Comments on: Election Analysis Part 1: Maroon Endorsement http://sg.uchicago.edu/blog/2008/04/24/election-analysis-part-1-maroon-endorsement/ The blog of the University of Chicago's Student Government Sun, 07 Sep 2008 04:16:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Scott http://sg.uchicago.edu/blog/2008/04/24/election-analysis-part-1-maroon-endorsement/#comment-335 Scott Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:56:12 +0000 http://sg.uchicago.edu/blog/?p=162#comment-335 The Maroon's looking for people to talk to them about the election: http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/article/10268 Share your thoughts. The Maroon’s looking for people to talk to them about the election:

http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/article/10268

Share your thoughts.

]]> By: Lisa http://sg.uchicago.edu/blog/2008/04/24/election-analysis-part-1-maroon-endorsement/#comment-331 Lisa Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:18:52 +0000 http://sg.uchicago.edu/blog/?p=162#comment-331 I read the Maroon's coverage on the SG debate, and the Maroon endorsements. In truth, the Maroon endorsements were not compelling enough for me to change my mind. Sometimes, their coverage was a bit offending. I agree with Kevin Brown; they went too far on their attacks against Nick Zhao. Even though I disagreed with Nick, the editorial nonetheless left a bad taste in my mouth. Furthermore, they did not give me enough information to vote for whoever they endorsed. For example, their justifications for endorsing Potok were too general. Besides saying that he does not have any "negatives" associated with him, the Maroon only stated that he had 'good ideas' and understood the role of the Liaison. Ultimately, I based my votes on the Candidate's statement, and judged the debate for myself. I read the Maroon’s coverage on the SG debate, and the Maroon endorsements. In truth, the Maroon endorsements were not compelling enough for me to change my mind. Sometimes, their coverage was a bit offending. I agree with Kevin Brown; they went too far on their attacks against Nick Zhao. Even though I disagreed with Nick, the editorial nonetheless left a bad taste in my mouth.

Furthermore, they did not give me enough information to vote for whoever they endorsed. For example, their justifications for endorsing Potok were too general. Besides saying that he does not have any “negatives” associated with him, the Maroon only stated that he had ‘good ideas’ and understood the role of the Liaison.

Ultimately, I based my votes on the Candidate’s statement, and judged the debate for myself.

]]>