's campaign has invested so much money that he needs to stick it out for a little longer and see if he can try and make a comeback. I it it will be interesting to see who wins the caucus in New Hampshire next week.

Colton U said...

This article explains and gives us great insight on what the percentage outcomes are from the Iowa Caucus and what kind of people are voting for which candidate. For example, people who said they made more than $50,000 voted for both Romney and Santorum in a result of 28% Romney and 27% Santorum. Romney came out with a winning 36% from those who make more than $100,000 a year.
NBCPolitics NBC Politics
What the entrance poll told us about Iowa’s outcome http://on.msnbc.com/ysVJ6B

At this moment I would disagree with my age group voting percentages that tend to vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn’t vote for him just because he wants to legalize an illegal substance and also like Mitt Romney’s view points and opinions.

MorganK said...

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/live-blogging-the-iowa-caucuses/?src=twt&twt=fivethirtyeight#4-votes-separate-santorum-and-romney-1-precinct-left

At the end of the Iowa Caucus, with only the precinct of Clinton left to vote, Santorum was ahead of Romney by a mere four points. Around 2:30 am this morning it was announced that the final results were Romney 30,015 and Santorum 30,007. The Iowa Caucus has not been this close since 1980, when Kennedy beat Carter by 0.3%.
Although the Iowa Caucus is typically a good indication on which Republican candidate will win their party’s nomination, it seems to me that the position of the Republican nominee is far from secure. With Romney holding only 0.1% more votes than Santorum and 3.2% more than Paul, the campaign is closer than ever. These numbers show the importance of participating in politics. With just a few altered votes the results could have easily changed.

Emily L said...

Tweet: Mitt Romney wins Iowa caucuses by 8 votes: http://abcn.ws/y7LoQ6

I chose an article from ABC news titled, "Iowa Caucus Results: Romney Edges Santorum by 8 Votes." As the two men, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, went head to head and gave outstanding speeches, it became a tight race. Although both great candidates, Santorum argued why he was the best candidate for the job and that to win Americans, bold ideas, sharp contrasts, and a plan to include everyone, is needed. Romney, on the other hand, spoke about President Obama and his promises that were not fulfilled. Other candidates, such as Perry, Gingrich, and Bauchmann, did not have what it took to win the crowd over and will be focusing on trying to win other states, now.

In my opinion, I agree with Mitt Romney, and what he had to say during the Iowa Caucuses. Although the other candidates argued valid points, when Romney spoke about President Obama making a promise that he did not keep, it really got my attention. If you do not already know, the Iowa caucuses is an electoral event in which residents of the U.S. state of Iowa meet in precinct caucuses in all of Iowa's 1784 precincts and select delegates to the corresponding county conventions. The Iowa caucuses are very important and relate to our study of government because from this election, many Americans will cast their vote just based on the outcome.

Anonymous said...

Alex.W

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9929201-romney-edges-past-santorum-in-iowa-caucuses-photo-finish?ocid=twitter

The information I gathered from the article about Tuesday’s Iowa Caucus results is that the running’s are very close and that new candidates have earned voters due to their late pushes in the debate. The results stood as such with Mitt Romney edging out an 8 vote victory over Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, whom had a late push to gain him the alternative votes from conservatives over Romney. As far as the stats for other competitors such as Ron Paul who finished with 21% of the 122,555 vote turn out and as Newt Gingrich he finished with 13% of the voting. There will be two more opportunities for candidates to gain a lead in both New Hampshire which takes place next week and South Carolina which is held Jan.21.

Emily Sher said...

It is important that before finding an article that describes the Iowa caucuses, I must first research what the Iowa caucuses are. I discovered that the Iowa caucuses are an electoral event in which they serve as an early indication of which candidates for president might win the nomination of their political party at the party’s national convention. The ones who do receive the most support may then drop out of the election. The Iowa Caucuses also give the candidates an opportunity to express to the public why they should vote for them.
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9935735-what-the-entrance-poll-told-us-about-iowas-outcome#.TwPxZKrPf5U.twitter

According to Tom Curry the Iowa caucuses “produced a nail-biter finish between former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum.” However, in the end, when it came down to the people who above all were looking for a candidate whom they thought could beat President Barack Obama, Romney came out on top. Personally, I agree with Romney because he brought up a point about Obama and how he didn’t keep a particular promise. How can we support a president who can only “talk-the-talk” and not “walk-the-walk?” Interestingly, those who voted for Santorum were considered to be “very conservative” and also believed that the most important issue was abortion. On the other hand, older people tended to vote for Romney and the wealthy people, while the young voted for the eldest candidate, Ron Paul and also those who were in less of an economic standing voted for Paul. These statistics relate to our study of government because from this election others will base their votes on what they have seen/ heard. Overall, the Iowa caucuses are a helpful tool in making valid predictions about the upcoming presidential election.

Lauren S said...

FoxNews Fox News
Mitt Romney Wins Iowa Caucuses by Tiny Margin fxn.ws/wBxMsS

The Iowa Caucuses held on January 3, 2012 resulted in shocking voting numbers for numerous candidates. Mitt Romney topped all others with 30,015 votes but a mere 8 votes behind was Rick Santorum. These two apparent “front runners” aren’t guaranteed anything but the satisfaction of knowing that in that night they pulled out ahead than most of the other candidates.

The Iowa Caucus is only the first of many electoral events, and although it is significant to the public’s view of candidates, I believe that the voting numbers still have many opportunities to be affected. In order for us, as citizens, to maintain accurate perceptions of these candidates, I think that in and out of government class it is important to follow them and their ideas. This will allow us to be able to make informed opinions about our current Presidential candidates.

Lauren S

Stephen Renard said...

This article analyzed the kind of people that voted for each president. Half of the voters were “very conservative;” Santorum winning 33% of the conservative voters as well as 32% of the evangelical voters, although the evangelical voters were scattered. The young and lower income voters tended to vote for Ron Paul, while the rich tended to vote for Romney. Romney won 43% of the voters because they were not evangelical as well as being the leader for 65 years or older voters.

NBCPolitics NBC Politics

What the entrance poll told us about Iowa’s outcome on.msnbc.com/ysVJ6B

I think that this Iowa’s entrance poll tells us what we can expect out of the kind of voters supporting each candidate. I believe this is important because it can help the candidate target their group that supports them the most and hopefully attempt to gain support from a diverse group. This also shows what kind of people believe in important issues such as the country’s debt and abortion.

Brookie H said...

Mitt Romney Wins Iowa Caucuses by Tiny Margin http://fxn.ws/wBxMsS

Following the Iowa Caucuses which took place on Tuesday night, January 3, 2012, the race between the Republican candidates looked completely different than it did just one week ago. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum stood strong together at the top of the pack, but Mitt Romney stole the night. However, even though this was the case, Romney only beat Santorum by eight votes, which is one of the slimmest margins in Iowa election history.
In my opinion, I am very pleased with the results from the Iowa Caucuses this year. Even though Mitt Romney only won by a few votes I still believe that he is Republicans ticket to even having a chance of defeating President Obama in the Election in 2012. I am hoping that Romney stays strong next week in the New Hampshire Caucuses so that Republicans have the best chance to come out the overall champions this November.

Paxton S said...

The live-blog, or series of regular updates, about the 2012 Iowa Caucus gives a clear picture of how the night played out. The article describes the candidates repeating their beliefs and promises another time before the citizens of Iowa’s 99 counties decided their standing. By seven o’clock P.M. it is apparent that the leading candidates are Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul. The live-blog wraps up with Mitt Romney winning and Santorum remarkably close behind him.

The Iowa Caucus has always been the first way to view how different candidates stand in the race. Though Romney’s victory is telling, the prediction loses potency when regarding both Santorum’s and Paul’s close 2nd and 3rd. For these Republicans, at least, the election is still anybody’s game.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/03/live-blogging-the-iowa-caucuses/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Paxton S

Anonymous said...

Close Open Details Iowa Caucuses: What to Expect (Short of Results) http://on.wsj.com/sIVoEi
Being the most transparent, grassroots-based political activities in the country the Iowa Caucuses start a multi-part process to select a relatively few delegates to the national convention. The article by Mary Lu Carnevale tells us what to except. She tells us that only Republicans can caucus anyone can register as Republicans on Caucus Day. The schedule starts out with the Pledge of Allegiance, an election of a caucus chairman and secretary to keep the meeting running and recorded. Before the election a representative of the candidate is allowed to make a speech to try to get support for the candidate. Last the votes are counted by the caucus chairman and secretary, recorded for the Iowa Republican Party and announced at the meeting.
The Iowa Caucuses it the start to our democracy for a presidential candidate. It relates to our study of economics because they use our system of democracy. People express how they feel about candidates, vote on paper, and then are told who was elected.
-Megan Reynolds

kat3201 said...

Donna Brazile:
Really? No swinging, hanging or pregnant chads? RT@nytimespolitics The Caucus: Despite Close Finish, No Recount in Iowa nyti.ms/z20p3W

In one of the closest wins ever, Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum by a mere eight votes. With such a small difference, some might want a recount. Despite the attention the Iowa Caucus gets, it doesn’t mean that this winner will go on to win the presidency, thus no political need to rehash eight votes.

In fact last year, Romney got the same percentage of votes (25%), while McCain only receiving 13% went on to win the nomination. Iowa leads many candidates to do their most aggressive campaigning yet. By doing so, they are pursuing political action through the voting pathway while trying to influence a cultural change. In order maintain his lead, Romney will need to continue campaigning to inspire the America people that in fact he is the best republican.
-Katherine

Anonymous said...

What the entrance poll told us about Iowa’s outcome http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9935735-what-the-entrance-poll-told-us-about-iowas-outcome#.TwPxZKrPf5U.twitter
In this story, many caucus goers had their mind set on who they would vote for. Most of the conservative people there were following Santorum. Caucus goers that were older and richer were voting for Romney and younger and less fortunate caucus goers were voting for Ron Paul. Each candidate was winning and is close in popularity in different categories that they thought were most important such as abortion, federal budget deficit, the economy and health care.
Although the caucuses serve as an important part in the voting process I do not believe they have a true representation because they did not have many people show up not making it completely fair. Romney seemed to have many voters from each age group which was an advantage but Santorum still has many voters bringing them very close. Rick Perry did not do that well which is not too surprising due to his poor campaigning. Voters expressing their opinions and views through who they vote for are a very important part.
-Lauren Bookout

Kamil said...

NBC Politics @NBCPolitics
Perry to 'reassess' campaign on.msnbc.com/xZzVnj

The NBC Politics article talks about why Rick Perry decided to “assess” his campaign, because of his 5th place finish in the Iowa Caucus. He came to back to Texas to rethink his campaign with his family, senior aide Joe Allbaugh, and communications director Ray Sullivan. His fifth place finish in the Iowa Caucus is very important because it the first major electoral event of the nomination process for presidency; it is an early indicator for the presidential candidate that may win the nomination of their political party. The Iowa Caucus also serves as a initial indicator of which candidates will drop out of the campaign; therefore this is why that Rick Perry is reassessing his campaign.

shelley23 said...

Really? No swinging, hanging or pregnant chads? RT@nytimespolitics The Caucus: Despite Close Finish, No Recount in Iowa http://nyti.ms/z20p3W .
Http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/no-need-for-recount-in-iowa-caucus/?smid=tw-nytimespolitics&seid=auto,
According to the “Despite Close Finish, No Recount in Iowa” article, ive come to an agreement with author MICHAEL D. SHEAR. I feel like there’s really no need for a recount in votes. Why? Because it doesn’t guarantee who for sure gets the 25 delegates to the Republican nominating convention. The article does say that the caucus is used as a guide for state’s Republicans as they hold local and state conventions during the upcoming year to elect their delegates, which makes it pretty evident to why there’s no need for a recount. The Iowa caucus has grab ahold of my attention greatly and I must admit that I may watch the Iowa caucus as its being shown tonight. Me personally, I had no idea that government could be so interesting if you actually took the time to read and analyze.

Q Oliver said...

@nytimes: Update: Mitt Romney Wins Iowa Caucus by 8 Votes
http://nyti.ms/xsibQ1
The first caucus of this election season was held in Iowa, which showed the Mitt Romney won the GOP election by 8 votes. Since Rick Santorum was so close behind the next states (New Hampshire and South Carolina) will either show how these two will be in a race for election or their will be a clear front runner. Rick Perry also decided after the results of this caucus he decided to return back to Texas. The other GOP candidate Ron Paul had the most votes for people under 40, while lacked substantially for over 40. As for the Democratic Party, having only one candidate, Obama will be running again. Knowing that this race for party candidacy is close that it could split up the GOP party for the future presidential elections. Hopefully in the upcoming elections there will be a breakout in the party leader so the party will have full support behind this candidate. These upcoming primary elections and caucuses are key.

woodyleonard said...

thecaucus NYTimes The Caucus
No Need for Recount in Iowa Caucus http://nyti.ms/wmHsiR

The Iowa caucus was one of the closest presidential caucuses in history with Mitt Romney beating Rick Santorum by eight votes out of 60,022 total votes. Even though the votes were extremely close there was no recount because the caucus is not a deciding election, but is a nonbinding preference poll to give republicans an idea as to where they stand. The poll showed that they are neck and neck.
I agree that it was not necessary for a recount because this was not a deciding election that could change who gets the nomination. Although it is very important for giving the candidates and voters an idea as to what to expect, there is no need for a recount because even if the results were wrong and Rick Santorum had won by a few votes it is still so close it could be considered a tie.
-Jack Leonard

Jack M. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jack M. said...

In the article The 5 things we learned from the Iowa Caucuses, by CNN’s political reporter Peter Hamby, it illustrates the things that voters and campaigners can take away from the elections. The five main points that this article discusses are “Mojo trumps money, Romney's ceiling isn't getting any higher, Evangelicals still matter, Ignore Ames, and The Iowa way or the highway.” These five points entail points about Rick Perry spending four million dollars on ads and getting 10% of the vote while Rick Santorum spent thirty thousand dollars and got thirty thousand votes.

This article is very interesting because it shows you not only what happened in the elections, the results, and how it happened but it also show the lead up so the reader can see the perspective. For example, it in the article it includes a paragraph about how Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman might soon drop out of the race. This added so much to the story and the understanding of why the Iowa caucuses are so important.

Chris Cole said...

Romney Wins Iowa Caucus by 8 Votes http://nyti.ms/xN2oK0
In the closest Iowa Caucus voting since 1980, Mitt Romney won the election by 8 votes, beating the likes of Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. The election was taken by Mitt Romney because of who he appealed to, allowing his business-based background to be a huge factor in voters’ decisions. It is also apparent that the people of Iowa are still uncertain as to who they really support, based on how close the voting was. I don’t blame the voters for not being so sure on who to vote for, especially in this important of a time period. They want to make sure they pick the right person to potentially go on to beat Obama in the presidential election, if it so happens that way. In tough times where people are running out of money and are losing their jobs, they want to depend on the right person to represent them and take them back to better times.

Cooper said...

Summary: The first set of Caucuses was held in Iowa this year. Senator Rick Santorum and his supporters celebrated his strong showing in the Iowa caucuses. He then began to prepare for his stop in South Carolina 2 days before the New Hampshire voting will take place. Santorum’s supporters were excited about his close loss (by 8 votes) to Mitt Romney and look forward to carrying his momentum further into his candidacy. Santorum looks to capitalize on Iowa who has voted for every Republican candidate since 1980. The next states are South Carolina and New Hampshire; those two states will really decide how the voters believe in more and will be key to each of their candidacies.
Reflection: One of the Republican candidates is slowly gaining ground apparently, although I personally haven’t heard of this individual before, his supporters speak very highly of Senator Rick Santorum and he seems to be doing very well thus-far. This story goes back to the idea of elections which is what we have just begun to study. It will be interesting to see how far the Senator goes and how many more strong showings he can provide the people with. His next primary elections are vital to his candidacy. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9942345-after-strong-iowa-showing-santorum-camp-looks-ahead-to-sc?ocid=twitter

Christina B said...

NBCPolitics: NBC Politics - Romney edges past Santorum in Iowa caucuses photo finish
http://on.msnbc.com/xGZYew

At the Iowa Caucus last night, Romney had ended the night with a victory by a mere 8 votes with Santorum trailing closely behind, and Ron Paul finishing third. Although Romeny won the Iowa Caucus, Romeny and Santorum stayed closely tied throughout the entire night, each with about 25% of the votes. The other candidates who did not place in the top three must decide whether they want to, or if it is smart to continue to New Hampshire and South Carolina.

The Iowa Caucus is so important becasue in many cases, it has predicted which candidtae has gone on to win the nomination for their political party. In my opinion, the Iowa Caucus result is important and can help determine the leader in the race, hoever with results as close as 8 votes difference, as was demonstrated last night, there is no telling who is truly ahead. There are still many other states and votes to take place before one can assess who the winner will be.
- Christina B.

Anonymous said...

Iowa Outcome: What it Means for the President - http://wp.me/p4HKM-T3U
The CNN article talks about how the close competition in the Republican party between Santorum and Romney is an advantage to the Democratic party. The competition between the two could make Romney adopt more conservative ideas which in turn could make him lose the important votes of citizens in the middle of the spectrum. The article also talks about how the Republican enthusiasm has not increased and the struggles within the political party are not strengthening their side of the race. I do see how this close competition between Romney and Santorum could really negatively affect the Republican party because while it is believed that Romney will prevail in the end, the competition with Santorum is just more opposition that President Obama will have on his side that he won’t even contribute to himself.

Sydney D

DillonS said...

Romney edges past Santorum in Iowa caucuses photo finish. on.msnbc.com/xGZYew

Mitt Romney beat out Rick Santorum in the Iowa Caucuses by only 8 votes. Romney had a total of 30,015 and Santorum ended up with 30,007 out of a record setting 122,255 total votes. After the Caucuses, Newt Gingrich Congratulated Santorum for his campaign while showing criticism toward Ron Paul and Mitt Romney's campaign. I feel that having a close race like this is exciting. I feel that Newt has been a classy act throughout his campaign and Republican debates and understand why he is upset with Romney. For example, the bet that he made with Governor Perry at a debate was uncalled for. The Iowa caucuses serve an early indicator for the presidential nominee and that is why Perry, Bachmann are reassessing their campaigns at the moment.

Jacob Burdett said...

This year’s Iowa caucus produced some of the closest results of all time. Mitt Romney came out on top gathering 24.6% of votes, 8 more than second place contender Rick Santorum and followed closely by Ron Paul with 21.5% of votes. The Iowa caucus is a very important electoral event because it is the first major event of the nominating process and it often shows an early indication of who will be the frontrunner of each political party. With the margin of votes so close, this election is shaping up to be a very exciting one that will come down to the last vote. It will be very interesting to see if Romney can stay on top of the polls competing with the young and enthusiastic followers of Paul and the recent rise in support of Santorum.
http://huff.to/xhNXDo

Anonymous said...

Mitt Romney wins the Iowa Caucuses by 8 votes over Rick Santorum. Romney is still the favorite to win, Perry and Bachman need to rethink things. Santorum ready for New Hampshire, Romney calls Obama a failure. Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn reported the official vote count at 30,015 for Romney and 30,007 for Santorum. Each candidate pulled in about 25 percent.
ZEEV F

Abby said...

From @FoxNews: ‘Mitt Romney Wins Iowa Caucuses by Tiny Margin’ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/03/gop-candidates-await-iowa-verdict/)

Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum in the Iowa GOP Caucus, but only by eight votes: one of the closest elections in Iowa history. Matt Strawn, Iowa GOP Chairman, reported the official count to be 30,015 votes for Romney and 30,007 votes for Santorum. Both candidates got about twenty-five percent of the total number of votes. The Iowa Caucuses are very important because they are the first big step for the presidential election in November. Although Iowa is just one state, the candidates who finished last must decide whether to continue campaigning and hope to do better in the next states, or drop out of the election altogether. Personally, I was very surprised at exactly how close the results were between Romney and Santorum. This story closely relates to our studies of government because elections are a huge part of the political process.

Julie Wheeler said...

The article that I read is about what people have learned about the Iowa caucuses this year. It tells how though Romney won by 8 votes Rick Santorum almost has the upper hand now. He will be getting a lot of media attention now for being so close behind Romney which for him that will be good for the people of America to see him in the high light. This article also tells how it is a lot harder than it looks to run for President. There is a lot of work you have to put into it and you have to be organized and have good preparation. Romney for now has the upper hand but anything can happen from here on out. The Iowa caucuses were almost like a heads up to everyone, showing them how the presidential candidates are looking so far.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/eight-lessons-the-iowa-caucuses-taught-us/2012/01/04/gIQAjNOIaP_blog.html

My opinion is that the race is between Romney and Santorum. There is still a good chance that Ron Paul could catch up. Nobody really knew at first about Rick Santorum so I think he got a lot of people’s attention now with the Iowa caucuses.

Ian Marks said...

Michele Bachmann Dropping Out After Iowa Caucus? Candidate Confirms Press Conference: http://huff.to/xLxoZg

Just 10 minutes ago, Michelle Bachmann announced that she is dropping out of the race for the Republican Party presidential candidate. Bachmann dropped her bid after placing sixth out of the seven potential candidates (only beating John Huntsman). Her announcement will potentially allow for a dominant leader for the republican candidates. I expected her to either drop (not this soon )or stay as a weak candidate that would keep votes away from the dominant republican candidates. Her radical tea party ideas lead Libertarians and Disaffecteds (look at PewResearch for what I mean) to vote for other candidates while taking away strong republican votes for herself.

Anonymous said...

Tweets CBS News @CBSNews 9h
Details Iowa caucus results: Mitt Romney beats Rick Santorum by 8 votes http://bit.ly/AhTn31 (via @CBSNewsHotsheet)

According to the polls in last night’s Iowa Caucus, the results revealed an incredibly tight race for the election of a single Republican candidate. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum made the night interesting with neck and neck results until Romney proved to be the stronger candidate, winning by merely eight votes. However, Santorum established himself as a candidate in the race whereas before, in opinion polls, he was not expected to finish in the top three. Although Santorum did well last night, Romney has an edge in the upcoming New Hampshire Primary seeing as he owns a vacation house there.

The results of the Iowa Caucus were undoubtedly interesting and certainly give way for a suspenseful night on January 10 when the New Hampshire Primary will take place. Perhaps Santorum’s turnout was so shocking due to his lackluster preparation compared to Romney’s, which displayed organization and time dedicated. The Iowa Caucus is something that our government class should certainly be knowledgeable about considering it is one step in determining the Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential election.

Natalie J

Lauren Edmond said...

From @IACaucuses: “Romney wins Iowa. http://patch.com/A-pRXy #iacaucus”

http://marion.patch.com/articles/santorum-romney-and-paul-tied-for-lead-as-iowa-caucus-votes-being-counted

“Romney wins Iowa” is the headline that rings out from many news articles today but how prominent is that? Romney won with 30,015 votes came in a very close second at 30,007, eight votes away, almost a tie. Paul came in a decent third with 26,219, Governor of Texas Rick Perry falling into fifth with 12,604, and Iowa native Bachmann lagged in at sixth with only 6,073. Most of the candidates had their high points with Bachmann leading first until Perry announced his candidacy. Perry stayed on top till poor performances at debates then it was Cain’s turn until he had some personal struggles with running a campaign and dropped out. Romney looked like the man to win it until Santorum jumped in at the last minute and made an impressive finish. Officially Romney won, but how important is that figure in determining the possible winner of the nomination when two other candidates came in respectively close? The next several caucuses will determine just how valid Iowa’s determination will be in the grand scheme.

Anonymous said...

Romney Edges Out Santorum to Win Iowa Caucuses
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/03/gop-candidates-await-iowa-verdict/
I believe that Mitt Romney will end up winning the Republican Party nomination. The Caucus projects who will win, also Romney is the favorite to win. Santorum still has a chance so I don’t think people should count him out because he did only lose by 8 votes, 30,015 to 30,007. I think Ron Paul has a chance to win also, but Bachman and Perry are out.
ZEEV F

JoshT said...

@NBCPolitics What the entrance poll told us about Iowa’s outcome http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9935735-what-the-entrance-poll-told-us-about-iowas-outcome#.TwPxZKrPf5U.twitter

The Iowa Caucus of 2012 has been a head to head battle between three major candidates. Of those three, former Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney seemed to take the upper hand in the Caucus by receiving the majority vote from the elderly, the Evangelical Christians, and a large percent of the business oriented middle class. With this in mind it may seen that the Iowa Caucus is leaning towards Romney however, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum is not out of the race yet. He along with the old Texas congressman Ron Paul, are still in the fight following closely behind Romney and the ultimate goal for the most votes.
The Iowa Caucus of 2012 is a very important event that begins the initial stages of the presidential election. Issues such as abortion, the federal budget deficit, the economy, and health care are at the heart of the intense debates that are taking place tonight. I believe that the underdog Ron Paul will pull through, but Romney is not making it easy for the old congressman from Texas. We can only hope for our candidate until the overall votes tonight determine who receives credit for the Iowa Caucus.

Josh T

jack attack said...

The 2012 Iowa caucus was one the close’s elections that has ever been held resulting in an 8 vote difference for the win. Mitt Romney came out on top taking 24.6% of the votes. Although Mitt Romney’s win was remarkable, the biggest story of the night was Rick Santorum finishing second with 24.5% of votes. The Iowa caucus is perhaps one of the most important electoral events because it is the first event of the nominating campaign of the year and often shows indications of the way the rest of the process will turn out. It is America’s first data about the race. The shocking results of an underdog finishing second indicate that an exciting nominating process is underway. Even more shocking that Mitt Romney, a major republican candidate finished only 8 vote’s ahead santorum. Hopefully for the sake of republicans many of the major candidates will rise ahead in the standings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/iowa-caucus-results-2012_n_1179079.html#liveblog?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000008
jack leslie

patrick said...

The outcome of the Iowa Caucuses of 2012 was a huge surprise to the nation. Although Mitt Romney won the overall votes for the night, Rick Santorum come in a close second. Coming out of nowhere and shocking the nation, Rick Santorum only lost by a very significant 8 votes.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/287135/iowa-caucuses-two-ricks-enter-one-rick-leaves

This article shows how significant the American voter is. Though no one really knew who Rick Santorum was, those who believe in him have now made him an icon. By coming in second so close behind Mitt Romney and beating the rest of the well-known candidates he has shown the country that he has many supporters behind him and is a worthy candidate.

Niko P said...

@donnabrazile Really? No swinging, hanging or pregnant chads? RT@nytimespolitics The Caucus: Despite Close Finish, No Recount in Iowa http://nyti.ms/z20p3W

The Iowa caucus came down to an eight vote difference that gave Mitt Romney the win for the Republican Party. In many voting polls a recount would be desired, but because the Iowa caucus is just to show public opinion, a recount wasn’t necessary.

I share the idea that the recount was unnecessary, but what we can take away from this vote is that the Republic race is going to be a tight one between Romney and Santorum. As stated in the article, the caucus is merely a guide and not a deciding factor in the Presidential election race. This race between Romney and Santorum is neck and neck at this point, and I’m interested to see what the real outcome will be.

Eugene L III said...

The Iowa Caucus was close and had an unexpected finish. The winner was predicted correctly but the second place contender came out of nowhere and ended the polls with an eight vote difference. Mitt Romney won but Santorum came in a very close second.
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9929201-romney-edges-past-santorum-in-iowa-caucuses-photo-finish?ocid=twitter
My opinion on this article is very nonchalant honestly. I cant vote and even when I can I wont be voting for either one. It was a very close race and I do wish to see how the whole 2012 election turn out.

Daniel K. said...

With Romney being the number 1 candidate against Obama, it is the Democrats that can be overwhelmed with happiness to know that Romney only won by 8 votes. This is proving to be that though Romney’s path may be clear and good, he shows less of a threat now, then he did before the caucus.
TPM Talking Points Memo
Democrats can barely contain their glee over Iowa results: tpm.ly/xBWLib
Favorite Undo Retweet Reply

I like to agree with the story, in such way that Romney is now a weak opponent against Obama. Because with the amount of money Romney spent on Iowa, he still had to convince the conservatives to vote for him. Obama has a clear sense of where his opponent stands on the political spectrum.

Megan Riney said...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/santorum-tells-abc-news-a-win-in-iowa-is-not-the-culmination-its-the-start/

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has voiced his positivity about his campaign, going from 5% of votes in the Iowa Caucus, to ending in 2nd place with 24.5% of votes. Santorum states that if he does become president, he will always show respect for President Obama, and not state the President is to blame for any failures during his administration, although Santorum does not always agree with his policies. I have a lot of respect for Santorum for making this statement about Obama, showing maturity and focusing on the responsibility of what it means to be President of the United States.

JonathanW said...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/iowa-caucus-winners-1972-mitt-romney-win-iowa-ll-republican-nomination-gallery-1.1000771

After the Iowa Caucus, it appears that Mitt Romney may be the front runner for the GOP nomination. However, history has shown that the Iowa caucus results do not always guarantee a nomination. In 2008, Mike Huckabee won his Iowa Caucus, but lost the nomination to McCain and in 1992, Tom Harkin won the Caucus but lost the nomination to Bill Clinton. I do believe that the Iowa Caucus has relevance. This article forgot to mention that many of the candidates who won the Iowa caucus not only won their nomination, but also became President. A few examples are Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Both won the Iowa Caucus and became President.

Nicole K said...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57351791-503544/iowa-caucuses-why-the-race-was-so-close/

This article is basically summarizing the results of the Iowa caucus. It goes on to talk specifically about the winner, Mitt Romney. The article states that "A third of Iowa caucus goers were self-identified Republicans who considered themselves somewhat conservative or moderate on political matters", knowing this, it is clear that he would be the winner since he won 37% of conservative and 48% of Republicans, along with 36% of wealthy voters (who Santorum only received 23% of), 32% of senior caucus goers (who Santorum only received 19% of). The article goes on to explain that Santorum received most of his votes from evangelicals, who represented 58% of caucus goers, and Tea Partiers, who represented 34%. Ron Paul, the third place winner, was the favorite among young and independent voters, who compromised 31% of the caucus goers; Paul won 48% of caucus goers under 30 years of age and 44% of self-identified independents. I find this extremely interesting because it seems that the other two candidates won with help from their personal values, but Ron Paul won out the people who, in my opinion, generally go by what the candidate wants for the country, and what they think is best for it. It is interesting to me because it seems that that part was less important to the caucus goers, shown in the fact that Ron Paul came in third. I also find it interesting that people say that Obama's election in 2008 was largely due to the younger voters. We will see how it pans out!

Nicole K

hunter said...

http://dcist.com/2012/01/putting_the_iowa_caucuses_in_perspe.php

Mitt Romney was the winner of the Iowa Caucuses by a very slim margin. The article says that there are two million registered voters in Iowa and only 122,000 voted yesterday. This is less than the amount that voted for mayor in DC last year. I think that the fact that more people voted for the DC mayor than did in the Iowa Caucuses is a sad thing. There are more people in Iowa to vote so they should have had more voters than the DC mayor elections. Our government is something that can only work if we have almost all of us participate. The fact that so few participated in the Caucuses is sad and we need more people to actively participate in the government because whoever is elected President is in charge for four years and we want the man who will do what is best for the country.

Cameron said...

Mitt Romney beat out Rick Santorum in the Iowa Caucus yesterday, and in the article the author wondered or asked the question why there was no recount. The author goes on to explain that caucus’ are just to see how each state is going to vote and which candidates are doing well and vice versa; it serves as a guide. If this is true then there should be no reason for any of the candidates to drop-out, in fact if they are falling behind in the race at this time I would believe that it would give them more motivation and to try to work harder to gain the republican nomination. Yet, Michelle Bauchmann dropped out of the race losing in the Iowa Caucus. But for what reason? Senator John McCain, after placing 4th in the Iowa caucus, made a comeback and won the Republican nomination back in 2008. Our representatives, running for Republican nomination, should use this only as a tool and to judge where they are so they can become stronger from it, and nothing more. And if candidates do dropout after just a guideline vote, then how can we expect them to run a country? When it gets to hard will they quit? So maybe this is more than just a simple guideline vote?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/no-need-for-recount-in-iowa-caucus/?smid=tw-thecaucus&seid=auto

Marcy Applebaum said...

Mitt Romney Wins Iowa Caucuses by Tiny Margin http://fxn.ws/wBxMsS

Fox News wrote a report about the results of the Iowa caucus, which Romney won by a close margin to Santorum. The candidates are moving forward to New Hampshire, but Perry is considering heading back to Texas. Since this article was written, Bachmann has dropped out.

From the information in this article, I have truly realized how close the election is for the Republican Presidential candidate. Each candidate left has a close chance, and everything they do and say between now and the other states’ caucuses will be very important. I look forward to keeping up with the news about the elections.

Katherine P said...

Bachmann Quits Race, Says She'll Fight For Issues #iacaucus http://t.co/cjvxGfOm

After placing sixth in the Iowa Caucuses, Michelle Bachmann decided to quit the race. Despite dropping from the race, she says she will continue to fight for the causes highlighted in her campaign.

If she wanted to fight for these causes so badly, then she should have stayed in the race and tried to get elected to the presidency. If she were president, she would be able to do more for these causes than she will be now that she has dropped from the race. Also, even if she didn’t become president, she could still at least inform people about these causes that she supposedly cares about through further campaigning.

Claire Criss said...

CBS Politics: Live Vote for Caucus Result - http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9920475-live-vote-predict-the-winner
According to the live polls of who people were assuming would win the caucus, Ron Paul would have won with a majority vote. He is followed by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

This is very interesting because the results were the opposite- Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and finally Ron Paul. This shows that in only one sector of the country, people’s beliefs were very different and it shows that the election process is long and changes constantly.

Beys said...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/04/bachmann-says-she-will-not-continue-in-the-race/?smid=tw-thecaucus&seid=auto
The Iowa Caucus is an event where candidates for the Republican Party gather together in order for voters to see where both parties stand each year. The Iowa Caucus is important because it allows for voters to choose which candidates are most fit for running and winning, and it also narrows down the competition by bringing out the worst in some candidates, causing them to realize they shouldn’t continue forward. Representative Michele Bachmann announced that she will no longer continue forward on her path to being chosen as a Republican nominee. Her campaign was falling rapidly and with no bounce back during the Caucus, she decided to wave the white flag. In my opinion, I agree with Bachmann’s decision to drop out. I feel that with 5 percent of precincts at the Caucus, she stood no fair chance amongst republicans. I feel that from watching the news before the Caucus that Bachmann knew that without a very big turnaround at the Caucus, she did not have a very fair shot at becoming nominated to run for President. Continuing the campaign would be a waste of money and time no her part and she was smart to pull out early.

Selina R said...

I chose to read the article “Decision Day In Iowa: Why Mitt Might Win The Caucuses”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/decision-day-in-iowa-why-mitt-might-win-the-caucuses-the-note/. This article was written by Michael Falcone and Amy Walter. They both believe that one top contestant is Senator Rick Santorum. Rick Santorum is considered hardworking, social skills, and loyalty to the Iowans. Rick Santorum has visited all 99 counties in Iowa. He has even visited some counties more than once. The exact words of why he would have success would be “it will be a combination of his relentless courtship of Iowans and his appeal to social conservatives.” However, Michael Falcone and Amy Walter also like to believe that Mitt Romney is another top contender. Mitt Romney has “has covered more ground in Iowa this week than he has during the rest of the primary season combined.” He rode a bus throughout Iowa stating, “Conservative, Businessman, Leader.” Not only has media and popularity helped Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, but their own opponents have bumped them up in the polls, such as Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich. I agree partly with this article. For one reason, I believe in this article and the success of these two candidates, is because their hard work, loyalty, and popularity will help them in this race. However, I do not believe that the votes of Iowa predict the result of the whole race.

Dainelle W said...

Mitt Romney Wins Iowa Caucuses by Tiny Margin http://fxn.ws/wBxMsS

The Iowa Caucuses is an extremely important electoral event because it often shows us how the rest of the nominating campaign will turn out; however with the results from last night’s Caucus, we can’t be so sure. Fox News posted this article today about the Iowa Caucuses that occurred last night with Mitt Romney winning with just a mere eight votes in front of Rick Santorum; this was the closest any candidate has ever gotten in Iowa election history. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, despite completely ignoring this contest early in his campaign, managed to pull slightly ahead of the other candidates last night in the election with Ron Paul trailing in third with 22% of the votes.

I believe that the Iowa Caucuses are important but this year, with Romney and Santorum so close in popularity, there is no telling who will end up pulling ahead in the campaign. It will be interesting to see the outcome based on how close these Republican candidates are.

JonathanW said...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/romney-wins-iowa-caucuses-by-eight-votes/story-e6frf7lf-1226236776807

This article is talking about how Mitt Romney won the Iowa Caucus by such a slim margin. However, the article mainly talked about the comeback of former senator Rick Santorum. It explained how he was considered a “political dead,” but now had an almost win at the Iowa Caucus. The two front runners for the Republican Party took the caucus as a victory because of the slim margin of victory. The two candidates’ even took shots at current president Obama. They both said Obamas presidency was a fail, and that the republicans were on their way to taking back the white house. This shows how the Caucus is important because it is separating the candidates, and now the best candidates are shown.

-cole b

Sterling said...

donnabrazile
Really? No swinging, hanging or pregnant chads? RT@nytimespolitics The Caucus: Despite Close Finish, No Recount in Iowa http://nyti.ms/z20p3W

This Article summarizes how close the vote between Romney and Santorum had been, and why there was no recount. The reason is, despite this vote being a gague of how well each Republican candidate would fare in the actual vote for who will be the Republican deligate. The Caucuses are merely a popularity vote, although they are a good representation on the chances the candidates will have at getting votes if they were given the position of presidential candidate, which is what makes these caucuses the most important. This vote is an example of politics in the U.S., where the two Republicans use the caucuses to raise support and get voters for them. While government states that the candidates must be chosen from each party, Politics states that the candidates can raise funds and support to win favor for their selection.

RidaB said...

This article is from 2 days ago. They discussed three major story lines from the entrance from the entrance polls thus far. If Paul were to win it be because of the young voters from ages 17 to 29 and the independent voters. Romeny's would be because of electiblity. Evangelicals will be the leading cause of Santorum's win. Each of these potential candidates could reflect our government, and the future of America. Especially with Paul were to win. Considering that most of the voters he's getting are from ages 17 to 29. Which would mean he's got many changes that could benefit us.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9930868-three-major-storylines-from-the-entrance-polls-so-far?ocid=twitter

Blair S. said...

Iowa caucuses launch intensified stage of GOP campaign
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/03/9923361-iowa-caucuses-launch-intensified-stage-of-gop-campaign?ocid=twitter

This article about the Iowa caucuses discusses just how important the outcomes of this event are to all the people running for the Republican presidential nomination of 2012. In recent polls, the front-runners are Romney, Paul, and Santorum with Perry, Gingrich and Bachmann hoping for better than expected results to help bring their campaigns back to life. Romney, the favorite, has been singled out and scrutinized over his healthcare beliefs while others are either pointing out Romney’s problems or just focusing on their own campaigns. With all the controversy, Romney is calm and hoping for a victory in Iowa to keep his momentum moving toward the next state elections. After the Iowa caucuses are over candidates are going in different directions. Paul, Santorum, Gingrich, and Huntsman are going to New Hampshire, while Perry, Bachman, and favored Romney will go to South Carolina to start campaigning.

In my opinion the Iowa caucuses sets the tone for the whole Republican presidential nomination as an indicator to forecast the winner of the nomination. With Romney favored in Iowa he needs to win so he will not lose any momentum. If Romney wins in Iowa, the focus will shift onto him and will make his campaign much more difficult. This will give hope to all the other candidates running and should develop into a good race.

Morgan C. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Morgan C. said...

In a few words, “The race is still wide open,” Publisher Steve Forbes summarized the 2012 Iowa Caucus. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney struggled in a close race, with Santorum up 50 votes in the last few minutes of the race. Romney came back in the end, producing a total of only eight votes more than Santorum.

The 2012 Iowa Caucus was a perfect example of the phrase: “Every vote Counts.” The Caucus relates to our study of government in demonstrating the importance of American citizens to accept the responsibility of voting. Just eight people affected the final results of an election that many say could determine the Republican nominee for the 2012 Presidential Election.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/04/steve-forbes-romney-did-not-close-the-deal/?mod=WSJBlog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Morgan C.

Mercedez Spears said...

Iowa Caucus is an event held by the counties of Iowa where residents consolidate to elect delegates for the presidential nominating conventions. This even is important because it is an early indictor for likely candidates to win or dropout of the presidential election.
The article I chose speaks of the 2012 vote counting mishap. It is found that the Iowa Republican Party is at fault for a miscount of the votes. With 20 votes uncounted it shall soon be concluded that Santorum will be Iowa’s winner, not Romney.
HuffPostPol HuffPost Politics
Vote-counting mistake in Iowa could mean Santorum was the actual winner huff.to/yjDFrL
This article intrigues me in our studies of the political pathways. In this case the electoral event comes to mind. Voting seems to be the most accurate and equal to approach things. When an error is found in the final tally it makes me question who is in charge of counting the votes? Are errors commonly found and not reported?

-Mercedez S

Ryan said...

The Iowa Caucus is an electoral event in Iowa that kicks off the presidential race. The reason that the Iowa Caucuses are so important is simply because Iowa is the first state that gets to show their support for a certain candidate. Psychologically, this sets a tone for the rest of the country; in terms of personal opinion for some, and simply to see where the country stands for others.

Perry to 'reassess' campaign http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9934324-after-disappointing-iowa-finish-perry-returns-to-texas-to-assess-future-of-campaign?ocid=twitter

Despite Rick Perry’s continuous spending of money in attempts to rally voters, he finished far back in 5th place in the Iowa Caucus. Because of this, he’s forced to go back home and “reassess” his campaign in terms of financial availability and his chances in South Carolina.

Rick Perry’s future as a candidate does not look bright. As we have defined ‘politics’ as the process and campaigning, not the government work, Rick Perry has spent way too much money, time, and effort too early in this presidential race. In my humble opinion, he was too anxious out of the gate.

Ryan R.

Meagan said...

With First Debate This Week, We Really Are In Campaign's Final Stretch http://n.pr/SSXB8C

The presidential campaigns are nearing their end. The primaries and conventions are over, now it’s time for the candidates to worry about the debates. According to NPR, the polls are currently in Obama’s slight favor, however that might change after the debates.

With the election just around the corner, the candidates have a lot to focus on. There is a lot of pressure on these debates and a few small mistakes could cost the election. Both Obama and Mitt Romney are probably practicing at any moment they can to make sure they stay in America’s favor.

Meagan F.

Amanda Kadesky said...

GOV_AmandaK: NPR Politics ‏@nprpolitics
With First Debate This Week, We Really Are In Campaign's Final Stretch http://n.pr/SSXB8C


Its seems that the public is only just getting interested in what is happening in the presidential elections, when they should have been concerned a month ago. But now is the time where the two candidates are going to dish out all they have at each other to try and get the swing states’ votes. Right now Obama is in the lead, but still does not have enough Electoral College votes to win the election for sure. Things might go either way in the upcoming debates for the better or worse for either side.
-Amanda Kadesky

Bryce H. said...

In this article, viewpoints on the debates from several sources are presented. NJ Governor Chris Christie (Rep.) believes that Romney will use the debates to quickly even out the polls. However, PA governor Ed Rendell (Dem.) and Whitehouse advisor David Plouffe set the bar quite high for Romney, saying that he will need to be tied in Ohio within a week to ten days for his strategy to be successful.
This story displays how seemingly important the debates are. Many Republicans believe that Romney is running out of time to make up ground, and the debates are his best chance to do so. I think that the debates are very important because they allow voters to compare the two candidates’ policies side by side.

Erika said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Erika I:
Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters
Expectations game in full swing for U.S. presidential debatehttp://reut.rs/W5KJe9

Both President Obama and Governor Romney are trying to lower American’s expectations for the first debate coming up on October 3 in Denver, Colorado. However, many sources are claiming that Governor Romney’s debating skills will win him an edge in the election come Thursday morning. Finally, the article predicts that both presidential candidates will try to speak more directly to the families of America, rather than traditionally arguing against each other and trying to win an argument.
After reading this article, it seems that both candidates are trying to calm all of the hype surrounding the upcoming debate because they don’t want to disappoint viewers and potential voters. While they will still debate to their best abilities and try to win over swing votes, it is fairly certain that they will do less fighting and more speaking about what their intentions for the future of America are. Overall, this article asserts that the debate will not be as intense as the country is expecting.

Will.S said...

Mitt Romney Seeks To Seize The Debatehttp://abcn.ws/QFT3AQ

The upcoming debate is crucial for Mitt Romney and the republicans. Romney understands the magnitude of this debate, as he stated back in early september that this debate could quite possible make or break the election. Romney truly believes that once American sees both presidents debate, they will support him because “he knows how to get the economy going again.” Mitt Romney knows that he is already the underdog, and he can now lay it all on the line. This is his chance to gain back some ground. He realizes Obama is a very gifted speaker and has more experience than him, but knows he will seize the opportunity.

Conor said...

The beginning of the presidential debates is considered the last milestone of the election, hinting that we are coming close to the end. The first of these debates, set at Denver University, will focus on Domestic Policy. With President Obama seemingly leading the election with 52% of the swing votes, Governor Romney will need to have a strong debate in order to try to catch Obama in the polls. If Romney fails to gain support of more swing voters, he will have a difficult time winning the election.

The link to the article I read is posted below:
http://n.pr/SSXB8C

Connor said...

GOV_ConnorH:
-The Caucus ‏@thecaucus
Candidates Head Into Debate Week on the Attack http://nyti.ms/SfWgJf
-The article gives a brief introduction on what the candidates are doing, and saying about the debate coming up. The biggest example would be that the Republican party released a new website (failedpromise.com) “which they billed as a comprehensive guide to candidate Obama’s debate promises.” They continue to discuss the retaliations each party has done against the other side.

- At this point, I am really not shocked that there is this much aggression between the two sides. I find it incredibly irritating to even listen to all this fighting between the two parties and most of the time I tune myself out of listening to it. This is inevitable however, and after reading this article I am certain that the debate will be full of hostility, which I will be prepared for.
-The presidential campaigns and their allies began the week with aggressive attacks on the candidates’ records ahead of the first presidential debate on Wednesday. Both sides are hoping to lay the groundwork for an aggressive debate as national polls show a tight race. Polls in key swing states continue to show Mr. Obama with a significant lead.

Jamie Quirk said...

Obama is considered to be excellent during debates, but has flaws giving speeches. During the debate, in order for Romney to win, he needs to make Obama stumble on something really big to make him mess up while presenting his ideas.

Maya S said...

PipelineDC ‏@PipelineDC
Great piece on debates by @theprospect. It reminds us that they rarely change an outcome http://ht.ly/e7je4 #election2012

The debates don't have to contain shocking moments or turn a loser into a winner and vice versa in order to be useful to the democratic process. We get to see how the candidates react to a high-pressure situation, even if it isn't quite the same kind of pressure they'll face in the Oval Office. As the most extended look the public gets at the candidates during the course of a campaign, debates usually produce demonstrable learning about issues on the part of those who do watch. Particularly during the less-predictable town hall debate, the candidates may be forced to take a stand on issues that haven't been discussed before. Who knows—maybe this year, for the first time, the debates will prove so spectacular (or catastrophic) for one of the candidates that the race will be decided by what happens there. Even if not, they're still worth watching.

Michael Roseman said...

Will The Debates Decide The Winner? It's Debatable: http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2012/10/01/161788226/will-the-debates-decide-the-winner-its-debatable?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw


The article above explains the importance of the presidential debates leading up to the election day. These debates might have a slightly more importance to Mitt Romney because he has not yet fully recovered from the “47 percent” scandal, and because he is behind in the polls in almost every swing state that he needs. Obama is not in the clear though with high unemployment, and troublesome foreign affairs in the middle east. While these debates might decide who will be our president in November, that is not always the case. The only thing that matters is who is ACTUALLY voted for in November, rather than just polls on the news. Only time will tell who that will be, and who will be our next commander-in-chief. Debates can be a campaign raiser or killer. The opportunity to gain massive amounts of support after the debates is there, but the opposite can also happen, and could send either party's campaign in the trash. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will attempt to use these debates to make a final push for the elections, and after they are done, we should have a good idea of who will win in November. As all know, the election is never for sure until after election day is over, and the next president is announced.

Will A said...

As the first presidential debate approaches, all eyes are on Mitt Romney. While President Obama has been in a national debate for presidency, Romney has not. It can diffidently be sure that Romney will be questioned multiple times about his comments on the 47% of Americans that will not vote for him and don’t pay income tax. He will also be questioned about his taxes, how he makes five times more than the average American, yet he pays about half the tax rate. If Romney can pull through and create his presence, it will be a huge boost for his campaign and his chance for presidency.

Amanda Kadesky said...

The presidential debates are not required under the constitution, but it is necessary for the public to see the two candidates verbally battle on the same stage, and not through the media. The debate also signifies the final stretch in the election and is the lat time the two can formally express their opinions to the people of America. Therefore these debates are critical in the final decisions on who to vote for.

-Amanda Kadesky

Paige Hughes said...

Obama, Romney hunker down for debate prep. http://bit.ly/Suell6
Sarah Courtney from Fox News describes the importance of the upcoming presidential debate, the first debate of many to come. She details the preparation techniques of Romney and Obama, noting that Romney has been devoting a greater amount of time to debate practice. It it emphasized that this first debate has a dramatic impact on the course of the race. The core of this article focuses on the value of making a meaningful impact on the opinions of the debate viewers, which relates back to the idea of a government that is based largely on the views of the people.

Maiken C said...

As the presidential campaign is in its final stretch , it is now that Obama and Romney will have to start worrying about the debates and how to get the population of America to vote for them .Small errors and mistake could cost them greatly and have them lose them lose the election.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/10/01/162075439/with-first-debate-this-week-we-really-are-in-campaigns-final-stretch?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw

Kai Assoun said...


With the first presidential debate around the corner, we the people turn to our candidates to gives us an idea of the policies and changes they will make during their office. People tend to ask themselves do the presidential debates really change the voters opinions? This article tell the reader that only two debates between 1960-2004 have made a difference in voters opinions. I believe that the debates are not going to change voters opinions but rather reinforce why they are choosing their candidate to win.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/29/presidential-debates-rarely-have-much-effect-on-election-outcomes.html …

Sarah Colley said...

http://ht.ly/e7je4
In the article “Will Wednesday Be a Game Changer? That’s debatable.” on The American Prospect, Paul Waldman discusses whether or not these debates will have much of an impact on Americans. He started out the article talking about how when the debates had first begun, people paid more attention, and they were more impactful. Today, the candidates are good speakers and are able to talk about certain topics for over half an hour. Also, most people today already have their minds set on who they’re voting for, especially the people that are going to watch the debates. Because of all of this, the debates are not likely to make a huge difference in the outcome of the election.

Ellen Vance said...

Gov_EllenV;
Election 2012 News ‏@President
Obama, Romney hunker down for debate prep. http://bit.ly/Suell6
In an article from Fox News, Sarah Courtney tells us about how the presidential candidates are preparing for the debate on October 3rd. As expected President Obama has not had very much time to prepare with his duties as President. Mitt Romney is able to focus on the debate and prepare by traveling to Denver early and adjusting. He has scheduled many debate practices and is surely discussing strategy. Obama is aware of the fact that Romney needs a moment in the race that will change the opinion of viewers. We will have to see if after the debate the polls show any change. The public needs to see how Mitt Romney will persuade the public to vote for him. It is obvious that President Obama will just need to show up in order for the public to vote for him, but Romney will need to have a game changing moment in this debate. Mitt Romney will need to really prove he will fight for this presidency and change the view of millions in this debate.

Thomas Norman said...

Gov_ThomasN
The Prospect @theprospect
The debate answer that could secure the president’s re-election
https://t.co/hdqt2DA3
This article is President Obama addressing the debt crisis. He explains that he will, if re-elected, he will initiate a process to raise the debt ceiling. He wants to remind the American people that raising this debt ceiling is “not a matter of spending more money.” but is “a matter of honoring a debt already incurred and thereby preserving our credit rating.” This embrace the President makes on the debt crisis is a profound look on how things will strengthen with patience in the long run.

Jake Fletcher said...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/debates-matter/index.html

This article explains to us all the importance of debates. Debates very rarely effect the outcome of the campaign, but it does allow people to better connect with the candidate that they think they're going to vote for. It allows them to get a better view of their candidate and lets them form greater opinions about them. Since their opinions are now greater, it will encourage them to speak their mind and give them a bigger will to go vote than normally. Debates also allow people to connect with their candidates better because they actually get to see their candidate's views more in-depth than normal.
-jake

Brandt Wood said...

reut.rs/V8HhS6
The premise of the story is that relatives of the victims of the Batman premiere shooting are asking for Obama and Romney to discuss the the event at the debate. I feel that the discussion of the topic would be respectful and would show the humanity of the two candidates. Considering that the debate is taking place in Colorado, it would be the right thing to do. This has significance because it shows that even presidential candidates have hearts, and it would show that the people truly can influence what goes on in the government (they can personally create a topic at the Presidential Convention).

Sadie Rinker said...

http://abcn.ws/Qn6kw0

This article gives multiple articles on different point of views on the topics that we can be expecting for the debate. I believe however, debates will not make a difference, unless there is some dramatic statement or something that turns the tides the other way, debates will not change anything. Because we are getting so close to election day, everyone is pretty positive who they are voting for and why. This article also talks about how close the race actually is. It is almost a dead split, and with that case, then the debate really will matter.

Mark_Moebius said...

bit.ly/OAVENE
“The upcoming presidential debates may not move the polls very much. But if they do, credit may be due...to the media personalities commenting on the debate.” I think that this is an interesting claim because it shows just how much of modern society is influenced by media of all types.

Kylie said...

Barack Obama ‏@BarackObama
Mitt Romney’s crocodile tears aren't likely to fool anyone heading intonext week’s debate: http://OFA.BO/r1RduZ
In the video, Obama claims that Romney cries what he calls, “crocodile tears”, this meaning an insincere show of emotion or false tears. He uses interviews and news comments to back up his claims, whether they end up being true or false. By releasing this video so close to the presidential debate, it plants seeds of doubt in the American people’s minds about who Romney is and what he actually is standing for.

Jodie R. said...

NPR Politics @nprpolitics: http://n.pr/Vinu0Q

In this article, Ken Rudin discusses how the Presidential Debates can determine the winner of the election. Looking back at history, it’s debatable. In fact, the debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon was a complete game changer. Kennedy knew how to use the cameras to his advantage, looking nice and presentable, but on the other hand Nixon was not ready for the cameras and he looked unhealthy and sick. This is one major reason why he lost the election. This article proves how important the debates are to the candidates and how they must impress the 60 million people who will be watching.

Meredith Tadewald said...

Meredith T.

The American Public believes that the presidential debate on Wednesday is Mitt Romney's last time to attempt to sway the polls in his favor. They also believe that President Obama will reveal a lot about his ability to govern for 4 more years. Obama is consistently ahead of Mitt Romney, and has been for over a year. CNN says that Mitt Romney needs to depend on more than “a wing and a prayer” and that his appearance in this week's debate should shake things up. For President Obama this debate means something very different. If he successfully wins then he will hopefully prove his potential for next year, and Romney will have a low chance of turning numbers in his favor.

Scout S. said...

http://abcn.ws/SWzvKj

Given that President Obama leads Romney by double digits, 52 percent to 41 percent, in the all-important swing states, according to the most recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll, it would seem that the outcome of the debate will have little impact on the outcome of the election.

Cole said...

NBC Politics ‏@NBCPolitics
Weaknesses for both candidates heading into debate http://nbcnews.to/U6YX11

In this article tweeted by NBC Politics, NBC breaks down the vulnerabilities of the two candidates. Each candidate has two vulnerabilities, which will be used against the candidate in an effective way. Whoever uses rhetoric more efficiently will win the debate or maybe even the election in general.

Nicole :) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nicole :) said...

The Prospect ‏@theprospect
On the eve of the 2012 presidential election's first debate, here's a retrospective on debates past: http://ampro.me/SSMTtt 

This article begins by discussing the history of debates in US history, then goes on to describe how the Debates work and who watches them. The article also mentions that the debates do not have a large impact on the election results. It also states that debates are important because the public is able to see how the candidates respond to high pressure situations. I think it is important that the debates don’t actually sway many voters to either side, that they mainly solidify the candidates points and show the public how candidates will deal with pressure, which can help solidify people's votes.

Nicole H.

Danielle M said...

"OBAMA: Announced in June that his administration would permit many young illegal immigrants to live and work in the U.S., and supports Dream Act’s path to citizenship. Favors broader reform combining more secure borders with expansion of the legal immigration system, but didn’t make it a priority.

ROMNEY: Favors a long-term immigration overhaul but opposes amnesty. Wants to tighten borders and crack down on undocumented workers. Opposed the Dream Act’s path to citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, but expressed interest in giving them legal status. Wouldn’t deport young immigrants who received work permits under Obama’s order. Favors easing rules for job creators and highly skilled immigrants.

WATCH FOR: Romney has labeled Obama’s new immigration stance a politically expedient measure instead of a long-term fix. But its popularity with Latinos helps Obama cast Republicans as obstructionist."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/02/wsj-guide-to-first-romney-obama-presidential-debate/

Matt Johnsrud said...

The unemployment rate is something that is going to have to be discussed during tomorrow's debate. During Obama’s first term the unemployment rate was just below 8% and no president has been re-elected with a rate this low. Romney claims to create 12 million jobs in his first term and Obama is going to have to match that claim with his own plan to create more jobs. This topic could be the tipping point on who wins the election.

Gabby.s14 said...

David Gergen‏@David_Gergen

Tomorrow's debate could have a powerful impact upon Obama's ability to govern in a 2nd term: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/opinion/gergen-debate-stakes/index.html … #CNN

It is widley known that Romeny has a lot to prove in the upcoming debate, which many people might not know is that Obama has just as much work to do. He really needs to show that he is able to lead in a second term and turn this country around. If he wins this debate, it can give him reasurance that he is that much closer to winning the election. A debate win will gain him the vote of all the Americans that are on the fence about who to vote for.

Caroline said...

We need leaders who understand that keeping the peace requires American strength in all of its dimensions mi.tt/V7C5Om
Romney believes that we will have consequences for ignoring and putting the problems in Syria on the back burner. Romney says that these issues will escalate and cause the United States to be involved. He states that this cannot happen for the next four years, these first four were long enough.

Katie C. said...

ABC News Politics ‏‪@ABCPoliticsTwo Audiences, Two Unelectable Candidates and One Much-Hyped Debate ‪http://abcn.ws/Vq7qu7

The audience is made up of independent voters who are either slightly for Obama or undecided. Romney will need to convince the undecided and win over the others who are siding with Obama. There are 2 audiences: the independent voters and the undecided; and the media, the press, and others who will comment and criticize the debate. I believe that the pressure is on Romney and many people think this will be easier for Obama because the media believes he is ahead. Romney has a lot of work ahead of him.

Nic said...

The Monkey Cage @themonkeycageblog
Why News Coverage of the Debate May Matter More than the Debate: Part II http://bit.ly/Vc7IGi

They use a reference to the Bush/Gore debate. He uses the visual of a graph to point out the percent of Bush's negativity to Gore's negativity, it is a spiral downward graph. He believes that the debates are getting into too much negativity and not enough about each sides belief. He suggests that with all the negativity, uneducated voters are not getting a valid reason to vote for one side or the other. He also points out the involvement of the press in modern politics.

Sarah V said...

Two Audiences, Two Unelectable Candidates and One Much-Hyped Debate http://abcn.ws/Vq7qu7

This article is talking about how Romney and Obama will be judged during the election. It says that Romney is going to have to try really hard to move voters from Obama to himself. It also says that he will have an easier time with the independent voters more than the people in media and press. I agree with the article when it says that Romney will have a harder time in the debates then Obama. Since a lot of people in the media think Obama is ahead already, Romney is going to have to try really hard to move voters from Obama to himself. Some of the most important things for Romney to do in this debate is connect with the voters, act well-mannered, and not to say anything that will make the media pounce on him.

Adam Mitchell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Adam Mitchell said...

NBC News‏@NBCNews http://nbcnews.to/QVRdc1

The race is looking pretty even on both sides with Obama being favored slightly, but on most of the most looked at issues , such as the economy, the two candidates are even. It is thought that the presidential debates will not change anything unless something drastic happens. I do not think that the debates will really change the race much. I think that the debates will let the people understand their candidates a little better but overall it is just a time to let the two argue and throw cheap shots at each other.

Sophia Rankin said...

Pew Research Center ‏@pewresearch http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/02/obama-expected-to-win-first-presidential-debate/

This article explores the outcome of the Presidential Debate on Wednesday. It concludes, from recent polls, that 31% of all voters expect Obama to do better than Romney in the debate. The article also gives the estimated percent of people tuning into the debate. I feel these data demonstrate the importance of the Presidential Debates. It is interesting to see how many people are involved in and following this whole process; and the number is proof that the debates make or break the candidates.

Eric Hernandez said...

GOV_EricH:
NBC Politics ‏@NBCPolitics
The ballot measures to watch in November http://nbcnews.to/W8pwA4

In this article, they are talking about how it is important for people to go out and vote because whoever becomes the next president could also affect their local laws that they have in their state. Some of these concern vary from gay marriage to marijuana legalization. Many of these issues can decide which candidate they will vote for in November.

Zoe said...

Election 2012 News ‏@President
Weaknesses for both candidates heading into debate.
http://nbcnews.to/QB0Mwq

Nobody is perfect, and the same goes for the President and his current opponent Mitt Romney. Both men have flaws, and weaknesses’ going into tomorrow night’s presidential debate. For Obama, his vulnerabilities include an unclear plan for his second term and how his re-election would stop the “partisan fever” in the nation’s capital. On the contrary, Romney’s shortcomings include an almost identical economic plan to President George W. Bush and his “lack of specificity”. I look forward to seeing, as the article puts it, which candidate can better address the others vulnerabilities.

Fergus de Papp said...



Wall Street Journal ‏@WSJ
Poll: 62% say presidential debates "not at all important" or "just somewhat important" in picking candidate. http://on.wsj.com/QLmxNI


Less than half of voters think the presidential debates will be “extremely” or “quite important” in determining their choice for president. This poll is discouraging for Mitt Romney. He is trailing behind Obama and needs to make up ground and “reset” the race. Mitt Romney is not a natural debater and is not able to really relate with the middle class citizen. Obama is a strong debater, but he has a tendency of being arrogant and condescending,which has cost him in the past. Polls can be deceptive, so we will see if Romney can take the lead in the presidential race by outperforming Obama on Wednesday.

Gregory.I said...

During the Presidential debates it is important to keep an open mind; however, in the past debates it has not been this way. All three of these sources say that the debates do not drastically change the outcome. But it also gives me the impression that it does matter when the race is close. Certain mistakes and conversations actually change some votes, but overall most Americans will not change their original thoughts.
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/09/29/the-right-perspective-on-debates/#.UGnEUNcMp2A.twitter

Leonel A. said...

"The first part is referred as the “Aw-shucks Time” where the two candidates are entering the stage and introduce themselves, appealing to the public but not “showboating” to them; next is the actual debate, which is called the “Tension City” (term introduced by former President George H. W. Bush), and my personal favorite is the final part called “The Spin” which is where both candidates go to a room backstage and tell reporters why they believe that the opponent lost and what they found to be their strong points. The article then goes off in how they both prepared for the upcoming debate by getting all their supporters together, which is quite interesting because this shows how important the debates are to these candidates."

THE BLAZE @theblaze
OBAMA VS. ROMNEY: THESE ARE THE 3 COMPLEX PHASES OF U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-vs-romney-these-are-the-3-complex-phases-of-u-s-presidential-debates/

Ericka G said...

I said...
There is only one day left until the presidential debate between Obama and Romney begins. Who is going to win? In this article it shows the percentage of voters for both candidates. Currently, Obama is in the lead but not by a lot, there is still a chance that Romney could catch up. “Obama’s lead was five points, 50 percent to 45 percent, in the NBC/WSJ poll released two weeks ago”. I am looking forward to see how both candidates do in tomorrow's debate.

NBC Politics ‏@NBCPolitics
NBC/WSJ poll: Obama maintains lead, Romney within striking distance http://nbcnews.to/QVPR10

BraydonLilley said...

Presidential Campaigns Rock The
Gamer Vote http://n.pr/V7B8W2
Four years ago presidential campaigns advertised themselves in games. For example, In Need for Speed: Carbon, Obama campaign urged voters to vote for him. This swayed the opinion of gamers in the favor of Obama. This helped Obama win his presidential campaign back in 2008.

BraydonLilley said...

"This is Need for Speed: Carbon, one of 18 games that the Obama campaign advertised in during the 2008 campaign. This year, President Obama is back at it, running ads in Madden NFL 13, on the free online game site Pogo.com, and in mobile games like Tetris"

Davis Devereaux said...

bit.ly/co7pAa
In @KarlRove 's article, he discussed the states that are considered "toss ups". By this he means which states still are either undecided or are fairly even in terms of who they are voting for. I am interested in seeing which state goes where, and hopefully by the debate, it should be more clear on which way these states are leaning.

Laura Scully said...

@GOV_LauraS Christie predicts Romney debate performance will change course of presidential race. ttp://nbcnews.to/V1JJJZ
Governor Christie believes that the debates on wednesday will fundamentally change the course of the presidential race. Romney has been significantly behind Obama in the race to become president. Christie believes that after Wednesday night, that will change. In the article, Christie criticizes Obama multiple times over the past debates he has had. He criticizes Obama for not being specific about the promises he says he’s going to fulfill about creating more manufacturing jobs.

Blair Moore said...

Both Candidates think that the lack of jobs is a huge problem and America and each have their own views on how to raise jobs. Governor Romney believes that in order to raise jobs we need to cut taxes permanently to increase investments and job hirings. On the other hand, President Obama believes we should temporarily cut taxes but also thinks the government should supply more aid to the states with less money, in order to keep teachers, road, and all the other necessities. It will be an interesting topic at the debate.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/us/politics/claims-likely-to-surface-in-debate-and-facts-behind-them.html?hp&_r=1& …

Tristan said...

Gov_TristanC: CBS News ‏@CBSNews
Obama camp plays down debate expectations - http://cbsn.ws/Plsc8F
It is a couple days before the high-stake debate begins and the Obama campaign is lowering the expectations of Obama. In this article, Obama claims that he is the underdog in this debate. President Obama says that “Romney is a good debater” but he “is just okay.” He is selling himself short trying to show the American people that he is the underdog in this debate, which he is clearly not. The strategy of Obama and his campaign declaring that Romney is a more disciplined and better debater is interesting, but we will see how it plays out on Wednesday night.

william L said...

Gov_WilliamL @WSJwashington
ttp://on.wsj.com/SzYMoh #debates
There are many topics that the candidates will debate about on wednesday night. The candidates views on these topics will prove to the nation how they plan on changing and fixing the country. Some of the most important topics that will be debated on will be medicare, taxes, and how to fix our nation’s economy. The candidates have both proven to be good public speakers so the viewers of this debate will be able to focus more on the plans of the two candidates, rather than who can talk the best, like in past years.

Tony de Bruyn said...

@Gov_TonyD @nprpolitics
History Says Debate Moments Matter. n.pr/QqZohn
In the history of Presidential Debates, it is shown that debate moments matter. Candidates must be aware of different things during the debate. These moments make them more likeable to the people. The candidates must also be aware of the fact that they are on TV, and to stick to their talking points. These debates can bring success to the candidate who wins.

Chase Correll said...

@Gov_ChaseC @CNNOpinion
Debate advice for Romney and Obama. http://t.co/2pfH9eJs
With the debate coming up tonight, analysts say that in order for Romney to help sway votes, he must “throw deep”. As for Obama, he needs to remember that he is the president and there is only one of those. He needs to have a good offense to abstain from being on the defense the whole debate, but he does not need to be an attack dog.

Celeste Laster said...

@GOV_CelesteL @Harvard Biz
Tonight's presidential debate will be decided by body language s.hbr.org/WjU81F
Everyone always pays attention to only what is being said, but sometimes you need to see more than that. Body language is also important and have an influence on what they are saying. Nonverbals show strength and warmth and show whether their responses are rehearsed or not. People need to pay attention to these nonverbal signals.

TC said...

Gov_ToriC @WSJwashington wire
Why the little things matter - on.wsj.com/QKQ6f5

“It’s all in the eyes in the beholders.” Appearance becomes less important to the reactions and little things the candidates do. Sighing, looking at his watch, or pacing around the floor are some of the little things noticed. The little characteristic things the candidates do during the debates are key factors in swaying the undecided voters and poll numbers.

Meagan Ellis said...



Gov_MeaganE @NBCPolitics
Weaknesses for both candidates heading into debate http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/02/14181603-first-thoughts-breaking-down-the-vulnerabilities?lite?ocid=twitter
In this article, it talks about how the two candidates, Romney and Obama, are showing each others weaknesses to get ahead in the polls. Taken from different places it is clear that Obama is in the lead. Both Candidates have a large vulnerability going against them, but whoever addresses their vulnerability and how they are going to fix it in the debate this wednesday will come probably come out on top. My hopes are that Romney wins the election tonight.

Thomas J. said...

GOV_ThomasJ @ABCPolitics
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/what-you-need-to-know-before-tonights-debate/#.UGxrjNBfFtc.twitter

This article outlines the parameters of tonight's debate. It is important due to the fact the majority of American's do not understand how a Lincoln-Douglas style debates works, or they just don't care. Either way, it is important to see that the debate is supposed to be integrated with questions about domestic issues, but will be skewed with questions about character. I don't know why they wouldn't have a debate solely on the character of the two candidates to silence the white noise.

Karen said...

KarenL@washingtonmonthly.com

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2012/ten_miles_square/do_presidential_debates_really039413.php?page=1

This article posses the question, "Do Presidential Debates Really Matter?" Throughout the article, it explains why attitude and even posture are important factors voters need to pay attention to while choosing which candidate to vote for. The article talks about past presidential debates and how voters focus on details during the speeches. People want to feel like they can connect to the two opponents and watching them on television is a tie breaker to who they will choose to vote for. To answer the main question, presidential debate really do matter.

Brent F. said...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/mitt-romney-seeks-to-seize-the-debate-the-note/
This article goes over the predictions on the upcoming debate. Obama is projected to win the debate, simply due to his experience and natural ability. Although it is believed that if Romney can win the economic side of the debate, Romney would be favored.

Maria said...

Howard Fineman ‏@howardfineman
new daily Countdown2012 piece on how the debates are about to freeze the race: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-fineman/presidential-debates-2012_b_1917355.html
In this article, they are talking about how there have been some studies showing that presidential debates do little to move the Electoral College or popular vote, but the candidate's work hard for the debates anyways. Then the article goes on to discuss how the candidates have to practice for the debate, especially Mitt Romney. According the the article, Mitt Romney needs to do very well in the debates. I thought that the debates would help move the Electoral College or popular vote because you get information from both candidates that either go with your point of view or not. The debates would give people chances to change their mind on who they are voting for.
- Maria I.

Anonymous said...

The tweet I found from @HuffingtonPost shared a link to their article about the the Presidential Debates, their website showed the current electoral votes having Obama at 290 and Mitt way behind at 191. These votes obviously have not yet be influenced by the debate, but they do put a stress on the Republicans to catch up to Obama, as he is almost 100 electoral votes ahead. Seeing these numbers before the Presidential Debate tells me that this is going to be a high-stress debate for one side, making it very important. The debates are important because they have the potential to substantially sway the votes either way.
Catherine G

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/presidential-debate-live_n_1927651.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009#liveblog

SahilV said...

Americans are divided on the health-care law, 47% approve, 43% disapprove, http://www.people-press.org/2012/07/12/section-2-the-supreme-court-and-health-care/

The article gives statistical proof of how divided the Americans are on the issue of healthcare. It not surprising that healthcare is a huge issue in the election and the debate. The partisan divide stems not only from the fundamental disagreement about the role of government but also form the impact of the law on the healthcare system as a whole. Obamacare is the landmark piece of legislation for the Obama administration, and the time

SheaS said...

32% of persuadable voters are "very interested" in debates; 59%/53% of "definite" Obama/Romney backers say this http://wapo.st/QGqMXa
This article by Scott Clement states that only 32% of voters who are still deciding whether to vote for Romney or Obama are very interested in the debates. It also says that undecided voters are less likely to vote than those who have already determined who they are voting for, which makes undecided voters even less involved with the final decision.

Kenzie B. said...

http://nbcnews.to/U6YX11

The article I read talked about the vulnerabilities of both of the candidates heading into the debate tonight. It talked about how each candidate had two vulnerabilities that needed to be addressed during the presidential debate. For Mitt Romney, his two vulnerabilities were that he hadn't differentiated his economic policies from George Bush's economic policies and he was never specific when he talked about how he planned to pay for his tax cuts. President Obama's vulnerabilities were that he hadn't fully described what his second term would look like and he hadn't talked about how his re-election would break the partisan fever in Washington.

Sabeeh said...

http://robertreich.org/#.UGjw56Azsvs.twitter
If the payroll survey is significantly more than 96,000 –- the number of new jobs created in August — President Obama can credibly claim the job situation is improving. If significantly fewer than 96,000, Mitt Romney has the more credible claim that the economy isn’t improving.

Travis S said...

ttp://RomneyRyanRevealed.com
On the site, it is input of the effects that Romney’s plans have on all different people, women, middle class, senior citizens, etc. The site is bias towards Obama, so it is pointing out faults in his plan. It states that Romney taking a huge cut tax for the upper class, would leave middle class paying all the high bills.

Travis S said...

http://RomneyRyanRevealed.com

On the site, it is input of the effects that Romney’s plans have on all different people, women, middle class, senior citizens, etc. The site is bias towards Obama, so it is pointing out faults in his plan. It states that Romney taking a huge cut tax for the upper class, would leave middle class paying all the high bills.

AlienorR said...

The Monkey Cage ‏@monkeycageblog
Why News Coverage of the Debate May Matter More than the Debate http://bit.ly/OAVENE

This article states that the candidates during the presidential debates will not noticibly effect the polls. Instead, if the polls were to change, the credit should be given to the commentators on major media networks. I personally believe that the credit should be given to the candidates themselves. After all, the commentators and spectators would have nothing to make opinions on if it weren’t for the candidate’s ideas that would potentially change of our government.

griffin said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/ahead-of-presidential-debate-polls-show-obama-favored-on-key-issues/2012/10/02/9cfc827e-0c93-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_story.html

The article states that so far Obama is leading the election. Although Romney leads trillion dollar deficit issue, Obama leads in every other issue. As of earlier in the week, Obama has a higher growing pace of votes.

Bailey Cummings said...

@GOV_BaileyC The Washington Post‏@washingtonpost Do presidential debates usually matter? Political scientists say no. http://wapo.st/QLYQEM
The argument this journalist is making about the presidential debates, is that they very rarely have an effect on the actual elections themselves. He argues that the majority of Americans do not care about the political stand points of each candidate. He also says that Americans will decide on which candidate to vote for based off less important factors such as a candidates attractiveness and media coverage.

“In short, the effects on debates on eventual votes are likely mild, and, in most cases, effectively nil. Moreover, what effects do exist are often caused by factors wholly beyond the candidates’ control, like media coverage, attractiveness, and whether voters are watching a Nats game in the other panel of their TV.”
I think that journalist was right by saying political debates do not have that much effect on the public. I think most american voters probably do not fully understand what is each candidate is saying concerning their plan.

Kate Berry said...


 The article is saying that the debates may not even really matter because people already made up there mind on who they are going to vote for. 

"In the past, whether the race was thought to be close — as it was with George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000 — or seemingly en route to a blow out — as it was in 1984 with Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale — there was agreement on both sides that the debates could very well settle this thing once and for all.

And sometimes they do, especially when there's one galvanizing moment — or a candidate who exceeds expectations.

Consider President Gerald Ford's 1976 line about Soviet domination in Eastern Europe that seemed to halt his momentum in its tracks. Or a close election in 1980 that turned into a landslide following Reagan's debate performance against President Jimmy Carter. Both debates were cited as reasons why the election results turned out the way they did.

Even when they don't determine the outcome – and history shows that is usually the case — there are moments that stick with us, that remind us how potent these events are. Al Gore's sigh. George H.W. Bush looking at his watch. Admiral James Stockdale seemingly not knowing who or where he was."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicaljunkie/2012/10/01/161788226/will-the-debates-decide-the-winner-its-debatable?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw 

Katie Rostamo said...

http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2012/10/04/clear-win-romney-dont-count-president/26555/


In this article, Joe Brettell compares the performance of both candidates in the debate. According to Brettell, Romney dominated the debate with his use of data on topics such as energy and health care, while Obama struggled to provide good arguments and evidence. Obama had a hard time keeping up with Romney, but Obama is predicted to be much stronger in the next debate and will come better prepared. Brettell also notes the fact that many important topics such as infrastructure and immigration were not brought up. I agree that Romney has presented himself as more of a threat to Obama, and that if he continues to dominate in the rest of the debates, he will definitely be able to sway the minds of many undecided voters to vote for him.

Skippy said...

This debate is crucial for both sides. Romney just needs to counter quickly and Obama needs to just hang in there. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/02/opinion/gergen-debate-stakes/index.html

Caitlyn Shannon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Caitlyn Shannon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Abby J said...

@ABCpolitics
In this article, “Presidential Debates Rarely Change Votes, but Stakes Remain High”, In the Washington Post Poll, says that “the outcome of the debate will have little impact on the outcome of the election. "However, in some states, they don't run any ads.The one thing that the most people see is the debates" (Watkins). This is the one universal debate that everyone will be watching. Anytime that advertisments can be made, it is important. Every year the percentage of undecided voters varies, so that number of undecided voters can lean more to one side. Although this isn't the most important debate that the president's will make, they still need uphold everything that they have said for the whole campaign.

--Abby J.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/debates-matter/index.html

Ford Noble said...

GOV_FordN Fox News Politics @foxnewspolitics
Campaigns launch into expectations game ahead of vital presidential debate http://fxn.ws/S6n6Ub
The article discusses the importance of the debate regarding the swing states. Focusing primarily on Romney, his falling behind in the Presidential race, and his advantages in the debate. Obama’s political adviser says Romney has the issues on his side, but Obama has the skills to oppose his aggressive debate techniques. Axelrod, his adviser, believes that these advantages Romney has will not hinder Obama’s ability to confidently prosper in the debate. The article gives a good perspective on predicted outcomes and advantages, as well as strategies and techniques. Polls claim to predict Obama as the victor, we will see this Wednesday...

justinator said...

GOV_JustinM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/thinktanked/wp/2012/10/03/presidential-debates-and-voter-respect-the-importance-of-debates-and-more-am-briefing/
The presidential debates are important as they are a way to put candidates in a situation they cannot control for an unbiased ad.
In the months leading to the presidential debates. All we see related to the election is a bunch of garbage ads that are obviously biased. With the presidential debates, Americans get to see candidates in a situation where they can’t say ‘cut.’ There is also two to three hours of uninterrupted television, something that is extremely hard to find nowadays.