Same Sex Marriage

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4972643.shtml

The above link is to a report that support for same sex marriage is growing. In are readings this week this topic was talked about quite a bit. It seems that Fiorina was incorrect when he said that a large portion of the population doesn't care about this topic enough to act on it. With 42% of the population agreeing with the idea of marriage and 25% agreeing with civil union, not only do people care about it, they are acting on it.

Confusion to Conclusion

TOPIC 1: Do the 2006 and 2008 elections strengthen or weaken Fiorina's argument for sorting? Be sure to cite exit poll data (or a similar source) as you build your case.

Before starting it is important to understand that Fiorina flip flops a great amount in his writing. It is in the summary: not a polarized electorate that his true beliefs finally come out. This is my interpretation of what he has written.

First I must reiterate a few points that were in the readings for this week. First, partisan polarization is not the same as popular polarization according to Fiorina. The next thing that must be understood is that Fiorina is saying that in recent times people are voting more “correctly” or more in line with the party that represents their views and ideologies. Third, the idea that the grey area, or independent area is shrinking is false. It is true, however, according to Fiorina, that the Democrats and Republicans are more clearly sorted. Finally, the difference between the two sides has grown, but only slightly.
I will start with the later first. When looking at the exit polls from 2006 and 2008 one will notice that Fiorina is correct in most instances for 2006 outside of race and age which are a bit larger than the rest. For the rest of the categories there is a divide but it is small as far as percentage points are concerned. In 2008 the polls show a huge divide, and change, in a few areas. Black voters, first time voters, Jewish voters, and voters in big cities have historically voted Democratic. This was the case in 2008, but the dived was tremendous. Blacks voted 95% to 4% Democratic, first time voters voted 63% to 35% Democratic, Jewish people voted 78% to 21% Democratic, and those in big cities voted 70% to 20% democratic. These are all very large differences. So when Fiorina says that “the absolute differences between Democrats and Republicans are relatively small…” he is wrong in this case. The differences seem to be growing with each recent election.
The argument for sorting, which Fiorina doesn't back, does seem to be holding true. Self identified Democrats voted for Democrats and self identified Republicans for Republicans. Issues hat are associated with each party also held true. People that are pro-choice, anti-war, ect.. voted Democratic. The same is true on the Republican side. Polarization at its best, no?
Now I would not say that the middle area or “grey are” in-between parties has disappeared, but it may be slowly shrinking. This may be due to mobilization of parties or the feeling that your vote will not count unless you choose one of the major parties. Regardless of why this is happening, it seems that it is.
Are people voting more correctly? That is to say, more in line with the party that represents their views. The answer is yes. This is due to “younger voters are entering the party consistent with their views…” This may have something to do with more of the population receiving higher levels of education. We, the young voters are better able to decide which party represents us the best. I do not, however, agree with the second portion of that statement, “and to some extent people are changing their views to make them consistent with their party affiliation.”
All in all Fiorina is partially correct. Sorting does seem to be happening in some areas. A polarization is happening is some areas. This may be due to the historical context of the most recent election dealing with gender and race. In other areas he is correct, polarization is not happening. Depending on what area you assign what weights will determine your final opinion on polarization, or sorting. I believe that race, age, and where you live are all large enough and strong enough categories to constitute a belief that polarization is happening.
Sources
Fiorina, Morris P. Culture war? the myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson Education, 2005.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html

Smaller scale view

http://www.oregonindependent.com/node/260

Frank argued that the Republican Party was on the way up. He did so on a small scale in a single state. I have found evidence of the contrary in this article. It show how Democrats are rising in Oregon. It goes further to show that Independents are making the biggest gain of all. It is very interesting and relates well to the subject matter from this week.

May I be Frank?

The debate between Frank and Bartels is fairly simplistic to me. While a self admitted sucker, and easily swayed I can still full heartedly agree with Frank on this issue. The strongest point that Frank makes to me is the first. No, not the primary error, but the difference in studies and the subject matter that they use. This in itself is enough reason to understand the difference in opinions and terminology.

The primary error is very useful in understanding the errors that Bartels makes in his judgment of the original paper. Just switching a term, working – class, is not an adequate reasoning to say that voters are not “voting wrong”. Frank is correct in his assertion on the changes that happen in ones income but not social ideals, and ideas about class.

Personal experience comes in to play on this matter. I have several friends that are what Bartels calls “working class”. They make very littler money, but yet in the election of 2004 they voted Republican. Why is this? It is because they come from rich families that have always supported the Republican Party. This goes back to the idea of party mobility. You do not usually switch between parties. To add to this the friends are getting or have college degrees. They might be poor now but are most likely not going to be in the future. So while in the bottom earning class they still vote for republicans, allegedly the “wrong class”.

My grandparents also voted for the Republican Party. They happen to be part of the lowest income bracket. It is apparent that the argument that Frank makes based on social issues mattering more then economic issues is true for at lest some people. My grandparents are conservative just as a good portion of there age demographic is. Regardless of the amount of money they make they will always have the same conservative social values. It would be better to vote for the Democratic Party based on economic issues, it would also be better for Motley Crue to retire but….

Now, I do agree with Franks argument, but I would not go so far as he did and say that the Republican Party is forging a “dominate political coalition”. I believe that people cote “wrong” economically speaking, but who is to say what mattes the most and constitutes “wrong” or “right” voting or “wrong” or “right” reasons for doing so. The last few elections are going in between parties as they always have. The 2008 election shows this to us.

The 2008 election show that the presidency changes has between the parties. It, however, does not sway my ideas on Frank’s argument. There were several votes cased in the last election that were made for a reason different then ever before, race. This changes the entire concepts of how we relate this election to others, but also show that the republicans do not have a dominate coalition. If they did mobility between parties would not have been as elastic s they were in this last election.

So to answer the question, no I can not be Frank!

This is what the American People Care About?

http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2009/04/13/in_depth_us/photoessay4941715.shtml

After thinking about what a new political party would "look Like" in America, i realized after this story that it really does matter what the part looks like. If you can appear to be the perfect person for the job then, apparently, you are. Warm and fuzzy with a great family and no problems. You have done nothing wrong in your past and you can answer every question with a smile. Is this really what the American People want? God i hope not.

Part on Wayne, Party on Garth

In the event that the Republican party were to crash and burn there would need to be an alternative to the Democratic Party. In this instance it would be wise to go after the open voting blocs that were consumed by the Republican party. The south would be a major starting point. As Aldrich stated, we are now a more candidate based voting society. If there were a person out there that could have the charisma and charm of Obama but the experience of president to lead the party, not to be the next president they would be perfect. Who could it be….Bill Clinton. This man has faced several problems and overcome them. Clinton would be able to reinvent himself as the Party chairmen, along with his choice for president, to the extent that he would be able to cater to the conservative south while still retaining the vote of those people that he won during his presidency. The more liberal voters would, I believe, still show support for Clinton and anyone that he promotes. For god sakes the man got fellatio in the White house. How much more liberal can you get.

Political platforms would mostly be changed, but I would keep the fiscal conservativeness. With the current situation sure to pear over our shoulders for at least the next decade it will be what the people will want to see. A very centered approach would be taken for the rest of the platform. I would stress progressivism as I believe that this is one of the advantages that the Democratic Party had over the Republican Party, at least in the modern age of politics. This gives each candidate the ability to have the party cater to there ideas and needs. In a candidate centered arena this is what promises success.

With the understanding that there are, and will more then likely only be two major parties in the American system, people will have to choose between the Republican Party and the new party. This gives the new party the chance to take what was good about the Republican Party and what was good about the Democratic Party. While it is true that the “electorate as a whole typically perceives clear differences between the two parties” (Aldrich, 170) it is also true that they will learn to see smaller differences. I believe that it is important that the new party stays away from the “me too” issue that has been seen in the past. This will help to create the differences.

I think that the new party would be ready to seriously compete in national elections within 5 years. With the luxury of the internet and other mass media channels of distribution of literature and ideals would be made easy. A constant effort would have to be made to expose the general public to the new party. Commercials would have to be mass to cater to each demographic and their lives and what they could relate to.

Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html

This article is really interesting. It has good information, but the overall tone is not in line with my thoughts. As the title of the article points out he is loosing popularity, but he is still doing well. I would take the time to at least skim over the article as it goes perfectly with the topic of module 8. It also does a great job of breaking down the reasons for the drop in his approval ratting. I found it to be rather helpful.