National Prayer Day

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reagan Loyalists

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/07/Obama.LBJ/index.html

It seems as if the Republican supporters of the system that was so strong in the 80's are trying to fight to hang on to that strength while the Democrats are taking over. Relates to the essay topic of today and maybe a way in which the GOP is trying to make themselves relevant and show what they have done in the past in order to hold importance within today's events.

Does Obama have an Electoral Mandate?

Shortly after Barack Obama became sworn in as President of the United States he made it clear to congress and the G.O.P that he (and the democrats) won the 2008 elections and therefore had some power. "I Won" is what President Obama responded while discussing what should and should not be considered in the stimulus package. This statement alone sure suggests that Obama gained electoral mandate or political capital by wining the election.

Obama won the 2008 election 53% to 46% of the popular votes. This is a rather large gap, especially today. However Aldrich said that, "In a close election a vote split as large as 60 - 40 would be understood as very large, but the disadvantaged party nonetheless would be supported by a very large minority of that group" (Aldrich 8). With this perspective, Obama may have won by almost 10% but this still does not mean that the minority of voters are not strong and this percentage which is less than the 60 - 40 split does not necessarily give him this mandate.

Also, parties within themselves are very different and the democratic party and voters who voted for Obama may have many different views on different policies and ideas Obama held. He may also be in some voters eyes "the lesser of two evils". These differences within parties, and the large, but still small win over McCain may make it seem that Obama doesn't hold a strong electoral mandate. This might be true in a different situation but the reasons as to why people voted and the message the democratic party was sending during the election seems to give Obama a mandate anyways.

After eight years of the Bush Administration, the G.O.P and Bush had very low approval ratings. People were not pleased with the way in which this administration handled the past eight years and were not pleased with the policies that were created. This led to a cry for change and for something completely new. Because Obama came and presented himself as a new way to deal with government, as someone who would rise above the failed policies that so many people, even Republicans were upset about, during a time when change was needed gave him this sort of trust and political mandate. It may look as if he is not as strong as people thought he would be in putting forth the new, however he pushed for bipartisanship when he talked about change. He may not have a electoral mandate to take over from a completely liberal stance, but he has more power to force people to cross over and deal with things from a "middle of the road" stance.

Candidate Spring Training?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/01/schneider-spring-training-for-the-next-presidential-race/?eref=politicalflipperIn our previous readings we have touched upon how candidates and people who are elected into office are always preparing and always running for the next election. This just shows that 4 years before the next presidential election past candidates are preparing and trying to put themselves in the lime light to give themselves a better chance in the next election.

In the Gapology reading it said that Race and ethnicity was the largest gap amongst the 2004 elections. By looking at the exit polls from the 2008 elections, these seems to hold still if not be stronger. It may seem obvious that because of the race differences among the candidates that this may seem to strengthen the gap of race, this seems to be very true. The gap in fact seems to be even larger. 57% of white men and 53% of white women voted for McCain, but 95% of black men and 96% of black women voted for Obama. This is a huge gap within the racial polling. There was a very large gap between Bush and Kerry in 2004 between whites and blacks , however the gaps between other races were much smaller. In the 2008 election the gap with other races was still smaller but not by much. Latino men and women and other races voted for Obama near 65% of the time, which shows he had a strong hold on all races except for the white voters.

An interesting part that I saw was with Age, the only age group of white voters that was more in favor of Obama was the 18 -29 year-olds. This group polled for Obama by 54%. This makes me wonder if it was just a surge of youth voters all around that Obama attracted, or if it shows something deeper. Does this show a stronger party identification or identification to certain opinions and attitudes that are created from lessons learned in early life? If young white voters are the only white voters to change the race gap, does this show that there is more racial indifference or acceptance attitudes that are being learned within younger generations?

Also, did race play a part within party identification in 2008 as well? 14% of white democrats voted for McCain while only 8% of white republicans voted for Obama. This may have to do with race and how that plays a part with party identification and voting, but it may also just be the fact that has been seen over many years which is that republicans seem to be more loyal to their candidates than democrats and are more likely to vote.

Moderate Dems....fiscally conservative?

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1884204,00.html?cnn=yes

This article really related to what we were reading about this week. It talks a lot about not the "far left" or "far right" groups but the ones that are in the middle and how the moderate democrats have an influence on the bills that get passed in congress.

Congress.

Party affiliation makes a huge impact within congress. Party affiliation determines much of the legislative behavior, and if the majority party has the cooperation of the president and executive branch, then the majority party has a lot of power. If the president is not working with the majority party then the party who has the majority in congress can make bills but they need the backing of the president and the executive branch, without this the majority does not matter as much. This is what happened in 2007, when the Democrats were regaining control but the republicans still controlled the presidency.

This year however things seem different. The Democrats have the majority of the Congress and the current president is now a Democrat. This means that once bills are passed, they will most likely gain the support of the President and more things will be able to get accomplished. Not only is this the case but there is now more of a polarization between the two parties. For quite some time there was more of a median where there would be conservative Democrats (southern Dem's) and liberal conservatives. As of late, the southern democrats are pretty non existent and there are less liberal conservatives. This can lead to stronger parties, because if the sides are polarized it is more likely for all or most of the members to back bills by other members of the party.

This brings up the question as to why the Republicans in congress even stay and work. It would seem as if they have no power to accomplish much of anything because the Democrats are bound together more than ever and the President is backing them as a majority. Republicans continue to do their job because there is reason to do so. By sticking around and bonding together they can show that there is an opposition to the things that the Democrats are passing by giving them very little support. This along with criticizing the Democrats and speaking out about what they feel is going wrong, and hope to influence voting decisions. They try to convince Democrats that some of their decisions may not be representative of their districts and try to still fight the majority. Not only do they want to fight for votes within Congress but also within the country. The House of Representatives holds elections every two years, when the senate holds elections every six. As it was stressed last year, things can change drastically in a two years time and by staying active within congress and fighting back against the opposing majority party it gives them more of a chance to try to take the control back.

Limbaugh Mocked.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/04/limbaugh.mocked/index.html

Seems like a way to separate the republicans and forcing the moderates more towards the center and further away from the far right.

The Democrats may have the majority of congress but does this butting against the republicans even in a humorous way try to gain more support?

Candidate Centered Election

During the 2008 primaries, there were not clear front runners for either the Republican or the Democratic parties. Hilary Clinton was the favored choice of party heads, but soon lost the strong lead she had and was up against Barack Obama in a head to head match. The Republican Party was being fought over by five candidates, all very different from one another. Hilary Clinton, to the Democratic Party, seemed to be the main choice to really serve as an Agent for the Democratic Party. She had many strong ties to the party, was a former first lady, the senator of New York, and was liked by the heads of the democratic party and much of the media. She seemed to be the perfect fit to reflect the collective views and history of the Democratic party. The Republicans faced a problem where all five of their leading primary candidates did not seem to fit the bill for being an agent of Republican views. They were all very different from one another which led to John McCain pulling forth.

The two final presidential nominees led very strong candidate centered campaigns. McCain was not the favorable candidate by many of his party leaders but he was perceived as a war hero, he was popular with many media outlets, he had a strong campaign team, he raised a lot of money at the start of his campaign and he marketed himself as a "Maverick". It makes sense in a way that the Republican candidate that pulled through did so because of a candidate centered strategy. This focus on the candidate and draw away from the Republican party as a whole helped to try to remove McCain from the negative views that the current party was under at the time. He tried hard to get "independents" and new voters, and a candidate centered campaign helped him to be able to do this.

Barack Obama led a very candidate centered campaign as well. He had high standings in the polls, had a huge surge of fund raising turn out (with the help of the netroots: blogs, e-mail lists, meetups, and much more to not only give his campaign a feeling of change but acceptance and incorporation). He had a lot of media coverage, not only on regular television and radio but on the Internet as well including YouTube videos and many other blogs. People wore his face on t-shirts, stickers, buttons, and anything else you could think of more than anyone else. There was a feeling that people were not necessarily rallying behind the democratic party, but Obama as an individual. It seemed that in this instance and in this day and age with the Internet being the source of information along with multiple 24 hour news stations, the candidate centered approach seemed to win out over the Party. Even more so as Obama was preaching "Change" from the old ways and the old system, possibly "Change" from the Agency of a party and the party leaders having the say over who is elected.

Barack Obama's website during the elections, and even now when he is president, showcases many of Teachout's recommendations for campaigning in this Internet society. His website currently showcases his addresses to the nation, his recovery plans, blogged news updates about his Presidency and a still active "My Barack Obama" account area which has active listserves to send out emails in order to back the President, Blogs my individual members and the community, and meeting tools for events that are going on in certain areas. There are still options to donate and fund raise as well as buy merchandise. Even though Obama is President and will not be up for reelection for another three years, having his website still active and still updating his supporters keeps him active and really showcases the idea that Anthony King was discussing that the election process is never ending and while running the country is the elected officials jobs, they still need to keep a positive and active position in the minds of the voting public.

Poll: Viewers react to the Presidents address.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/speech.poll/index.html

These polls to continually check in to see how the President is doing while in office and whether people approve of how he is doing sort of adds in a way to the candidate centered style. Especially with this article, it seems that it was not really focusing on peoples opinions about the choices being made or what was being implemented, it was not about the approval of the democratic party, but whether or not the President and his speech gave people more "hope". The media continues to cover how the President and his character effects the U.S. population and how it gives them "hope" as to whether or not they fully agree or disagree with his choices.

Elections

With the growing trend of front loading and the invisible primary, money continues to be very important within elections especially early on. Front loading is when more states begin to shift their primaries to the early part of the primary season, we saw this happen in the most recent primaries and it even led to problems among state primaries counting in nominating a presidential candidate. The "invisible primary" is the time before primary season when a candidate launches a campaign much earlier than you would think necessary. This is a time where mostly money is raised before the actual campaign is set into full swing.

Because so much money is needed to run a big election and to become noticed within the parties as the best party candidate and because there are limits to how much money can be donated to a certain campaign, candidates are compelled to develop large supporters with reasonably smaller donations around the country. This makes it much harder to make money than having a few big name donations, but if a candidate is successful with this strategy it helps to secure more supporters. Over the past election Barack Obama would continuously emphasize how his campaign was made by many small donations as opposed to a few big ones.

The most recent act that made it difficult for big donations to be made was the McCain-Feingold revisions to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. This law states that "no individual can contribute more than $2,000 (in 2002 dollars) to any campaign. Moreover, candidates can qualify for matching federal funds only after they have raised $100,000 in small sums ($250 or less, $5,000 per state) in each of twenty states. Political action committees may contribute up to $5,000 to a candidate, but their gifts are not eligible for matching public money" (84). This law really makes it difficult for certain groups to make large contributions, which helps to make the process of primaries and elections more democratic because a candidate will for the most part still be picked by the people instead of a few wealthy contributors.

Now however, many wealthy contributors with their own agendas for who should be elected are putting their money towards 527 groups. These are groups that are not necessarily regulated by the election committee and put out advertisements in order to sway people from voting for certain candidates and to vote for the ones they support. These are separate from the campaign ads put out by the candidates themselves, but still have effectiveness within the perceptions of people and are controlled by bigger powers.

I do not think that the influence of all factions and groups within parties can be purged. No matter what there is going to be some influence into all elections and within the minds of candidates and parties. It may not be best necessarily for factions to go away completely because they bring up different goals and agendas within a party that helps to keep it going and involve many other people. Many times a party does not represent one group or goal, but many.

Senators.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/18/AR2009021802475.html

Being from Chicago, this story hits home quite a bit. It seems wrong that Burris refuses to resign from the Senate seat when he was appointed by the governor who was trying to sell this same Senate seat. Of course people in the state of Illinois are going to be concerned and are not going to want to support someone who they did not vote for and who was put in place by a man who seemed to have very different motives than what was best for the state.

Stimulus Plan

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/09/obama.news.conference/index.html

This news article talks about the stimulus plan and how President Obama is trying to unite the country behind his plan with the help of television and by trying to unite congress while even trying to get those on the Republican side to support the package. This highlights in a way the heterogeneity of the people within the country and within the different parties and their instincts and thoughts on the stimulus plan that is trying to be passed.

Decentralization and Heterogeneity

To really get a glimpse at the state of today's politics and the decentralization of the parties, all one really has to do is look at the primary results from 2008: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/10/delegate.map/. The Democratic primary was divided between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both had similar ideologies, but when it came right down to it there were many things that separated them within the same party. There are many things that separate people within the same parties: like geographic location, income, race, religion, age, gender, and whether or not someone leans more to the left or the right even within their party. There are clear divisions within the primary maps of the Republicans and the Democrats that show that certain geographic areas especially have different ideas about who should take control, who should be nominated, and what goals should be followed.
For presidential elections, and in elections at the state and county level, having a decentralization of parties is very effective at having a parties that are representations of the various differences. In many instances, the nominees for the presidential parties end up being fairly moderate within their parties and are able to please the majority of their party at least at a core conforming level. Both Barack Obama and John McCain were rather moderate compared to some of the candidates running against them in the primaries. At the state and county levels, the different elected officials may not be as moderate but because they represent a smaller group within the party. They will more accurately reflect the differences that geography may effect within a political party and they will then carry those differences along and be able to continue the heterogeneity of the parties,while more accurately reflecting the heterogeneity of the country.
Especially with today's technologies like television and most recently the Internet, it is easier to bring together the different groups within each party and have them realize their differences but also realize and support the common ideologies and goals of the party in which they most identify with. I do not think that this decentralization will be a hindrance to partisan action as long as it is brought up which individuals were elected to power and the reasons they were elected. The individuals elected within the parties were elected for a reason, and were elected over other individuals within the party. They won, and because of that get more say, power, or support to apply their ideas, goals, and eventually policy once they have been elected. Election and uniting a diverse party is the most important part to finding someone to lead, and the policy that comes after that comes secondary with the approval of who was elected to office.

Bipartisanship

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28963701/

This link discusses the current struggles between the new 2009 stimulus plan. I think that this article really shows the differing opinions of people about parties and their importance.

Obama is really striving for bipartisanship and for the Republicans and the Democrats to come together and compromise on a solution. However, the American People voted for a majority of Democratic representatives, does the majority of America want compromise or do they want the opinions and change brought to light by the Democratic party?

What is a political party?

Just from reading the farewell addresses and Federalist 10 and 51, a political party seems to be a group of people who stand behind the same basic views and ways of looking at situations. Some of these views may differ from time to time but the core of each party seems to hold together. Within these parties there are individuals who are capable of using these views and perspectives in order to create change or make sure the views are known within an argument or political decision.

Tom Delay said in his Farewell Address: "You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny. For all its faults, it is partisanship, based on core principals, that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream, and that constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders."

This quote is what, to me, seems to be a good basis for finding the definition of a political party. It talks about how two different, or many different parties come together with their dissenting views, in order to debate with one another to either make change or make the rest of the country aware of their perspective. By having multiple perspectives it makes it so one group does not take over and that even the unpopular ideas and beliefs are heard.

Introduction.

My name is Emily and I am a Junior at UWM. I am originally from Chicago. I am not a Political Science major, but like many others I have been following politics more closely over the past few years. American Party Politics seemed like it would be an interesting topic and I hope that I will learn a new perspective and a greater knowledge and understanding of everything that goes on.