Sunday, March 29, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
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.
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!
Enjoy!
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)