Biden says Specter felt GOP had abandoned him

This article is about Specter's switch. The article claims that Specter feels like after so many years, the GOP "abandoned" him. It also quotes Biden saying "I think he knows he's going to be with a lot more people who are much more like minded on the major issues with him than he was in the very shrinking Republican caucus as it related to centrist and moderates." The article goes on with Biden defending Obama's agenda and talks briefly about Specter's support of it.

Party Switching

This past week’s readings have suggested that a polarized nation does exist, just not in the way we might have thought. Fiorina and company claim that it is not so much the American voters that are polarized, but the American elites. Many Americans do not pay attention to politics until the presidential elections come up, but political elites and activists are zealous about their party and its policies, which makes them more polarized. However, the recent party switch by Arlen Specter is kind of contradictory. If political elites are so polarized, how can they just switch parties and abandon their ideology at the drop of a hat?

It all comes down to the “politics.” Beginning his campaign for re-election, it became clear that Specter had a very slim chance of defeating Pat Toomey. Throughout this semester, we have talked a lot about Congress and their failure to vote with their party because it might jeopardize their re-election. Specter saw that the Republicans were not going to save his career so he decided to try to save it himself, by switching to the Democratic Party. This move could help support the idea that the Republican Party is starting to collapse. Specter voiced that his ideals and position on policy were not so much in line with the Republicans anymore as they were with the Democrats. He may just be saying this to avoid speculation and he may mean it. If he does mean it, it could show that support for the Republican Party and their ideology is starting to dwindle, as this past election has illustrated.

I think this shift would surprise Fiorina. The main theme of his argument is that political elites and activists are very polarized and true to their parties. Specter’s switch turns his arguments completely upside down. Aldrich, however, would not be as surprised. He argues that parties aren’t so important and candidates tend to choose the party that will get them elected. Aldrich talks about switching parties on pages 188-189 and suggests that if another party possesses a more viable route to winning, a candidate could abandon their current party. He states that, “as the other party becomes more viable…the challenger might switch,” and this is exactly what Specter did (189).

Ryan shines as GOP seeks vision

In the last blog, I talked about the fall op the Republican Party and the rise of a new one. I was asked at the time, who should run this party and I wasn’t quite sure? Then I found this article on Paul, a rising star of the GOP. Although he is conservative, he does tend to lean towards moderation, such as supporting federal legislation banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is more information on him in this article.

Bartels vs Frank

Although Thomas Frank seems to be a little bitter, I would definitely argue that he is right and Bartels is wrong. They both try to offer explanations for the “working class” voting Republican instead of their usual Democratic stance, but Bartels’ analysis is very narrow and close-minded.

The biggest problem with Bartels’ argument is his definition of the working class. As Frank’s rebuttal stated, Bartels’ definition of the working class is anyone with a household income below $35,000. This is not a good enough definition to make an analysis. What about the young professionals who are just starting out, or the people on disability or who are unemployed or who are retired or –hey!- who are students. To help refute Bartels’ definition, Frank goes on to explain that only one third of those he labels as “working class” are actually employed. Also, Bartels’ implies that when Frank considers the “working class” he is talking about whites only. And the fact that Bartels’ definition makes little sense completely discredits his entire argument.

As far as the 2008 election goes, this debate isn’t really salient anymore. The two debate why the poorer working class voted Republican. However, this past year, they leaned toward the Democratic Party, which basically makes the debate a moot point. Also, I do not think this switch in party partisanship is that shocking and monumental as is it portrayed. From election to election, what the people find most important changes. When the working class voted Republican, they were more concerned with moral decay, and the Republicans offered a better solution for them. This year, the main concerns were the economy, the environment, and the Iraq war, and the Democratic Party offered more enticing solutions. This switch in voting is something that has happened in the past and I presume, will continue to happen in the future.

Save the date: National tea party is September 12

This is a link I found from the Journal Sentinel to a blog that talks about the Republican Party’s effort to save the conservative cause through “tea parties.” They are an anti-tax, anti-Obama movement. The blog also includes links for more information.

New Party

If the Republican Party were to collapse, en entire part of the nation would go unrepresented and a new party would need to take it’s place, hopefully being able to appeal to even more voters.

I think the party would start out with an ambitious group of people. In 1960, JKF did not initially have the support of a party, he “built his own organization, developing lists of activists to approach, traveling the nation, and securing services of a great number of experts, the “best and the brightest,” to conjure up the national organization to win delegate support,” (Aldrich, 271). Because of this, I think the party would rise out a strong candidate running instead of forming the other way around.

As I stated, the collapse of the Republican Party would leave a lot of people with no representation and no one to turn to. Because of this, the new party would have to take on some more conservative stances, while trying to remain more moderate. It would have to appeal the religious and frequent church goers as well as the wealthy and small business owners. It will have to take on a more conservative stance on foreign policy and defense than the Democrats, but remain more moderate that the current Republican party. This party will be different and more moderate than the current, but it does have to keep a more conservative overtone to keep many people happy. By loosening the belt on conservatism however, it will able to appeal to more people than just the current conservatives.

One subject the new party needs to recognize is the environment. Going green is huge lately amongst many people, and not just liberals. If the new party can work environmental conservation into their new platform, along with a little more lenience on gay rights and more emphasis on minority voters, this party will eventually gain momentum and make it into Congress and the White House.

This party would probably grow out of the South, with many voters already leaning that way. It will still contain some of the older more conservative members of the current party, but the younger, more moderate members will be the new face of this party.

Ryan, GOP propose big tax cuts, spending curbs

Since we are talking about the decline of the Republican Party this week, I found an article about their opposition of the Stimulus Bill. Although it did not have much of a chance of passing, it shows that although the Republicans are a minority in Congress, they are still fighting to get their voice heard.

Republican's Minority

I definitely do not think the Republican Party is becoming obsolete. The Democratic Party has faced the same problem the Republicans are facing now, and even the Republicans have faced this problem before. And as they have in the past, they will fight to remain a force to be reckoned with. As the NYTIMES article, “A Once-United G.O.P. Emerges, in Identity Crisis” states, the Republican Party [faces] a fresh challenge — one it has not shied from in the past. We now live in an era of a two party system and I do not think the Republican or Democratic Parties are going to go away anytime soon.

The Republicans may be a minority right now, but there will be times when they are not. For what is going on in our country right now, more people identify with a liberal ideology. As time changes and the issues that face our nation change, so will the public’s preferences. I agree that we live in a more liberal time, but opinions change and so will the majority party.

As Aldrich stated, the lack of parties led to instability in Congress. Once we had two major parties, competition became more important and people actually started turning out to vote. Politics were a form of entertainment and people actually starting paying attention to what was going on. They realized that their vote could make a difference in which way the country goes. Without a two-party system, we would not have that sense of competition, making voter turnout low. Also, there would be a very large section of the country that would not be represented. Right now, the two party system that keeps voters mobilized and parties organized, consists of the Democrats and Republicans; and I do not see that changing anytime soon.

Doyle wasted no time pushing Obey for stimulus package

This week’s blog was about whether Obama has/had a mandate or not. Although I do not believe he does, it is evident that he has a lot of support in Congress which was a big help in passing the Stimulus Bill. This article is about Governor Bob Doyle’s support of the bill and his own plan to raise taxes, and GOP’s dissatisfaction with it all.

Module 9 - Obama's Mandate?

According to an American Presidency class I took, the conditions of a mandate are scope of victory, party-gains in Congress, new voter groups, policy signals, and consensus. Based on these conditions, I do not think Obama has a mandate.

First of all, although it seems as though Obama’s margin of victory is large, winning 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173, it really isn’t. By measuring the popular vote, Obama only received 52% to McCain’s 46% and in order to have a mandate, there must be a 16.6% difference.

Also, although there was a gain of seats in Congress in the 2008 election, there was not enough for a mandate. If we were talking 2006, it might be different story, but this year, there was a gain of 21 seats in the house and in order to have a mandate, there must be a 39% gain.

Where Obama does benefit however, is in new voter groups. This year, the support of women was definitely thrown behind Obama. And although the Democratic Party usually attracts younger voters, even more supported Obama in 2008. And these new voting groups could give him some extra leverage.

As for policy signals and a consensus, most people seem to be happy with his policy decisions thus far. There are some that zealously refute them but overall, people seem to be okay with what he is doing, especially his constituents. It is obvious that many people in this country wanted change and that is was Obama is trying to do: implement change. There are always going to be people who do not agree and think it is wrong but Obama had more support than McCain and his supporters are so far, generally happy from what I see. So although Obama may not have a mandate, he does have a lot of support.

Gapology in Elections

This week we are talking about party identification and how important it can be to the way a person votes. As Hetherington and Keefe state, “certain issues can effect a person’s party identification, but usually it is party identification that affects his/her opinions about political issues,” (187). Since so many people form their ideas about policy based on the party they belong to, party identification becomes extremely important in elections.

At ABC.com, I first looked at the way party’s voted in 2008. It showed that of 39% of voters that consider themselves Democrat, 89% of them voted for Obama and of the 32% of voters that consider themselves Republican, 90% of them voted for McCain. Although these numbers are close, it does support the fact that Republicans tend to be more loyal to their party.

I also went to the CNN polls. However, I could not load the 2008 results so I am looking at 2004. As our reading this week suggested, the biggest voting gap in the 2004 election was the race/ethnicity gap and the exit polls confirm that. Of non-white men, only 30% voted for George W. while 67% voted for Kerry. Of non-white women, even less, 24%, voted for Bush while 76% voted for Kerry. Although more predictable, there was an ideology gap as well. Those having a more conservative ideology obviously preferred Bush with 84% to Kerry’s 15%. On the other hand, those having a more Liberal ideology, overwhelmingly preferred Kerry 85% to Bush’s 13%.

Our reading on Gapology also talked about a religion gap. It states that, “Judaism…[and]…mainline Protestantism actively teach moderate to liberal positions on many issues which the exit polls support somewhat. Although Judaism falls in line with the Gapology predictions with those who practice it supporting Kerry 74% to Bush’s 25%, Protestants actually preferred Bush over Kerry (58% : 40%). So although Gapology is pretty accurate, every election is different and the gaps could very or change depending on the candidates up for Presidency.

Feingold wants all his Senate colleagues to go through elections

Since I spent a long time looking at exit polls this week, and I am sure everyone else did, I decided to post about something else. This article is about Feingold and his colleagues in the Senate. He believes that some of the newly appointed member did not earn their seats and he believes all potential members should have to be elected, and not appointed.

Enjoy!

The D.C. Right on the Line

This article is about finally giving DC voting rights in Congress. Although the measure won approval in 2007, the Senate blocked it. However, now they are changing their mind, which could result in the House making history sometime very soon.

Republicans in Congress

Although it seems to be a consensus that the majority has all the power in Congress, there are some disadvantages, allowing the minority party to retain some sort of role, and not become completely voiceless.

As of now, the minority role in Congress is not a very strong one, but it does exist. For one, they make things harder for the majority party. Although right now, the Democrats may be the majority party, there are still major Republican Party leaders that lead opposition. Also, to keep control, the majority party cannot bank on the fact that they are the majority overall, they needs to create majorities at a number of stages in the legislative process and “failure to achieve a majority at any stage is likely to mean loss of legislation,” which leads to more power for the minority party if they happen to receive a majority at any level. ( Heatherington, 177).

Another reason it is important for the minority party to show up and fight everyday, even though they are outnumbered, is because there is a small chance they can influence legislation. If they do not agree with a bill, they can filibuster, which can delay the bill from being passed and open the floor to new ideas and alterations.

Also, the minority party can gain power by occupying the title of chair on major committees. “Those who chair major committees and subcommittees are as likely to have keys to congressional party as the elected party leaders,” which allows the minority to have some influence, (Hatherington, 177).


Lastly, I think that the 214 Republicans that embody the minority party show up every day because things would be worse if they didn’t. Although their influence may not be that strong, it is important to show up and fight for what you believe in. Just because they do not have the power they used to have, doesn’t mean they should not show up and exercise their voice. It’s always worth a try, instead of not fighting at all.

Palin to reimburse Alaska nearly $7K for 9 trips taken by her kids in response to ethics probe

Since this week's topic was the 2008 election, I tried to find an article that had something to do with one of the candidates.

This article is about Sarah Palin and her family's travel expenses. About $7000 of Alaska's state funds were spent for her family to travel with her and the article states there is no wrong in that. However, an investigator "interpreted the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act to require that the state only pay if the first family serves an important state interest," which he claims they did not. The article goes on to list what the expenses were for, such as her daughter attending a play and air fair to the Iron Dog snow machine race.

Palin suggests that this claim was "an obvious political weapon" since it was filed right before the election. Either way, she agrees to reimburse the state funds she used.

Enjoy!! :)

Candidate vs Party Centered Elections

No doubt, 2008 was a historical election. Besides electing the first African American president, I think campaigning changed a lot too.

Although the presidential candidates do have responsibility to their parties, I think this election was more candidate-centered. Rudy Giuliani for example, definitely ran a candidate centered campaign while he was in the race. Although he was running for the Republican nomination, his policies were not in line with those ideals most important to Republicans: gun control, abortion and gay marriage. John McCain’s campaign was also more candidate-centered than party centered. Although he was the most conservative of the candidates, he was also most hated among the party faithful for some choices he had made previous to running, (Cohen, Page 18.) So although he held up the ideals of the Republican Party, there was still tension within. Because of this, I do not think the 2008 candidates were constrained by their net roots. However, I think candidates are always somewhat constrained by the electorate. They are the ones you’re trying to convince and if you do not resonate with them, you will not win the nomination or the presidency.

Like I said, the 2008 election was more candidate-centered and I believe that most of this is due to the internet and other technologies. In the present time, candidates seem more accessible. They market themselves using MySpace and Face book, and when their funds are running low, you get an e-mail asking to donate $5 from the candidate, not from the party, which shows that both candidates made good use of the internet in their campaign to raise money and reach potential voters, which teachout talked about. You get to know the candidate better by watching Oprah, or The View, or other soft media and you see what they are like and how they live. Soft media, which is how most people get their news, focus on the person and not the party, which has caused a shift in campaigns.

With all the good things about media though, comes the bad. Because of media, politicians and congressional candidates are much more vulnerable. With every cell phone having a video camera now, any mistake any politician makes can be recorded and put on you tube for people to view forever. If a candidate accidentally falls (Dole) or lets out an enthusiastic scream (Dean) it can haunt them forever and really harm their campaign. And congressional candidates are no exception. Since not as many people follow their campaigns, every little thing they do is important.

Image is of growing importance in all political elections, and media has created more candidate-centered elections, which can help and harm at the same time.

Campaign Finance and Nominations

Finance reform has definitely had an impact on nomination and campaigning. For one, our nomination process has changed dramatically. We started out nominating our Presidential candidates through a caucus system, which was basically a bunch of male political leaders getting together and deciding who the candidate was going to be. From there, we moved on to party conventions, which failed to represent parties as a whole, which is why we moved onto primaries, giving more voice to the people and allowing them action in nominating the Presidential candidates.

Moving to primaries, however, has influenced campaign finance. In order to run a substantial campaign, a tremendous amount of money must be raised or given. Because early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire are so important, it is critical to have that money raised right off the bat. And those who have a competitive candidate in their party must spend even more money in the first two primaries to ensure the nomination.

How this money is received though, is regulated by the FECA, and these campaign finance rules and election rules do sometimes work together. For example, in order for a candidate to receive matching funds from the government, they must receive at least 10% of the vote in two executive primaries. Also, since the New Hampshire and Iowa primaries are held so early, more money is spent on advertising in those two states, so primaries do affect campaign finance. However, the regulation of money in campaigns seems kind of unrealistic, since such copious amounts are necessary in order to run a successful campaign.

That being said, where this money comes from is well regulated. There are limits on all kinds of contributions, individual, self-finance, and PACs. The only kind of money that was not really regulated was soft money, which the McCain-Feingold Bill banned National Party Committees from raising.

I really do not think the influence of factions can be purged from American elections. Although soft money is not allowed to be raised by National Party Committees, the majority of advertising comes from soft money, which would not exist if we did not have factions. Although supporters of a candidate may not mention his/her name in an ad, it’s obvious which party they support, and they use this soft money to provide advertising for their party’s candidate. No matter what, parties are always going to influence elections.

TV's growing importance

Back when Washington was President, portraits of him were rare. It tooks hours of sitting in order to get a painting that represented the commander in chief. However, "he understood that the public wanted to see what manner of man served as chief executive, so he subjected himself repeatedly to more than a dozen artists,". Although image was always somewhat important, back when the Presidency was created, not many actually knew what their president looked like.

Now, however, the invention of television and photography has increased the importance of the presidential image. It's a popular opinion that the candidate who looks more "presidential" could have a better chance of winning. This article talks about the difference of presidential image and how it has eveolved through technology and art.

Decentralization

For one, decentralizing a party give more people voices. Those who may not completely agree with the majority have a chance to get their voice heard. Because of this, parties are able to cover a larger spectrum of issues. Although I believe parties come together to reach a common goal based on their values and beliefs, those values and beliefs may sway a bit within their party, allowing the party to reach a more diverse group of people. However, decentralization makes party discipline harder. It does compel one common idea, but opens the door to variations of that idea, forcing the party to be more tolerant of those who may not completely agree with the central beliefs.

I think that decentralization is a logical response to American political heterogeneity. Since the United States is so rich in diversity, it is necessary for there to be some flexibility. Not all party members agree 100% of the time. Parties are heterogeneous and decentralization allows them to work together. This can hinder effective partisan action, though. When people of the same party, along with those of another party, are arguing over some piece of legislature, it can be a lot harder to get things done. Although decentralization can open lines of communication and encourages the flow of ideas, it can also close lines of communication when no one can agree.

In the past election, decentralization was definitely a strategy. Although Obama and Hilary were both running for the Democratic nomination, they had to decentralize themselves and take different standpoints in order to set themselves part. And once it was clear that Obama and McCain were going to be the Presidential candidates, they had to decentralize themselves in order to appeal to a broader group of voters. As said in our lecture, “parties must act it if it were all the people, and not just some of them.”

I think that Obama is basically leading the Democratic Party right now. Since he has taken office he has moved full speed ahead, making a lot of decisions and trying to straighten things up. I think the Republican leader is still kind of up in the air though.

Obama presses case for stimulus plan

With all the "hoopla" over the stimulus plan, I decided to choose this article to post about it. This article is about Obama really pressing a stimulus plan to either "save or create 4 million jobs." Also, he defends the bill against critics who do not agree with the spending.

Party Definition

I believe that political parties are governmental organizations that have the power to vote and influence legislation; coming together based on a common set of morals, beliefs and values. This is one reason why interest groups are not political parties. Although they come together based on a common set of morals, beliefs and values, they do not have any designated governmental power and do not have the power to vote on governmental issues.

When the framers first created the Constitution, parties were seen as a bad thing. They wanted to unite the country and they saw the development of political parties another way to separate people and divide the country. They were even scared of giving the President too much power, for fear or tyranny. I think they were scared that if the people were divided into parties, one party could become stronger than the other, which could lead to a revolution and eventually, a state of domination.

However, as our government progressed and our national problems become more complicated, it was inevitable that people would divide. Although complete unity is a great concept, it became evident over time and things would not stay that way. So people started to develop different ideas and opinions about the same issues. And eventually, political parties were born.

Now, political parties are no longer since as a bad thing. Personally, I think it would be boring if everyone believed in the same thing. Sure it would make things easier, but there would be no room for growth and new ideas. Political parties, I think, definitely contribute to a checks and balances system. As Tom Delay stated in his farewell address, “for all its faults, it is partisanship, based on core principles, that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream, and that constantly refresh our politics with new ideas and new leaders.” The different political parties absolutely keep each other in check and on their toes.

Experts term Obama "roadrunner" president for his pace of action

Since the biggest political news lately has been all about Obama and his taking office, I decided to post a link about him and what he has been doing thus far. It is about how fast he is moving and the fallbacks and advantages of doing so!

Hope, dreams, fears

My hope for this class is to learn more about different political parties and politics as a whole.

My dreams, I suppose, are the same as my hopes; to learn more about the party system.

My fears are probably the most dominant in this situation. Although I have taken political science classes before, I am not a poli sci major and probably have a harder time understanding the content. I do not already know a lot about politics, but I want to learn, and I have always found politics very interesting, so I suppose my fear is being able to communicate on the same level as my classmates.