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?