here they are, the key stories from the past year providing the purest opportunities for major mocking and scoffing and taunting as determined by the executive council of the Comics, Clowns, Jesters & Satirists Union. Me.
Can the number of times a candidate is mentioned affect their prospects, or is it the other way around? We sought to examine some of these questions by studying opponent references in the 2012 Republican primary debates.
Disclaimers aside, let's see what emerges when we analyze the Republican primary debate text using a very simple automated sentiment analysis technique.
The polls over the last few months tell a story of the changing moods of American voters, driven by specific events though the consistently point to Obama having an advantage in the Electoral College.
A couple months ago I blogged about my brother-in-law, a swing voter. Given the tightness of the election this year, and given the fact that he is the only genuine swing voter that I know, this is a subject I have not been able to put down.
If we learned anything from the presidential debates, we learned that body language counts. Your gestures and movements speak louder than words. Here are four cues from the presidential and vice-presidential debates on how to strengthen your marriage with your body language.
Let us think of the presidential debate cycle as a four-act play, a miniseries with a distinct beginning, middle and end. We have seen the first three acts -- now comes the denouement.
Right now, the debates are forums in which the worst impulses of the candidates, pundits, and voters all come together to encourage us to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason. So let's remove the distraction.
On the whole, students at the University of Tampa seem wicked smart, energetic about learning, and engaged with the world and breaking news. That is why the video below is so sigh-inducing.
It may finally be the case that "gay" has turned a corner and is no longer the wedge issue it once was, or that we may at least be close to seeing both sides of the aisle realize that they need to accept what the majority of the country already accepts.
We're living in an impatient, impulsive, instant gratification world. Interrupting, interjecting and talking over others has become the new norm. Seems everybody wants to get a word in edgewise.
Mitt Romney is a multi-tasker. All those pundits lambasting Mitt for his lack of specifics, or for his herculean ability to completely change his mind in the space of, if not a moment, then most certainly an election cycle, are missing the point of the man.
After the first presidential debate, which gave Romney a four-point bounce, nobody is doubting the debates' importance. But as we ready for tonight's round two, I'm wondering: What exactly are the debates teaching us about the candidates? As they're presently constituted, they don't give an accurate idea of what a candidate might be like as a president. Take the prohibition on notes -- when is a sitting president ever going to be faced with a situation in which he's going to need to make an important decision without availing himself of any outside information? It's fun to see how a candidate responds to a zinger, but it'd be much more instructive to see how a candidate goes about seeking information that he doesn't know. So what about at least one debate that is structured to resemble the decision-making process a president would actually go through in office?
The president has big shoes to fill, with much riding on his ability to shed the urge to stay above the petty fray that is Washington politics.
Both parties believe they win every debate and, without exception, try to make the best of spinning the results to influence the voters. But, spin was not necessary to explain the first two debates nor could it change what occurred.
As the American public's disillusionment with fighting the war deepens, the precarious support base in Congress and mainstream policy circles is dwindling. The administration cannot afford to dawdle any longer.