Because of the media, the poll results, debate results and stuff are dictated by them. They put pressure on him, the only opposite being Fox News, of the major ones that is against him, and still ANY publicity is GOOD publicity, even negative. So Obama had to bring up the talking points like the "47 percent" to the table. Though in history how will this be remembered:
Orwell where art thou?, the third debate made Obama look like Bush in every aspect, he wants to attack Iran and Syria. Betrayed his voters with his Foreign Policy I think. Domestic ... well, too much political correctness so I will not mention.
I would agree on that being at least awkward. I would worry more about the working conditions on that matter though, it seems like the sort of situation which would at least unintentionally cause some awkward working conditions for those who are not in line with the company's opinion. It is not in the interest of companies to cause conflict between their employes regarding political matters either. Then again, my experience with US folk so far has lead me to believe that they consider their political views to be highly private and overall avoid those discussions so perhaps it is not a big deal in that department. Anyways, as awkward as companies suggesting votes to their employes is, I admit the opposite, not allowing company owners to say anything would be awkward for me too. I mean, company owners, even if immensely wealthy, are still just people too.... And there is no way to ultimately force anyone to vote for anyone.Say, is this kind of stuff normal? It feels awkward to me, at the very least, not to say disgusting, so I'd really like to know
Well, I guess it depends too... It is entirely possible that any given law that obama is going for could in some form have a negative impact for a specific business. I mean, obama is going for raising taxes. Increased taxes means a decrease in return rates for a business and it is perfectly reasonable that could be what pushes a company to opt for layoffs. I don't think they actually publish who each individual voted for. Even if they publish district information on the matter they would still not be reasonable enough proof of anything unless the company proceeds to fire people based on district results. Even then, I don't think companies in the states would actually risk something like that in such an obvious manner, they would get swarmed by lawsuits in under a minute.
It may not help, but handling the Sandy cleanup poorly would definitely have hurt. Bush's poor handling of Katrina was a key factor behind Democrat gains in the 2008 and 2010 elections. The Republicans were seen as not only uncaring, but negligent in the face of an unprecedented natural disaster. Politics came before human lives and it cost the Republicans dearly.
