Speaking of political issues and political polls...
Fifty-four percent of adults questioned in an April 23-26 nationwide CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll said that marriages between gay or lesbian couples should not be recognized as valid, while 44 percent said they should be considered legal.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
TOPIC 1: Do the 2006 and 2008 elections strengthen or weaken Fiorina's argument for sorting?
Fiorina argues that polarization can be explained as political sorting. Political sorting is essentially those who hold or share similar preferences on issues and ideology will generally vote together. He also states that those who affiliate with any party today, are more likely to affiliate with the ideologically correct party than they were in earlier periods of history. Fiorina and Abrams use the idea of sorting to explain behaviors of the electorate in terms of division. Their belief is that the electorate might be closely divided, it is not deeply divided and this holds true in elections that are closer and more competitive than those candidates who win by landslides.
The 2008 exit polls show these minor divisions in a few instances. CNN exit polls.
When talking about what is more important, issues or personal qualities of the candidates it was both a 60-40 split for both Democrats and Republicans. 60% of voters who voted for Obama felt that issues were more important and 60% of voters who chose McCain said that personal qualities were more important. 60% to 40% is not that great of a division.
When asked about what issues were most important, the divisions are even less evident. The economy was the most important issue in this last election and 53% of Democrats and 44% of Republicans agreed on this. Iraq was the next important issue and 60% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans also agreed on this. On the issue of Energy Policy, 50% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans felt that is was the most important issue. As laid out by these polls, Democrats and Republicans are not divided even though both candidates had stark contrasts on their positions on these issues. It seems that there is not a question of what is important to the voters and their ideologies or values, but how extreme their partisanship or political identification is.
In a New York Times exit poll, there is a political identification poll.
In the 2008 election, 44% of the electorate considered themselves to be independents or moderates. 60% of those moderates voted for Obama and 40% voted for McCain. 22% of the entire electorate consider themselves to be liberals and 34% align themselves with the conservatives.
CNN exit polls for 2006.
In the 2006 elections we see a different story. 26% of the electorate consider themselves to be independents, 38% democrats and 36% are republicans.
Also in 2006, 60% of voters who considered themselves moderates voted on the Democratic ticket and 40% on the Republican ballot.
In 2006, on the issue of illegal immigration both Democrats and Republicans were split 50-50 in agreeing that immigration was an important issue. We see a similar split on the “importance of value issues” and on the “importance of corruption and ethics”.
IMPORTANCE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Extremely Important (48%) 46% 52%
Very Important (52%) 49% 50%
IMPORTANCE OF VALUES ISSUES
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Extremely Important (66%) 40% 58%
Very Important (34%) 51% 48%
IMPORTANCE OF CORRUPTION/ETHICS
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Extremely Important (61%) 59% 39%
Very Important (39%) 51% 47%
Our system is a 2 party system, when we vote we make a choice between 2 individuals based on a political preference, opinion of the candidate, a candidates specific view(s) on issues we care about. Someone who considered him or herself as an independent or a moderate voter is forced to make a vote choice between one extreme and another. A large percentage of the electorate claims that they lie in the middle. Just because that individual votes for an extreme, elite candidate does not mean that the voter is an extremist himself.
Fiorina and Abrams argues this as well. They say that the American electorate is, "a largely centrist public drifting slightly rightward on some issues, slightly leftward on others, but with only very small declines...in the number of moderates."
Politics is polarized on the elite level but the electorate is well sorted and lies towards the middle if not directly in the center. Fiorina also makes the claim that because we agree so much as an electorate our elections are so close and more competitive. His "sorting" theory of voter behavior can also be explained by voters disliking both parties equally and trust neither party. So in election after election in a 2 party, 2 candidate system, both unpopular, their votes get sorted into two roughly equal halves.
I agree with Morris P. Fiorina. When you examine the actual views of Americans, "voters are not deeply or bitterly divided."
The 2008 exit polls show these minor divisions in a few instances. CNN exit polls.
When talking about what is more important, issues or personal qualities of the candidates it was both a 60-40 split for both Democrats and Republicans. 60% of voters who voted for Obama felt that issues were more important and 60% of voters who chose McCain said that personal qualities were more important. 60% to 40% is not that great of a division.
When asked about what issues were most important, the divisions are even less evident. The economy was the most important issue in this last election and 53% of Democrats and 44% of Republicans agreed on this. Iraq was the next important issue and 60% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans also agreed on this. On the issue of Energy Policy, 50% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans felt that is was the most important issue. As laid out by these polls, Democrats and Republicans are not divided even though both candidates had stark contrasts on their positions on these issues. It seems that there is not a question of what is important to the voters and their ideologies or values, but how extreme their partisanship or political identification is.
In a New York Times exit poll, there is a political identification poll.
In the 2008 election, 44% of the electorate considered themselves to be independents or moderates. 60% of those moderates voted for Obama and 40% voted for McCain. 22% of the entire electorate consider themselves to be liberals and 34% align themselves with the conservatives.
CNN exit polls for 2006.
In the 2006 elections we see a different story. 26% of the electorate consider themselves to be independents, 38% democrats and 36% are republicans.
Also in 2006, 60% of voters who considered themselves moderates voted on the Democratic ticket and 40% on the Republican ballot.
In 2006, on the issue of illegal immigration both Democrats and Republicans were split 50-50 in agreeing that immigration was an important issue. We see a similar split on the “importance of value issues” and on the “importance of corruption and ethics”.
IMPORTANCE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Extremely Important (48%) 46% 52%
Very Important (52%) 49% 50%
IMPORTANCE OF VALUES ISSUES
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Extremely Important (66%) 40% 58%
Very Important (34%) 51% 48%
IMPORTANCE OF CORRUPTION/ETHICS
TOTAL Democrat Republican
Extremely Important (61%) 59% 39%
Very Important (39%) 51% 47%
Our system is a 2 party system, when we vote we make a choice between 2 individuals based on a political preference, opinion of the candidate, a candidates specific view(s) on issues we care about. Someone who considered him or herself as an independent or a moderate voter is forced to make a vote choice between one extreme and another. A large percentage of the electorate claims that they lie in the middle. Just because that individual votes for an extreme, elite candidate does not mean that the voter is an extremist himself.
Fiorina and Abrams argues this as well. They say that the American electorate is, "a largely centrist public drifting slightly rightward on some issues, slightly leftward on others, but with only very small declines...in the number of moderates."
Politics is polarized on the elite level but the electorate is well sorted and lies towards the middle if not directly in the center. Fiorina also makes the claim that because we agree so much as an electorate our elections are so close and more competitive. His "sorting" theory of voter behavior can also be explained by voters disliking both parties equally and trust neither party. So in election after election in a 2 party, 2 candidate system, both unpopular, their votes get sorted into two roughly equal halves.
I agree with Morris P. Fiorina. When you examine the actual views of Americans, "voters are not deeply or bitterly divided."
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Veteran GOP Sen. Specter switches parties
A Pennsylvania Senator wants to switch from being a Republican to a Democrat because, "I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans:
Frank and Bartels
I do not think that Frank is entirely correct in some of the assumptions he makes about red and blue states here, but as for his argument that culture outweighs economics in politics, I think he is correct. You have to consider where Kansas is located, what kinds of people are living there and what they do for a living when you consider this argument between Frank and Bartells.
I’ll first talk about the assumptions and comparisons he makes and of red and blue states…
Correct me if im wrong, but isn’t Wisconsin a blue state? I have lived here my entire life, and when I look at all of the things he says about blue states, some of things I do not believe to be true. Both Kansas and Wisconsin are in the Midwest, WI was a blue state and KS was red. We are sort of similar, we like beer, guns, hunting, farming, and nascar. Now onto the arguments.
First of all, I would say that Wisconsin is a fairly humble state…what do we have to brag about? Our dairy farms, beer, cheeses and terrible professional sports teams? I do not see the people that live here as “snobs” or as people who like to “show off”. This is something I see in California (which I realize is a blue state as well), but not here.
How does he even measure that Red states have a better relationship with God than blue states do? Isnt that a little bit subjective? How can one tell if one state is more religious than the other just based on partisanship? As a Marquette alum, I can tell you that it is a campus full of Catholics who get up on Sundays hungover as hell to go to mass. Now if that’s not devotion to your religion then I don’t know what is. In fact, many of my teachers there were Catholic priests, most of whom were, liberals.
“A Red stater is courteous, kind and cheerful” According to the census bureau (http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html) Out of the top 10 states with the highest crime rates, 7 of them were Red, southern states. I don’t think that’s very courteous, kind and cheerful. I also know that most of you, like myself, hold the stereotype of the shotgun totting redneck southern farmer.
“A Red stater is a regular, down-home working stiff, whereas Blue staters are always some sort of pretentious paper-shuffler” I thought farmers got up at the crack of dawn to milk cows, bail hay, and tend to crops until the sun went down? I didn’t know they shuffled paper all day.
On to the culture aspect of things…we have talked this entire semester about political parties, candidates, candidates image and how those factors are major contributors to who people vote for. People in Kansas are farmers. They wear ranglers, flannel shirts, straw hats and live on the ranch all day similar to the cowboy George Bush himself. They probably saw George Bush as someone they could relate to.
In terms of culture, values and issues being more important than money when it comes to politics in Kansas, I agree with this to an extent. Generally farmers are more conservative in their politics, even if they are from the poorest county in the nation. Their values and beliefs are what form their political ideologies, we learned that as well this semester. Conservatives, especially those from Kansas, are bound to have Conservative views on issues such as abortion, gun control, taxes, womens roles, immigration and the like. And because they are hard working farmers, they want lower taxes and believe in the ability to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, they don’t want government hand outs. I think where Kansas and Wisconsin differ and the reason why one is a blue state and the other is a red is because of their culture.
I’ll first talk about the assumptions and comparisons he makes and of red and blue states…
Correct me if im wrong, but isn’t Wisconsin a blue state? I have lived here my entire life, and when I look at all of the things he says about blue states, some of things I do not believe to be true. Both Kansas and Wisconsin are in the Midwest, WI was a blue state and KS was red. We are sort of similar, we like beer, guns, hunting, farming, and nascar. Now onto the arguments.
First of all, I would say that Wisconsin is a fairly humble state…what do we have to brag about? Our dairy farms, beer, cheeses and terrible professional sports teams? I do not see the people that live here as “snobs” or as people who like to “show off”. This is something I see in California (which I realize is a blue state as well), but not here.
How does he even measure that Red states have a better relationship with God than blue states do? Isnt that a little bit subjective? How can one tell if one state is more religious than the other just based on partisanship? As a Marquette alum, I can tell you that it is a campus full of Catholics who get up on Sundays hungover as hell to go to mass. Now if that’s not devotion to your religion then I don’t know what is. In fact, many of my teachers there were Catholic priests, most of whom were, liberals.
“A Red stater is courteous, kind and cheerful” According to the census bureau (http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html) Out of the top 10 states with the highest crime rates, 7 of them were Red, southern states. I don’t think that’s very courteous, kind and cheerful. I also know that most of you, like myself, hold the stereotype of the shotgun totting redneck southern farmer.
“A Red stater is a regular, down-home working stiff, whereas Blue staters are always some sort of pretentious paper-shuffler” I thought farmers got up at the crack of dawn to milk cows, bail hay, and tend to crops until the sun went down? I didn’t know they shuffled paper all day.
On to the culture aspect of things…we have talked this entire semester about political parties, candidates, candidates image and how those factors are major contributors to who people vote for. People in Kansas are farmers. They wear ranglers, flannel shirts, straw hats and live on the ranch all day similar to the cowboy George Bush himself. They probably saw George Bush as someone they could relate to.
In terms of culture, values and issues being more important than money when it comes to politics in Kansas, I agree with this to an extent. Generally farmers are more conservative in their politics, even if they are from the poorest county in the nation. Their values and beliefs are what form their political ideologies, we learned that as well this semester. Conservatives, especially those from Kansas, are bound to have Conservative views on issues such as abortion, gun control, taxes, womens roles, immigration and the like. And because they are hard working farmers, they want lower taxes and believe in the ability to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, they don’t want government hand outs. I think where Kansas and Wisconsin differ and the reason why one is a blue state and the other is a red is because of their culture.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Death of the Republican Party!?
This article I stumbled across when I was looking for articles to post today. It talks about the extreme divisions of the GOP and their failure to do anything to resolve its divisions and problems. The Republicans need a new leader to bring this party back together.
My Political Party
A political party is an endogenous institution shaped by ambitious political actors such as the office seeker and the officeholder. Politicians use these parties as instruments to achieve their goals. The success of a political party, as Aldrich claims, depends on the electorate, the institutional setting, and the historical ideas, values, conditions and development of the party. Collective action and collective choice problems resolve out of these variables. When a party cannot gather support from the electorate, or politicians of a certain party do not agree on the problems that need to be solved, a party eventually becomes divided an unsuccessful. If the Republican party would die out, a different party would emerge because it would not make sense for a new party to mirror the old Republican party. In today’s world, I am guessing an independent party would come to the front or a more moderate party would emerge. I would create a political party that lies in the middle.
If I were to create a party, I would create a party the lies in the middle. Aldrich claims that parties are tools to gain interest and if both parties aim to do this, the party that appeals more to the public’s views should win. Distinct ideological differences between parties splits supporters, why not lie more in the middle to work in conjunction with those both liberals and conservatives. A moderate political party eliminates diversity, would allow for bi-partisan cooperation (as member of my political party would consist of both Democrats and former Republicans), and would represent and connect the public better to their government. That way I could serve the increasing number of people who call themselves independents, and gain support from Republicans who left their own party, more liberal Republicans and more conservative Democrats. Widening my spectrum of support rather than sticking to one political side, leaving the extreme Democrats up to their own devices in their own party.
As far as my political ideology, I do not want to end up like the Whigs have members of my party leave because I do not have nothing to offer them. Aldrich makes it evident that ideology of my new party is extremely important because it is what will pull my candidate away from the other side of the political spectrum. Based off my own political beliefs, the political ideology of my party would contain practical solutions to problems, we would keep an open mind when solving issues hearing many different sides to the problem. We generally would be more Conservative on economic issues, but more Liberal on personal and social issues. Therefore, I would be the leader of the party and members of my party would be a mix of Conservatives and Liberals to reach the middle ground on issues.
That leaves us to our platform. What types of issues do we stress and where do we stand on them? Going off of a list of the major issues of parties, I will briefly say where my part would stand. My party wants to restore the basic ideas that made the United States of America great. Restore and reinforce the basic values of Liberty, Security, Equality, Civic Duty, Individual Responsibility, and Democracy. We need to retain the feeling that we are proud to be American citizens and eliminate the anti-American attitude. My party would insist on honesty and integrity for our leaders, that no one is above the law. In terms of foreign policy, I think that we should keep our noses out of everyone else’s business, that would probably help our relations with other nations rather than hinder. Help only when needed and defend only from internal and external threats as appropriate. With that, we need to take care of the needs of America first and help or give aid to those in need after we have our situation under control. Who are we to help when we are facing one of the greatest depressions in our nation since the 1930s. In order to take care of ourselves and improve our well-being education, technology and science will be stressed. I also feel that today our government is too powerful, my party would emphasize Federalism where states have their own powers and Federal Government has its own distinct powers. Freedom of religion is needed, abortion should be a women’s decision and men should have no say in it because they simply cannot understand the stresses of the issue on a woman, Social security should remain but keep its funds to fund the program and not other programs. Americans need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like my grandfather and parents did when they came here from Yugoslavia (now Serbia) with $35 in their pockets, welfare is sometimes needed but I feel it is abused in today’s society.
I guess I could have a variety of voting blocs that are important to citizens today. The economy, foreign relations, social security, abortion, education would gather groups to support my party.
I really do not know how successful my party will be. A successful political party is a strong, well financed, professional organization, has loyal officeholders and has partisan relationships among the branches of government. Funding is always an issue, but because I am a new party support and loyalty will be a problem that I have to overcome. Also, most people consider themselves a Republican or a Democrat so I do not have partisan relationships or loyalty immediately, however, I am hoping to gain the loyalty of those who considered themselves Republicans before the party crapped out. I would have to change peoples ideology however, and that is going to be a difficult task in itself. Republicans would have to consider themselves Moderates or Independents.
My party’s role in Congress and if I am lucky enough, the White House would take time obviously. A new party needs to develop trust with the electorate, however, being a more moderate party I would have a large number of supporters immediately. Spatial politics claims that people will vote for the policy that is closest to their ideology or belief. In theory, spatial politics would benefit my party because I offer a better policy or stance on an issue than someone who is on one political extreme because I lie in the center, attracting more voters from either side of the middle.
If I were to create a party, I would create a party the lies in the middle. Aldrich claims that parties are tools to gain interest and if both parties aim to do this, the party that appeals more to the public’s views should win. Distinct ideological differences between parties splits supporters, why not lie more in the middle to work in conjunction with those both liberals and conservatives. A moderate political party eliminates diversity, would allow for bi-partisan cooperation (as member of my political party would consist of both Democrats and former Republicans), and would represent and connect the public better to their government. That way I could serve the increasing number of people who call themselves independents, and gain support from Republicans who left their own party, more liberal Republicans and more conservative Democrats. Widening my spectrum of support rather than sticking to one political side, leaving the extreme Democrats up to their own devices in their own party.
As far as my political ideology, I do not want to end up like the Whigs have members of my party leave because I do not have nothing to offer them. Aldrich makes it evident that ideology of my new party is extremely important because it is what will pull my candidate away from the other side of the political spectrum. Based off my own political beliefs, the political ideology of my party would contain practical solutions to problems, we would keep an open mind when solving issues hearing many different sides to the problem. We generally would be more Conservative on economic issues, but more Liberal on personal and social issues. Therefore, I would be the leader of the party and members of my party would be a mix of Conservatives and Liberals to reach the middle ground on issues.
That leaves us to our platform. What types of issues do we stress and where do we stand on them? Going off of a list of the major issues of parties, I will briefly say where my part would stand. My party wants to restore the basic ideas that made the United States of America great. Restore and reinforce the basic values of Liberty, Security, Equality, Civic Duty, Individual Responsibility, and Democracy. We need to retain the feeling that we are proud to be American citizens and eliminate the anti-American attitude. My party would insist on honesty and integrity for our leaders, that no one is above the law. In terms of foreign policy, I think that we should keep our noses out of everyone else’s business, that would probably help our relations with other nations rather than hinder. Help only when needed and defend only from internal and external threats as appropriate. With that, we need to take care of the needs of America first and help or give aid to those in need after we have our situation under control. Who are we to help when we are facing one of the greatest depressions in our nation since the 1930s. In order to take care of ourselves and improve our well-being education, technology and science will be stressed. I also feel that today our government is too powerful, my party would emphasize Federalism where states have their own powers and Federal Government has its own distinct powers. Freedom of religion is needed, abortion should be a women’s decision and men should have no say in it because they simply cannot understand the stresses of the issue on a woman, Social security should remain but keep its funds to fund the program and not other programs. Americans need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like my grandfather and parents did when they came here from Yugoslavia (now Serbia) with $35 in their pockets, welfare is sometimes needed but I feel it is abused in today’s society.
I guess I could have a variety of voting blocs that are important to citizens today. The economy, foreign relations, social security, abortion, education would gather groups to support my party.
I really do not know how successful my party will be. A successful political party is a strong, well financed, professional organization, has loyal officeholders and has partisan relationships among the branches of government. Funding is always an issue, but because I am a new party support and loyalty will be a problem that I have to overcome. Also, most people consider themselves a Republican or a Democrat so I do not have partisan relationships or loyalty immediately, however, I am hoping to gain the loyalty of those who considered themselves Republicans before the party crapped out. I would have to change peoples ideology however, and that is going to be a difficult task in itself. Republicans would have to consider themselves Moderates or Independents.
My party’s role in Congress and if I am lucky enough, the White House would take time obviously. A new party needs to develop trust with the electorate, however, being a more moderate party I would have a large number of supporters immediately. Spatial politics claims that people will vote for the policy that is closest to their ideology or belief. In theory, spatial politics would benefit my party because I offer a better policy or stance on an issue than someone who is on one political extreme because I lie in the center, attracting more voters from either side of the middle.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
ANOTHER article for you guys this week...Superprez!?
Sorry I have links to so many links this week, but politics recently is just fascinating. So much is going on and people continue to have this image of the President that he is Superman. I know we are still in the "Honeymoon" period and I have completely nothing against the President, for he has a lot on his plate and has an incredibly huge job to do, but I thought this perspective was quite different than from what I have seen in the media. History and political science is all about perspective, here is another perspective for y'all to enjoy.
Obama's Electoral Mandate
When we talk about elected mandates, we must first be clear on what an electoral mandate is. I was not exactly sure how to define the term so I did a bit of digging and research on the concept. The term “mandate” is the authority given to someone to do certain things, or to undertake an assignment, or to serve or function in a specific role. In an article I found, it described a mandate in the political context by simply meaning, the authorization to act given to an elected representative. The article also pointed out that a mandate also assumes that both the giver and receiver of the mandate are more or less quite clear about the nature of, and the conditions attaching to the mandate or authority vested in the receiver. Obama campaigned on the mandate for “change” and now as our president he has a mandate to fix our economic situation.
Elections carry messages about problems, policies and programs that can be implemented to change the current political system. President Obama campaigned and sent messages about the economy that was plain to see and affected the entire electorate. His campaign convinced the electorate that he would turn his messages and initiatives into action if he was given the permission, through being elected, to put his messages into action. Also, during his election many thought, including Nancy Pelosi, that Obama’s mandate was not just for change, but for cooperation and bipartisanship as well. And the electorate hoped that finally they would receive a government that would function for the good of the people by governing from the “middle” and not from the liberal “left. I would definitely say that during his campaign he had an electoral mandate to change and reverse some of the right wing policies and attempt to fix some of the problems that the Republican rule of government has brought us over the past eight years. Under President Bush we have gotten ourselves into a war that continues to drag on, our economy is the worst it has ever been since the Great Depression, oil prices have gotten out of control, corrupt politicians have made more than a few headlines are just to name a few. Mandate for a change and to remedy the problems indeed, and it seems that Americans have no problem with it.
Now that President Obama is elected, he is under a lot of pressure from the electorate to fulfill expectations to bring this change; he still does have an electoral mandate. The electoral is expecting change and a resolution to our poor economic situation are they are expecting President Obama to do something drastic to help out the economy. However, we have seen already just with the passing of his economic stimulus package that “change” brings a new period of conflict within U.S. politics. His mandate of trying to run a bipartisan government has been difficult, as most of the Republicans do not agree with the package nor his $3.6 budget in his efforts to remedy the economic situation, he still is trying to gain citizen support and keep our spirits high. The article that I chose for this week describes his progress, future and current problems, and when we will see the benefits of his initiatives and policities. It explains his efforts quite simply. He is trying to fix problems caused by the Bush administration to refinance the banks, fix the economy, and handle foreign policy issues, as well as trying to implement his own policies and initiatives such as health care, stem cell research, education and clean energy. I would say he definitely has a mandate by reversing eight years of problems and bringing about change with his own policies. So by the given definition above that a mandate gives a representative the authority to act and serve out a specific role with the idea that the representative and electorate are clear about the initiatives, conditions and goals, I would say yes, Obama has an elected mandate. People wanted change, and they are getting it.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Obama: Higher Education Standards is key to keeping Country Competitive
As an educator myself, I was pretty happy when I read this article. Our schools need better and tougher standards and policies, ones that dont let students "just get by". We need better teachers, and more programs instead of eliminating them due to budget constraints...after all, the ones who will be running our country in the future are the ones who are educating themselves today. I agree with lifting the ban on stem-cell research. The UK and other nations have been studying with stem-cells for years and this is just one step we need to take if we are to keep up with out international competitors.
Voting Behavior
The exit polls show us how many different factors affected voting behavior in the 2008 election. I chose to look at the differences from 2004 and 2008 among party identification, gender/sex, education/income, and religion. Party identification held constant for the most part, but in the remaining factors, Democrats made big gains as the Republicans lost ground and proved Herrington and Keefe's statements wrong for this past election.
Our book suggests that there are a few factors that influence in how people will vote. The first, and most important, is your party identification. Do you consider yourself a Democrat or a Republican? Depending on how you answer is going to mean which way you will vote as well. Other factors include, gender, sex, party politics, religion, education, and income. Every individual is affected by these factors and therefore influences his/her vote, not every factor affects each individual the same or to the same degree as the next person.
1. Most important political opinion is your Party Identification
- Exit polls suggest that this was true for the most part in the last election where 90% of the electorate who considered themselves Democrats voted for Obama while the other 10% voted for McCain. McCain also receive 90% of the votes from those who considered themselves to be Republican.
- Our readings have suggested that people do not generally switch their party identification all that much, meaning one day they do not consider themselves to be a Democrat and the next day consider themselves to be a Republican. Changes, if they do occur at all in a lifetime, generally take many years. Our book also suggests that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to stick with their party loyalty and identification, as well as show up to vote more so than Democrats that is why this poll is interesting to me for a few reasons. First of all, from the 2004 election to the 2008 election, 89% of Democrats who voted for Kerry also voted for Obama to Bush/McCain 82%, showing that Democrats stuck to party lines more so than Republicans did. Also, 71% of those who voted for Obama did not vote in the past election came to cast ballots in 2008, proving both of those statements Herrington and Keefe told us to be false in this last election.
Vote for President in 2004
Total Obama McCain Other/No Answer
| Kerry (37%) | 89% | 9% | 2% | | |
| Bush (46%) | 17% | 82% | 1% | | |
| Someone Else (4%) | 66% | 24% | 10% | | |
| Did Not Vote (13%) | 71% | 27% | 2% | |
|
2. Gender and Sex
- Women are more liberal/vote Democratic and Men are more Conservative/tend to vote more Republican (H and K, 194). In the recent election, Obama surprisingly won more of the percentage of both women and men than McCain did. With that being said, McCain won the “white” vote whereas Obama won majority of his votes from minorities. The only area where Obama did not lose whites was among the White 18-29 age group.
3. Religion
- Those who attend church regularly are more Republican by todays data (H and K, 194). The trend held true for this last elections. Those who attended church weekly or more than weekly cast more of their votes for McCain than those who attended monthly or less. Herington and Keefe made the point that Republicans hold core traditional family and religious values, which impacts their political opinions (H and K, 195).
- In recent elections of 2000 and 2004, Catholics voted more Republican than Democratic, but the exit polls from CNN suggest that Protestants casted the most votes for McCain while Catholics, Jews, and Other denominations casted more of their votes for Obama.
4. Education and Income
- Those with higher educations tend to vote more than those who don’t and those with higher educations generally have higher incomes and tend to vote Republican (H and K, 192). This next table is also interesting to me, whites who earned more than $50,000 voted McCain while Non-whites who earned more than $50,000 voted for Obama. While Herrington and Keefe generally said, those with higher incomes tend to vote Republican, this table suggests it does not hold true all of the time. My reasoning behind this is that the 2008 election was a stepping stone for minorities to gain a true voice in government by electing the first black president, and when you have African American supporters like Beyonce, Oprah and Young Jeezy supporting you so do the other rich minorities. That may have made the difference in this election compared to what Herrington and Keefe said about income and party identification.
Vote by Income and Race
Total Obama McCain Other/No Answer
| Whites Under $50,000 (25%) | 47% | 51% | 2% | | |
| Whites Over $50,000 (49%) | 43% | 56% | 1% | | |
| Non-Whites Under $50,000 (13%) | 86% | 13% | 1% | | |
| Non-Whites Over $50,000 (13%) | 75% | 22% | 3% | | |
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Earmarks
This article discusses Congress' opinion on Obama's bills and the Congress' power to insert earmarks within them. Congress decides on earmark spending, even though Obama had asked to stop future earmarks, but its ultimately a decision of Congress.
Role of the minority party
The role of the minority party in Congress is to help shape public policy by taking on an aggressive and creative role in the legislative process because they are the minority and lack power. On some issues the minority party cooperates and supports majority efforts and policies when bipartisan proposals are presented. However, what we hear about most often are the attempts by the minority to defeat the initiatives and policies that the majority party presents. The minority party presents alternatives to the majority policies or uses the fantastic method of the filibuster, which gives the minority some power in the Senate, to completely shut and talk down a policy or initiative that may have quickly passed in the House. Taking about the bill and being an opposition by voicing their opinion may make the majority rethink their proposal. If some of the minority members do not agree with it, neither with Americans and that could affect their popularity as well as how they are perceived by the public. This check and balance is a perfect example of democracy at work. The House reflects majority wishes and the Senate reflects popular opinion, and allows for discussion to take place, delaying bills to be passed too quickly and prevent the majority from acting too quickly. It is important for those in the minority to “show up to work” to prevent the tyranny of the majority party.
Our reading suggested that how the minority party acts is a reflection on the current events and conditions of the time period. Our readings gave the example of Republicans blocking liberal tax-and-spend schemes and efforts, which they felt, would weaken national security in an age during a serious global terrorism threat. The minority does block initiatives such as these that may threaten the American people, but they also can block initiatives on purpose just because they are angry with the majority party and feel that they are pushing too much influence in government by pushing through “ambitious legislative” agenda.
What this opposition means for democracy is that in order to preserve and protect Americans rights and freedoms, politicians must work together to shape government. In a democratic system, there needs to be an opposition to voice differences, and hold political debates about issues and topics, otherwise it wouldn’t be very democratic, it would be a majority rules government. The majority party wants to enact a number of different policies and programs into law, and the minority party is free to criticize, halt, and offer an alternative to majority party policies, ideas, and proposals. Bipartisanship is needed to get policies and ideas passed. Broad alliances and cooperation with other members is the most democratic was of passing initiatives and governing the nation effectively. The opposition of the minority party on the majority party is key to any democracy. Struggle and competition is needed in being able to serve the American people and having a successful government, and even though it makes life in Congress difficult, its good for us.
Our reading suggested that how the minority party acts is a reflection on the current events and conditions of the time period. Our readings gave the example of Republicans blocking liberal tax-and-spend schemes and efforts, which they felt, would weaken national security in an age during a serious global terrorism threat. The minority does block initiatives such as these that may threaten the American people, but they also can block initiatives on purpose just because they are angry with the majority party and feel that they are pushing too much influence in government by pushing through “ambitious legislative” agenda.
What this opposition means for democracy is that in order to preserve and protect Americans rights and freedoms, politicians must work together to shape government. In a democratic system, there needs to be an opposition to voice differences, and hold political debates about issues and topics, otherwise it wouldn’t be very democratic, it would be a majority rules government. The majority party wants to enact a number of different policies and programs into law, and the minority party is free to criticize, halt, and offer an alternative to majority party policies, ideas, and proposals. Bipartisanship is needed to get policies and ideas passed. Broad alliances and cooperation with other members is the most democratic was of passing initiatives and governing the nation effectively. The opposition of the minority party on the majority party is key to any democracy. Struggle and competition is needed in being able to serve the American people and having a successful government, and even though it makes life in Congress difficult, its good for us.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Internet influenced links for this week
My first link shows the similarities between Obama and Reagan in terms of tone of voice, optimism, and economic stimulus plans. It also relates to this week to show how the internet gives us information on political issues, because you can watch clips on Reagan's and Obama's speeches.
My second link shows the political vulnerability of the first family of the white house with the media as NBC talkes about the Obama family for not talking about their kids, family lives, their relationships, and their new lives in the white house as much detail as the media would like.
My second link shows the political vulnerability of the first family of the white house with the media as NBC talkes about the Obama family for not talking about their kids, family lives, their relationships, and their new lives in the white house as much detail as the media would like.
Election 2008: Candidate-centered vs Party centric campaigns
In the Cohen et al article, it states that in 2008 election political parties have had less control over the invisible primary process than in previous years. I agree, the 2008 election had was more candidate-centered, and less driven by the candidates party. We see this more from the Republicans than we do from the Democrats, who exhibited more party-like behavior than their counterparts.
Candidate-centered campaigns fail to hear groups within the party. We can first look at the Republican candidates as evidence for a candidate-centered campaign because each candidate had a mark against them that stirred up trouble in their parties. The article states that, in candidate-centered politics, candidates gain endorsements and donations by their political strength. Supporters of candidates consider whether a candidate will advance issues they care about or not, if they do not talk about policies or issues they care about, they lose support or never back them in the first place. This is what happened to the Republican candidates. Rudy Giuliani was unacceptable to social conservative because of his view on abortion, gun control and gay rights. John McCain went against his party oftentimes and did not support the GOP agenda consistently in the Senate. Therefore, he was distrusted by other leading Republicans, and his support for the GOP was divided and sketchy. Mitt Romney was not a good candidate because he did not concern his campaign with issues that social conservatives cared about soon enough. Mike Huckabee raised taxes, which caused a strike against economic conservatives. Fred Thompson was widely accepted in the Republican party, but did not exert enough energy in campaigning. This eventually ruined his support. The Republican party did not have a candidate that could bridge party divisions and campaign hard for the nomination. Each candidate had their own issues and image to portray and did not align themselves enough to represent the party they were campaigning for, and their party had a difficult time coming to a decision as to which candidate was the best to support. They were definitely not agents of their parties.
The Democrats exhibited more party-like behavior but also had elements of a candidate-centered style as well. This was due to the fact that the main frontrunners of the Democratic party were individuals never seen as options for presidential candidates before in history, a woman and an African American. These factors would make it hard for their campaigns NOT to be candidate-centered, but they both exhibited a party-centric approach as well. A newsweek article I found highlighted the differences between the two candidates nicely. Obama advocated conversation and collaboration, in talking with everyone about various different issues that concern the Democratic party, such as bringing together all the interested parties on global warming and having them hash out their differences in a transparent forum, taking the risk that what they come up with will not be his preferred outcome. While Clinton proposed policy solutions to every problem Democrats were concerned about, and she was going to implement policies whether everyone liked them or not. She has the answers, fulfilling our expectations of an aspiring authority figure and the brightest person in the class. Perhaps this was a political move for her image to portray herself as tough, competitive because she was a woman. They were agents of their parties to an extent, but this time around, considering the historical significance of this election, their image and who they were played a significant role in their election (or not gaining the nomination if you are Hilary).
The internet does play a significant role in the campaign process and posses as an extra vulnerability for candidates. Another article I found claimed that the role of the internet played a significant role in the 2008 election. The internet was a major source of campaign news for young people and candidates were using popular social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace and twitter to reach out to young voters. The article stated that 42% of those ages 18 to 29 say they regularly learn about the campaign from the internet, the highest percentage for any news source, compared to January 2004, just 20% of young people said they routinely got campaign news from the internet. Candidates are now constantly in the lime-light, they have to be careful what they say, do, and who they are seen with. Any dirt can be found on a candidate and posted to the internet within seconds. This can work for or against the candidates favor, depending on how quickly a candidate can think on his/her feet, or be real and honest with the public. We have seen this vulnerability expressed numerous times on Saturday Night Live as Tine Fey ripped Sarah Palin’s interview apart. This definitely affected how society viewed her as a candidate. She did poorly in news interviews and was mocked by comedians on the television, which could be watched by millions over and over again on youtube. The internet and the media play a huge role in shaping the public’s view of the candidate, as well as, provides an easy access to the insider lives of the candidates.
You had also asked us to scope out a candidate’s webiste to see if it contained any of the recommendations that Teachout had given in her article, I found it was easy to look at Obama’s website. His webiste does form social networks on different websites such as Facebook and MySpace (as links are found on the side bar of his website), but you can also find local events near your home in which you can participate in. Teachout suggests that groups should form meeting places outside of the internet to act together for support and the blogs, forums, and local events allow individuals to do that. You can make friends with other “bloggers” and you can form internet groups with people around the nation, as well as around your community. Another recommendation that stuck out in my mind as I perused Barack’s site was Teachout’s claim not to ask for just money. They do ask for money, but if you donate enough you get this really nifty Barack Obama t-shirt.
Candidate-centered campaigns fail to hear groups within the party. We can first look at the Republican candidates as evidence for a candidate-centered campaign because each candidate had a mark against them that stirred up trouble in their parties. The article states that, in candidate-centered politics, candidates gain endorsements and donations by their political strength. Supporters of candidates consider whether a candidate will advance issues they care about or not, if they do not talk about policies or issues they care about, they lose support or never back them in the first place. This is what happened to the Republican candidates. Rudy Giuliani was unacceptable to social conservative because of his view on abortion, gun control and gay rights. John McCain went against his party oftentimes and did not support the GOP agenda consistently in the Senate. Therefore, he was distrusted by other leading Republicans, and his support for the GOP was divided and sketchy. Mitt Romney was not a good candidate because he did not concern his campaign with issues that social conservatives cared about soon enough. Mike Huckabee raised taxes, which caused a strike against economic conservatives. Fred Thompson was widely accepted in the Republican party, but did not exert enough energy in campaigning. This eventually ruined his support. The Republican party did not have a candidate that could bridge party divisions and campaign hard for the nomination. Each candidate had their own issues and image to portray and did not align themselves enough to represent the party they were campaigning for, and their party had a difficult time coming to a decision as to which candidate was the best to support. They were definitely not agents of their parties.
The Democrats exhibited more party-like behavior but also had elements of a candidate-centered style as well. This was due to the fact that the main frontrunners of the Democratic party were individuals never seen as options for presidential candidates before in history, a woman and an African American. These factors would make it hard for their campaigns NOT to be candidate-centered, but they both exhibited a party-centric approach as well. A newsweek article I found highlighted the differences between the two candidates nicely. Obama advocated conversation and collaboration, in talking with everyone about various different issues that concern the Democratic party, such as bringing together all the interested parties on global warming and having them hash out their differences in a transparent forum, taking the risk that what they come up with will not be his preferred outcome. While Clinton proposed policy solutions to every problem Democrats were concerned about, and she was going to implement policies whether everyone liked them or not. She has the answers, fulfilling our expectations of an aspiring authority figure and the brightest person in the class. Perhaps this was a political move for her image to portray herself as tough, competitive because she was a woman. They were agents of their parties to an extent, but this time around, considering the historical significance of this election, their image and who they were played a significant role in their election (or not gaining the nomination if you are Hilary).
The internet does play a significant role in the campaign process and posses as an extra vulnerability for candidates. Another article I found claimed that the role of the internet played a significant role in the 2008 election. The internet was a major source of campaign news for young people and candidates were using popular social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace and twitter to reach out to young voters. The article stated that 42% of those ages 18 to 29 say they regularly learn about the campaign from the internet, the highest percentage for any news source, compared to January 2004, just 20% of young people said they routinely got campaign news from the internet. Candidates are now constantly in the lime-light, they have to be careful what they say, do, and who they are seen with. Any dirt can be found on a candidate and posted to the internet within seconds. This can work for or against the candidates favor, depending on how quickly a candidate can think on his/her feet, or be real and honest with the public. We have seen this vulnerability expressed numerous times on Saturday Night Live as Tine Fey ripped Sarah Palin’s interview apart. This definitely affected how society viewed her as a candidate. She did poorly in news interviews and was mocked by comedians on the television, which could be watched by millions over and over again on youtube. The internet and the media play a huge role in shaping the public’s view of the candidate, as well as, provides an easy access to the insider lives of the candidates.
You had also asked us to scope out a candidate’s webiste to see if it contained any of the recommendations that Teachout had given in her article, I found it was easy to look at Obama’s website. His webiste does form social networks on different websites such as Facebook and MySpace (as links are found on the side bar of his website), but you can also find local events near your home in which you can participate in. Teachout suggests that groups should form meeting places outside of the internet to act together for support and the blogs, forums, and local events allow individuals to do that. You can make friends with other “bloggers” and you can form internet groups with people around the nation, as well as around your community. Another recommendation that stuck out in my mind as I perused Barack’s site was Teachout’s claim not to ask for just money. They do ask for money, but if you donate enough you get this really nifty Barack Obama t-shirt.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Election Rules and Factions
In todays elections, the voters themselves must be knowledgeable about each candidate to make a decision on who to vote for. Campaigns and reforms to the election process has provided a more democratic process because it has given more power or voice to the people. Partisanship and factionalism has increased, due to the unintended consequences of these reforms and the modern, media centeredness of the nomination process but so has nominations revolving around a particular candidate, not the party. Primaries, caucuses, campaign money and the media’s role in the overall election process has increased factionalism and candidate centered elections.
There are many unintended consequences of primaries and the nomination process in general that the book mentions. The different type of primaries complicate the nomination process for voters and gets them more involved, because it is up to them and in a sense it strengthens factions to come together as a party to select the correct candidate for nomination, not the correct party. For example, in closed primaries, candidates must be registered with a party to vote which strengthens partisanship. Closed primaries also make it difficult to register for vote, especially if a citizen wants to vote for the other party. Open primaries allow nonparty members to influence the choice of a party’s nominee which is problematic to party’s because of partisan crossovers. Members who are not affiliated with a party can affect a party’s nomination. Also in the blanket system, which is candidate centered and party’s don’t matter. Other problems are that people who are hostile to party politics can capture nominations, and our process allows anyone to be a member of any particular party, which opens up the possibility that the party will have to deny a candidate who has been forced upon it. While the system makes it more democratic, the different ways in which we hold elections affect partisanship and pose a problem for candidates that their nomination is not guaranteed.
Today’s elections and politics is revolved around the media, it is how citizens gain information about their candidates to make a decision come Election Day. This is another unintended consequence of the modernized political process. Partisanship has increased as a result of this modernized political nomination process because the media plays a huge role in educating the voters therefore, plays a significant role to the candidates than do party structures and leaders (Hetherington and Keefe, 77). The role of the media increases intra-party conflict and factionalism because in the early phases of nominations, candidates have to differentiate themselves from the other candidates in their party to clinch the nomination. Oftentimes, media evaluations create the winners and losers because they publicize the factional appeals of candidates in primaries and caucuses.
Another issue and problem is the amount of money each party and candidate must raise in order to run an effective campaign. The book made it quite evident that you could be the smartest politician out there, but if you lacked funds, you had no chance in being elected into office. The reason why money plays such a big role is because campaigning, gaining voter support, and media attention all requires money. Regulations on how to raise campaign funds and the election process of primaries and caucus make it even more difficult for candidates to do successfully in elections. As I have said before, modern campaigning is a media centered issue which requires a lot of money in order to succeed. However, the regulations on how to raise money, by trying to get the public more involved with fund raising and donating, limit PACs, and limited the wealthy from donating to an extent – has made it harder for candidates to raise adequate funds and it leads them to begin their campaigning process even earlier so they have a head start on their opponents. Laws have been passed that eliminated soft money donations and have limited the donations and contributions of wealthy groups and individuals. Soft money donations supported individual candidates and not parties, which affects partisanship.
The influence of all factions cannot be purged from American elections because of the heterogeneity of our nation. We have had 2 distinct dominant parties since our Founding Fathers and that has not changed. The influence of factions is what makes politics interesting, it determines the winners from the losers and political influence in elections will always be there. We have opinions and different interests and it is the basis of democracy, if factions were eliminated it wouldn’t be democratic, it would be autocratic and elections would not be necessary.
There are many unintended consequences of primaries and the nomination process in general that the book mentions. The different type of primaries complicate the nomination process for voters and gets them more involved, because it is up to them and in a sense it strengthens factions to come together as a party to select the correct candidate for nomination, not the correct party. For example, in closed primaries, candidates must be registered with a party to vote which strengthens partisanship. Closed primaries also make it difficult to register for vote, especially if a citizen wants to vote for the other party. Open primaries allow nonparty members to influence the choice of a party’s nominee which is problematic to party’s because of partisan crossovers. Members who are not affiliated with a party can affect a party’s nomination. Also in the blanket system, which is candidate centered and party’s don’t matter. Other problems are that people who are hostile to party politics can capture nominations, and our process allows anyone to be a member of any particular party, which opens up the possibility that the party will have to deny a candidate who has been forced upon it. While the system makes it more democratic, the different ways in which we hold elections affect partisanship and pose a problem for candidates that their nomination is not guaranteed.
Today’s elections and politics is revolved around the media, it is how citizens gain information about their candidates to make a decision come Election Day. This is another unintended consequence of the modernized political process. Partisanship has increased as a result of this modernized political nomination process because the media plays a huge role in educating the voters therefore, plays a significant role to the candidates than do party structures and leaders (Hetherington and Keefe, 77). The role of the media increases intra-party conflict and factionalism because in the early phases of nominations, candidates have to differentiate themselves from the other candidates in their party to clinch the nomination. Oftentimes, media evaluations create the winners and losers because they publicize the factional appeals of candidates in primaries and caucuses.
Another issue and problem is the amount of money each party and candidate must raise in order to run an effective campaign. The book made it quite evident that you could be the smartest politician out there, but if you lacked funds, you had no chance in being elected into office. The reason why money plays such a big role is because campaigning, gaining voter support, and media attention all requires money. Regulations on how to raise campaign funds and the election process of primaries and caucus make it even more difficult for candidates to do successfully in elections. As I have said before, modern campaigning is a media centered issue which requires a lot of money in order to succeed. However, the regulations on how to raise money, by trying to get the public more involved with fund raising and donating, limit PACs, and limited the wealthy from donating to an extent – has made it harder for candidates to raise adequate funds and it leads them to begin their campaigning process even earlier so they have a head start on their opponents. Laws have been passed that eliminated soft money donations and have limited the donations and contributions of wealthy groups and individuals. Soft money donations supported individual candidates and not parties, which affects partisanship.
The influence of all factions cannot be purged from American elections because of the heterogeneity of our nation. We have had 2 distinct dominant parties since our Founding Fathers and that has not changed. The influence of factions is what makes politics interesting, it determines the winners from the losers and political influence in elections will always be there. We have opinions and different interests and it is the basis of democracy, if factions were eliminated it wouldn’t be democratic, it would be autocratic and elections would not be necessary.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Steele's campaign spending is fishy
Campaign money trouble has been a persistent problem for Steele
This comes at a perfect time, when we are talking about how Americans are skeptical about massive amounts of money being involved in politics. Steele arranged for his Senate campaign to pay a defunct company run by his sister for services that were never performed...hmm, something is amuck there!?
This comes at a perfect time, when we are talking about how Americans are skeptical about massive amounts of money being involved in politics. Steele arranged for his Senate campaign to pay a defunct company run by his sister for services that were never performed...hmm, something is amuck there!?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Decentralization
Decentralization poses a challenge to the political success of candidates running for office in our big and diverse country. Decentralization is when the power of political parties is more pronounced at the state and local levels than at the national level. You have said in our video lecture that parties are the link to public policy and elections and we have stated that political parties are teams of people that are trying to get elected. These teams are made up of people who are coordinating with each other whose ideologies diverge to some degree. Party leaders make their own connections, mobilize their own voters, and care about their own interests and groups within their localities, which makes it difficult for parties to connect on a national level.
Our book states that is it more beneficial for candidates in subnational elections to adopt the ideologies of their state or locality first. Therefore, it is more beneficial that parties who want to win elections to be moderate and inclusive at a state level so they can gain supporters, attract all groups of people, repel few to form a tight coalition to have success at the national level. This means that the parties main focus is not brought into the limelight until after the election, so we do not really know the main focus or goals of the party until after the election, which is why I think that decentralization poses a problem for party unity. Our society is so heterogeneous that it decentralization is the logical response, to start from the bottom up to gain support from the state’s and then moving toward national support. In the end we still have our own opinions, stereotypes, and goals – some are common and some aspects we disagree on, so one candidate or party cannot take care of all of the voters’ needs and goals. We do need big and diverse parties, but it also does hinder effective partisan action because we believe and agree in some common things but not on everything.
Some problems decentralization and heterogeneity pose for party unity is that officeholders are always looking at party claims and objectives in the light of the own career aspirations. If the party’s claims and the individuals aspirations in office are different, the party loses support. Also, geographical differences provide an array of different economic interests, political attitudes and culture differences across the nation. Therefore, candidates and parties must present different stances and cohesion from issue to issue.
President Obama used technology to his advantage to coordinate his political campaign. The link below describes how the president used social networking sites, text messaging, blogs, television, and other media sources to reach out to and gain the support of citizens across the nation. He also got a record number of people to go out and vote in the 2008 election. Here is a link to an article I found: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/melber
Tim Kaine is the Democratic National Committee chair and his "first goal" is to mobilize President Obama's millions of supporters behind his plans for the country. The future outlook of how the citizens view the Democratic party rely on him and his job to unify the nation, set the tone and main focus of the party that is similar to the presidents’ tone and focus in the white house.
Michael Steel is the Republican National Committee chair and is the first black national committee chair. His job to rebuild the face of the party, raise money, gain more supporters, and regain the confidence of his party followers.
Our book states that is it more beneficial for candidates in subnational elections to adopt the ideologies of their state or locality first. Therefore, it is more beneficial that parties who want to win elections to be moderate and inclusive at a state level so they can gain supporters, attract all groups of people, repel few to form a tight coalition to have success at the national level. This means that the parties main focus is not brought into the limelight until after the election, so we do not really know the main focus or goals of the party until after the election, which is why I think that decentralization poses a problem for party unity. Our society is so heterogeneous that it decentralization is the logical response, to start from the bottom up to gain support from the state’s and then moving toward national support. In the end we still have our own opinions, stereotypes, and goals – some are common and some aspects we disagree on, so one candidate or party cannot take care of all of the voters’ needs and goals. We do need big and diverse parties, but it also does hinder effective partisan action because we believe and agree in some common things but not on everything.
Some problems decentralization and heterogeneity pose for party unity is that officeholders are always looking at party claims and objectives in the light of the own career aspirations. If the party’s claims and the individuals aspirations in office are different, the party loses support. Also, geographical differences provide an array of different economic interests, political attitudes and culture differences across the nation. Therefore, candidates and parties must present different stances and cohesion from issue to issue.
President Obama used technology to his advantage to coordinate his political campaign. The link below describes how the president used social networking sites, text messaging, blogs, television, and other media sources to reach out to and gain the support of citizens across the nation. He also got a record number of people to go out and vote in the 2008 election. Here is a link to an article I found: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/melber
Tim Kaine is the Democratic National Committee chair and his "first goal" is to mobilize President Obama's millions of supporters behind his plans for the country. The future outlook of how the citizens view the Democratic party rely on him and his job to unify the nation, set the tone and main focus of the party that is similar to the presidents’ tone and focus in the white house.
Michael Steel is the Republican National Committee chair and is the first black national committee chair. His job to rebuild the face of the party, raise money, gain more supporters, and regain the confidence of his party followers.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Today’s definition of a political party
A political party seems to elect a governmental office-holder under a given label to be the figurehead of our nation. Generally, political parties begin and gain popularity at the local level and are lead by a coalition of individuals that share common ideological goals, have access to money, are champions of the media, know how to manipulate and use "outsiders' to present a positive public image, and carry a good public political appearance. Political parties eventually gain power at the national level through moderate campaign efforts that reach out to and include all American citizens, in order to gain the most amount of support, with hopes to maintain and spread their own democratic policies and ideologies onto the nation according to how they believe our country should be run.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Why GOP can't say 'whatever it is, we're against it'
This article talks about how the Republican party is stuck between a rock and a hard place with Obama's new economic plan. It also touches on economic crisis' of the past and how different presidents from different parties dealt with the troubled times.
Republicans need to come up with a new idea and plan to not only rebuild the economy, but their political party as well
My hopes and dreams for studying party politics
My name is Nina Arezina and ill begin this blog telling you a bit about myself. I am enrolled in UWM as a post-bacc student. I graduated from Marquette in December with majors in Education and History. I am back at UWM to gain more social studies subject certifications to make me more marketable in this terrible economy. That is one of the reasons why I took this course, I want to teach government and political science to high schoolers.
I am a college graduate, but that welcome letter scared me a bit and even with a degree, I don't think I am smart enough to be in this course. HA HA! I guess one of my fears is having to drop this class.
Another fear of mine is not being able to fully comprehend all of the readings in this class because it is online. I know I chose to take this course and I think it will be really interesting, but I have a terrible time reading and comprehending documents off the computer screen. I will have to print everything we read, and another fear of mine is that I will kill a forest of trees before the semester is over with.
On to my hopes for the course. I hope to learn more in depth about political parties and how they evolved over time. I have taken your basic political science courses that gave a brief overview, but I would like to learn about the history of political parties.
I also hope to learn more about the campaign processes of political parties and how/why a leader of a party is chosen.
I hope and dream to have a MUCH better understanding of political parties after I complete this course....that is, if I can complete it successfully!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
