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.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
