http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/obama.prayer/index.html
By toning down "National Prayer Day" Obama is taking a step in a direction to even include more Americans. Yes National Prayer Day was for those of all faiths, but Obama is even pleasing those with no faith. He believes that those who pray will pray and him and his family even pray. However, the National Atheist Assoc encourages his decision by saying "It is not the Presidents job to tell people when to pray". This goes hand in hand with what we were reading and this "culture war" the Democrats are seen in the media to support and be more open to those of all faiths, or no faith. While the Republicans are viewed as being more religious and conservative in that area.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Sorting Political Parties
Forina claims that this idea of "sorting" is that as time has progressed people are changing their views to make them more consistent with the party they affiliate with and that young voters are joining the party that is most consistent with their views. This has made the distinction between parties and candidates larger, but really people are just "choosing" from the choices they have and what they feel is the best of the two choices. It seems that these days people are choosing parties based on a few issues and that since the media makes it very known what a lot of the main issues one party supports over the other, the rest of the issues kind of take shape and follow in the voters minds.
I analyzed the exit polls from CNN.com for both the 2006 and 2008 elections and saw that these exit polls seemed to strengthen this argument for "sorting".
In 2006 the exit polls for California showed that 94% of those who identified as Democrat voted for the democratic nominee. In addition to this 85% of those who disapproved the war in Iraq voted for the democratic nominee, 71% of those who wanted to find a legal status for immigrants voted for the democratic nominee and 72% of those who thought abortion should be legal voted for the democratic nominee. All of these ideals are ones that are closely associated to the Democratic Party and shows that most (not all) of those who identified as Democrat voted Democrat and were behind the policies. The same held true for the Republicans.
In the 2008 national exit polls 89% of those who identified as Democrat voted for Obama, 89% who identified as liberal voted for Obama, and 76% of those who disapproved of the war voted Obama. These exit polls showed that Those who identified as Democrat seemed to identify as liberal and many of those individuals also were opposed to the war. Less of a majority of the Protestant and Born again vote were votes for Obama but the difference between Protestants was only 10%. Obama had the majority of votes from Catholics, Jewish, Other, and No religious affiliation. Although he had the majority of votes from Catholics it was a small majority and the majority of Catholics who attended church more than once a month voted for McCain. This shows that the conservative religious ideals of the Republicans fit in still even though it is not a huge divide. It helps to defend the claim that this type of "sorting" goes on and people change their views to go along with their party.
I analyzed the exit polls from CNN.com for both the 2006 and 2008 elections and saw that these exit polls seemed to strengthen this argument for "sorting".
In 2006 the exit polls for California showed that 94% of those who identified as Democrat voted for the democratic nominee. In addition to this 85% of those who disapproved the war in Iraq voted for the democratic nominee, 71% of those who wanted to find a legal status for immigrants voted for the democratic nominee and 72% of those who thought abortion should be legal voted for the democratic nominee. All of these ideals are ones that are closely associated to the Democratic Party and shows that most (not all) of those who identified as Democrat voted Democrat and were behind the policies. The same held true for the Republicans.
In the 2008 national exit polls 89% of those who identified as Democrat voted for Obama, 89% who identified as liberal voted for Obama, and 76% of those who disapproved of the war voted Obama. These exit polls showed that Those who identified as Democrat seemed to identify as liberal and many of those individuals also were opposed to the war. Less of a majority of the Protestant and Born again vote were votes for Obama but the difference between Protestants was only 10%. Obama had the majority of votes from Catholics, Jewish, Other, and No religious affiliation. Although he had the majority of votes from Catholics it was a small majority and the majority of Catholics who attended church more than once a month voted for McCain. This shows that the conservative religious ideals of the Republicans fit in still even though it is not a huge divide. It helps to defend the claim that this type of "sorting" goes on and people change their views to go along with their party.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Take your party back?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/29/pelosi.gop/index.html
This article shows how different the GOP has changed over the past 8 years. . . and relates to this argument of how certain republicans were almost fooled into following these new policies on the basis of principles.
This article shows how different the GOP has changed over the past 8 years. . . and relates to this argument of how certain republicans were almost fooled into following these new policies on the basis of principles.
Frank or Bartel?
Frank's idea is that low income white voters, in the south especially, vote for republicans because they are tricked into voting based on moral conservatism that the republican party holds high even if it means voting for economic policy that helps only the upper income parts of America. This is the argument that I feel seems to be most truthful.
What Frank mentioned that seems to make this argument have the most strength is that there is so much propaganda in the south based on moral issues vs. the economy. It is shown to the Midwest and southerners that to be a republican means that you are the "every day average American". The republicans have tried hard to be the common man and uphold loyal religions hard working values. What I think strengthens this argument is that in many peoples eyes George Bush was seen as the "Average American man". I have heard from many that he is the president people would feel most comfortable just "having a beer" with. That he seems to have good values and that he represents the south. This focus on character and the idea of a republican having a certain "character" is what takes the focus off the real economic issues at hand.
The 2008 elections almost strengthened Frank's argument for me. Even though Obama won across the board and even though he did win some "red states" there are still cases in which this idea of "moral values over economic" that stands out within the red states. The first issue that comes to mind is that the McCain campaign used "Joe the Plumber" who was not as average as they portrayed him to be, to relate to this "average southern moral ideal". When looking further past this and at the exit polls Franks idea is strengthened even more. In the Kansas exit polls for 2008 it shows that over 50% of whites in Kansas voted for McCain even when they said they were concerned about the economy. It also shows that 78% of white evangelical born-again's voted republican based on religion which is a strong factor in "moral values". It still brings one to wonder that if people are concerned and upset about the economy that the republicans had created in the past 8 years, then why are they still voting republican? This is the question Frank wanted to know in 2004, and that still makes people wonder now. Values and this propaganda idea of the red state character is my only answer.
What Frank mentioned that seems to make this argument have the most strength is that there is so much propaganda in the south based on moral issues vs. the economy. It is shown to the Midwest and southerners that to be a republican means that you are the "every day average American". The republicans have tried hard to be the common man and uphold loyal religions hard working values. What I think strengthens this argument is that in many peoples eyes George Bush was seen as the "Average American man". I have heard from many that he is the president people would feel most comfortable just "having a beer" with. That he seems to have good values and that he represents the south. This focus on character and the idea of a republican having a certain "character" is what takes the focus off the real economic issues at hand.
The 2008 elections almost strengthened Frank's argument for me. Even though Obama won across the board and even though he did win some "red states" there are still cases in which this idea of "moral values over economic" that stands out within the red states. The first issue that comes to mind is that the McCain campaign used "Joe the Plumber" who was not as average as they portrayed him to be, to relate to this "average southern moral ideal". When looking further past this and at the exit polls Franks idea is strengthened even more. In the Kansas exit polls for 2008 it shows that over 50% of whites in Kansas voted for McCain even when they said they were concerned about the economy. It also shows that 78% of white evangelical born-again's voted republican based on religion which is a strong factor in "moral values". It still brings one to wonder that if people are concerned and upset about the economy that the republicans had created in the past 8 years, then why are they still voting republican? This is the question Frank wanted to know in 2004, and that still makes people wonder now. Values and this propaganda idea of the red state character is my only answer.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Cheney vs. Obama
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/22/cheney-hits-obama-again-devastating-economic-policies/
Seems that Cheney is standing strong to try to make it seem that the Republican party is the party that should be and has the most understanding about the economy. Although the economy happened to collapse under a height of the Republican party, criticism of Obama is still very strong.
Seems that Cheney is standing strong to try to make it seem that the Republican party is the party that should be and has the most understanding about the economy. Although the economy happened to collapse under a height of the Republican party, criticism of Obama is still very strong.
Collapse of the GOP
After a shaky 2008. The GOP finally collapses. Even though their problems have been similar to the trends of the ebb and flow of the two major parties throughout history, they were not able to pull it together. Their main problems that could not get them to unite again where that they did not have a distinct form of leadership or idea of who will lead and unite the party, they did not have a strong control in the House or Senate, and they had no clear platform that really appealed to voters, especially after the past 8 years of office. With this said, the Democratic party seemed to be the only party left standing and would grow stronger and stronger.
However, not everyone would be okay with this situation and activists who choose to become involved in politics more try to form a way to bring back a new party because they are not comfortable with this one party system. These activists would start to lead the new party with the help of leaders who were not necessarily in the forefront of the GOP but swayed more on the moderate or independent side. By having a few moderate voices the new party could relate to the old supporters of the GOP but also have an opportunity to reach out to the middle voters and the middlemen in government. This would follow the idea of the spatial model that says that whoever the median voter follows, wins. The new party should try to incorporate the southern states and try to grab hold of what the GOP had in control, but they should also try to adjust their platform to at least relate to the more urban areas within these states as to win by a larger percentage. States within the Midwest that also have started to become more and more in the Democrats favor like Ohio and Wisconsin would also be seen as opportunities for the new party.
When thinking about the platform for the new party the leaders will have to think about two things. First off, that party identification is strong. Party identification is something that most Americans start to adapt and latch on to at a very young age. So with this it may be best to continue some of the GOP's ideas in order to keep this group who strongly identified with them at their side. However they should also consider that the population within the U.S. is changing and what the GOP was having a hard time recognizing was that the party needs to change as well. "Scholars more typically emphasize that the two major parties are collections of many diverse people and therefore encompass very broad rangers of opinion. As a result, clear and distinctive policy stances are unlikely" (Aldrich 169). With this in mind, the new party would take a stance that socially they could branch out more and be a bit more moderate than the former Republican party was. If their stances on social issues are not as far to the right of the issues of the Democratic party, it may leave more doors open for diversity within the party. In order to not lose a core group over becoming more moderate socially, they will continue to be strict when it comes to the economy and fiscal ideas. When it comes to the economy the GOP had always seemed to have a strong hold on the situation and by having a strong hold on economic issues and showing that they are more conservative and open to letting individuals take charge then the new party will have a chance to really connect with the party loyalists of the old GOP but also bring younger and more diverse voters over socially.
The results of this party may take some time to get off the ground. It is not so far stretched that it could not work, and the need for a two party system in America seems to be great. People would become very uncertain and uncomfortable with the fact that one party was leading the country completely, and with this may be more susceptible to engage the new party that came about form the former GOP. As long as the new party could brand themselves and place them at an important group and an important alternative to the single reigning party they would have a chance to get involved, maybe not win in 2012, but possible in the following elections.
However, not everyone would be okay with this situation and activists who choose to become involved in politics more try to form a way to bring back a new party because they are not comfortable with this one party system. These activists would start to lead the new party with the help of leaders who were not necessarily in the forefront of the GOP but swayed more on the moderate or independent side. By having a few moderate voices the new party could relate to the old supporters of the GOP but also have an opportunity to reach out to the middle voters and the middlemen in government. This would follow the idea of the spatial model that says that whoever the median voter follows, wins. The new party should try to incorporate the southern states and try to grab hold of what the GOP had in control, but they should also try to adjust their platform to at least relate to the more urban areas within these states as to win by a larger percentage. States within the Midwest that also have started to become more and more in the Democrats favor like Ohio and Wisconsin would also be seen as opportunities for the new party.
When thinking about the platform for the new party the leaders will have to think about two things. First off, that party identification is strong. Party identification is something that most Americans start to adapt and latch on to at a very young age. So with this it may be best to continue some of the GOP's ideas in order to keep this group who strongly identified with them at their side. However they should also consider that the population within the U.S. is changing and what the GOP was having a hard time recognizing was that the party needs to change as well. "Scholars more typically emphasize that the two major parties are collections of many diverse people and therefore encompass very broad rangers of opinion. As a result, clear and distinctive policy stances are unlikely" (Aldrich 169). With this in mind, the new party would take a stance that socially they could branch out more and be a bit more moderate than the former Republican party was. If their stances on social issues are not as far to the right of the issues of the Democratic party, it may leave more doors open for diversity within the party. In order to not lose a core group over becoming more moderate socially, they will continue to be strict when it comes to the economy and fiscal ideas. When it comes to the economy the GOP had always seemed to have a strong hold on the situation and by having a strong hold on economic issues and showing that they are more conservative and open to letting individuals take charge then the new party will have a chance to really connect with the party loyalists of the old GOP but also bring younger and more diverse voters over socially.
The results of this party may take some time to get off the ground. It is not so far stretched that it could not work, and the need for a two party system in America seems to be great. People would become very uncertain and uncomfortable with the fact that one party was leading the country completely, and with this may be more susceptible to engage the new party that came about form the former GOP. As long as the new party could brand themselves and place them at an important group and an important alternative to the single reigning party they would have a chance to get involved, maybe not win in 2012, but possible in the following elections.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Crumbling GOP?
The Republican Party may be having a hard time since 2006, but does that mean they have a realistic risk of fading out and being the resigned party or will they cycle back as it seems the Democratic and Republicans tend to do throughout history?
In 1852 there was a collapse of a party. It was the collapse of the Whig party. As Aldrich said, "The 1852-53 elections were very bad for the Whigs. Scott won 44 percent of the vote, unusually low for the second party system. The uniformity of the vote throughout the nation meant that he won only 42 electoral votes to Pierce's 245. The Whigs held only 71 House seats in the Thirty-third Congress, down from 88, setting a second party system low, and 22 seats in the Senate, one more than the lowest total...this signaled to many that the Whigs were doomed" (135). This was the collapse of the Whig party, however there was a difference between then and now. The main difference is that at the time there were not just two major competing parties. The country was changing dramatically and when the Whigs collapsed, another party was on the rise.
This is one of the main reasons that the current Republican party would be safe from being crushed for ever. Yes they lost the majority in congress, and yes the presidential election was a very strong win for the Democrats and Obama, however that does not mean that the Republicans wont be back.
There has been a cycle throughout American political history where the Democrats gain strong power and then fall while the Republicans take charge. This seems to be what is happenings at the moment. The majority of people vote for a candidate or party with which they can feel the most connection with and also who has a better chance of wining. Although many people may feel more connected to an independent candidate it is much more likely for that person to choose either a candidate from the GOP or Democratic party to support instead because they have a better chance of wining. This is a strong reason as to why the Republicans will stick around even after a hard time.
What the GOP does need to do though to stay relevant is to change their main focus and to be seen as the party that can handle all of the current problems that are happening to the country and the world. The party itself needs to come together and re-think some of the issues. Issues that the Republicans used to be strong on are fading and are not as important as climate and health care. By creating a party ideal about this issues could help them to bounce back.
Van Buren's principle for a political party is that "the party is more important than the men in it" (128). If the GOP can put the focus back on the party, and start to reshape the parties image away from the negativity of the past 8 years, then they could have a chance to come back fairly recent. It is not certain when the Democrats will start to lose power and when the Republicans will become powerful again, but it seems that throughout history it is bound to happen as issues and events change.
In 1852 there was a collapse of a party. It was the collapse of the Whig party. As Aldrich said, "The 1852-53 elections were very bad for the Whigs. Scott won 44 percent of the vote, unusually low for the second party system. The uniformity of the vote throughout the nation meant that he won only 42 electoral votes to Pierce's 245. The Whigs held only 71 House seats in the Thirty-third Congress, down from 88, setting a second party system low, and 22 seats in the Senate, one more than the lowest total...this signaled to many that the Whigs were doomed" (135). This was the collapse of the Whig party, however there was a difference between then and now. The main difference is that at the time there were not just two major competing parties. The country was changing dramatically and when the Whigs collapsed, another party was on the rise.
This is one of the main reasons that the current Republican party would be safe from being crushed for ever. Yes they lost the majority in congress, and yes the presidential election was a very strong win for the Democrats and Obama, however that does not mean that the Republicans wont be back.
There has been a cycle throughout American political history where the Democrats gain strong power and then fall while the Republicans take charge. This seems to be what is happenings at the moment. The majority of people vote for a candidate or party with which they can feel the most connection with and also who has a better chance of wining. Although many people may feel more connected to an independent candidate it is much more likely for that person to choose either a candidate from the GOP or Democratic party to support instead because they have a better chance of wining. This is a strong reason as to why the Republicans will stick around even after a hard time.
What the GOP does need to do though to stay relevant is to change their main focus and to be seen as the party that can handle all of the current problems that are happening to the country and the world. The party itself needs to come together and re-think some of the issues. Issues that the Republicans used to be strong on are fading and are not as important as climate and health care. By creating a party ideal about this issues could help them to bounce back.
Van Buren's principle for a political party is that "the party is more important than the men in it" (128). If the GOP can put the focus back on the party, and start to reshape the parties image away from the negativity of the past 8 years, then they could have a chance to come back fairly recent. It is not certain when the Democrats will start to lose power and when the Republicans will become powerful again, but it seems that throughout history it is bound to happen as issues and events change.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)