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.

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%

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.

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.

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.