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.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Monday, February 2, 2009
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)