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.

Did someone say popular???

An electoral mandate as defined by WikiAnswer.com is the perception that the voters strongly support the president's character and policies. It can be a powerful symbol in politics. I think that this is a perfect representation of what an electoral mandate is. So, yes, Barack Obama had an electoral mandate.
We, the people gave Obama the authority, or mandate to do an assignment, or perform a task, meaning the presidency. I don't think that it is a question as to the popularity of Barack Obama then, or now for that matter. He has been the charismatic man that everyone believes will change Americas situation around. Never before had so many people from so many different walks of life come out to support one man. There were even reports of Barack being the most popular candidate ever in Germany. And why wouldn't they. He was what the people needed in the situation that we were in. It didn't, and still doesn't hurt that he can, as the say, talk a pig pout of a corn field.
His policies an ideas on health care, education, the war in Iraq, to name a few, were popular. He gained support from different groups with each platform he uncovered.
The results of the election were known before the polls ever opened. There was no doubt, from any side, that Barack was going to be the next president. Popularity polls showed his mile lead, and there really was no dirt on this guy. Weird!!! So yes, he had an electoral mandate.

In the past few months we are seeing his popularity drop a bit but it is known by most Americans that his situation, the economy, is inherited. I believe that he will continue to have the support of the people and his electoral mandate as long as he continues to try to full fill his promises, unlike so many before him. His level of transparency is higher then in past presidencies which also makes it easier for people to stomach the things that are happening. While things have polarized a bit with his approval ratings at about 56% (Rasmussen Reports ) he is till doing well.
If things do not start to look better it is possible that he may loose his mandate. If he is just talk and no walk we will see though it soon. Until then I consider his mandate very real and strong. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Changing the Vote

I found an amazing article that is a bit old, but non the less fits this weeks readings wonderfully. As horrible as it is i almost shed a tear when reading the stories of the people in this article. You can find the article at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/obama.history/index.html Its title is

Obama's victory caps struggles of previous generations

The main point of the story is the way in which the American society has changed over time. It includes an interview with Peggy Wallace Kennedy, the daughter of the late George Wallace. For those of you who do not know he was the Alabama Governor who vowed to never let segregation die. Peggy, voted for Obama. This is the best example i can think of to show that you are not stuck with what your parents decide. As the book states, significant event can change the party identification of people. In this case a large portion of an entire generation.

Another important point that the article made that validated an idea have been toying with in my head for a bit was the reason that Obama took such a large portion of the White vote. Due to the prominent roll that so many African Americans have played in recent years the white voters are more use to seeing a black man in a prominent roll. From Colin Powell to Dennis Haysbert, he played a black president in the television series "24", the American society is becoming more comfortable with this change, as they should!!!!

I defiantly suggest reading this full article. It makes a great deal of sense and goes with the ideas in the readings.

Times A Changing

In the past many demographics could be expected to vote in a certain way. The were predictable to say the least. The last election showed many changes in these demographics and the way in which they voted. According to the information found on CNN.com and the article "Introduction-“Gapology” and the Presidential Vote" by Laura R. Olson and John C. Green several changes have occurred.

The race gap has increased overwhelmingly, for obvious reasons, towards the Democrats. The income gap has shrunk, only slightly, but it has changed none the less now favoring the Democrats. The gender gap has also lessened but this time in favor of the Republicans, and the age gap has increased toward the Republicans.

When analyzing the information in these two sources I found what you would have expected in most cases. There, however, was one area that was shocking. In the income brackets the $75,000 - $100,000 grouping as well as the $200,000 and above categories the vote went to Obama in the last election. This is surprising to me for the simple fact that every piece that we have read as well as the "gapology" for several of the last elections, states that most people that are in these higher income brackets vote on a regular basis for Republicans. The change was a great thing to see as it shows that we as a society are not as polarized as these articles seem to think that we are.
It also shows that more Democrats are starting to vote. As the book, "Parties, Politics, and Public Policy in America", states that even though those polled show a higher percentage of Democratic partisanship , there are still more republicans that vote. It is good to see that people are finally taking the initiative and responsibility upon themselves to vote.

As our weekly readings have stated there are no guarantees in any one of the demographics listed. People are not just a part of one group, (i.e. you have a race, sex, income, ect...) This can make it difficult to make assumptions about the way people may vote. The latest election has proven this to be true. While the party that you may identify with may be set at birth and be "sticky" I believe that we have seen a reason for people to change there minds. A charismatic African American president that could really relate to, and speak to the people and explain his policy was enough to get through the stickiness of party identification.

Poll: Politicians trusted more than business leaders on economy

As the title states the American Public now trust Politicians more then they trust Business leaders. I myself think it is a sad reminder that these are the two choices we have to place our trust as far as the future of the country is concerned.

This article is very interesting and gives a great a great feel for the political environment in The U.S. CNN has again ran a great poll that is representative of the real world. The several questions that were discussed and their outcomes hit the nail on the head from what I have been seeing first hand. They are shocking to see on paper. It is interesting to see that so many other people felt the same way that I do. Take a look at the page. It is worth the 5 minutes it will take you.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/23/poll.economy/index.html

2008 Campaigns

In 2008 there was an overwhelming need for change. It was felt around the nation. It tugged at the hearts of the everyday people and inspired politicians. Or at lest changed there strategies. Do to the poor state that the country was in entering these elections I believe that both presidential candidates were running a candidate based campaign. The need for changed seemed to call for something that we had not seen before, a disconnection from what the currents parties were doing. Both candidates, Obama and McCain, realized this early on. Both detached themselves from their parties and began running based more on their own personal ideas.

McCain's campaign deviated from the typical republican party for different reasons then that of Obama's. The party had seen better days. The national approval rates for Bush were continuing to fall and the need to get away from this bad image was growing. McCain also had a history that was not necessarily friendly with his fellow republicans. This gave him the chance to show that he was "different" (if there is really a different type of politician.) He supported the average American. He showed this to be true when he choose Sara Palin as his running mate; the Alaskan governor and mother of a pregnant teen. A woman AND she was not from a perfect suburban home. I meant distance when I said it. So McCain established this image of being different and pulling away from his party. It is still worth noting that he was a military man, and that was not different from what we were seeing at the time.

The Problem I have at this point is that while he said her was different and we didn't see a ton of support from the party he still walked talked and acted like a true republican on may important issues that the electoral wanted to see changed. In the sense of running his campaign he did conform to the new ways that were listed in the Teachat piece. He used net roots to further his campaign and get his word out there. His main function McCain used this for was fund raising, just as the Internet has been used in previous election. He also had problems relinquishing total power ,or just didn't try to set up small, 10 - 20 person hubs. In the end he did not utilize the resources that were available to him as well as his opponent.

Obama was not picked by his party, the Democrats, to be the presidential candidate for them, Hillary Clinton was. This was his first early separation fro the party. I say real because it was something that the American people could see, if they can see it they believe it. As the race went on it was apparent that Obama was the change that America was looking for. He was brought up in a middle class family in a humble part of Chicago. His upbringing was different, his ethnicity was different, his ideas were different. He didn't need to follow party values. This was a man that seemed to really care about the people and wanted change, as his slogan states. Part of this feeling of him being so different was ushered in by the way in which his campaign was run. He used his net roots to help himself and his ideas available to any and everyone. Through grass roots initiatives that were organized by his meeting spots and other net roots and his reach out to those that would not have otherwise been involved through uncommon channels he made one of the most impressive campaigns that the US has ever seen.

The new wave of technology based campaigns is definitely evening out the imbalance of power between Party based and candidate based campaigns. As Obama showed us these new technologies have made it easier to raise funds, if properly networked. Now not just the super rich can run for office. The Internet has proven a great tool to grow a system of support and reach out to new voters. The cost is much less and the time that is consumes is less. The new ideas that are now present in the lack of control from the party's center are helping local people take on leadership rolls and keeping people active which helps the candidate based party to be more successful at no cost to them. While party based campaigns can do these things it has mad the playing field more level.

As far as the new way of doing things, it may affect the Congressional candidates a bit differently. In this situation most of the time once you are elected you will continue to be reelected, an incumbent. This, as King states, is due to the amount of effort that candidates put forth to make sure that they are reelected. Because they are vulnerable they put forth this effort. They may think they are a shoe in, but they don't KNOW that they are. Because technology has made it easier to communicate with such a vast many people the incumbent may be a thing of the past if they to do not use these new outlets.

BONUS I choose to look at the web page for US Representative Ron Kind (Wisconsin Third Congressional District.) It seems that this page has nothing left from 2008. When looking at the page you can see several of the tactics that Teachout talked about that are currently being employed. Congressman Kind has made it easy to contact him and his office for information. Several offices are listed with addressed and numbers. I am assuming that these are the main hubs that will help other new hubs to form. There is a place to sign up for an e-mail list as well as news stories covering what he is doing. There are listening sessions that prove to be personable, and videos and pictures to boot. The page all in all is using almost every tool. The one main thing that I did notice is the lack of a meeting tool. Other then that he is keeping his web page very candidate based without much party representation at all. I found it very interesting that it took me more then 20 seconds to realize that he was a Democrat, and i had to actually look to discover this.

Ron Kinds Web page:
http://www.house.gov/kind/

California's Big Race to Succeed Schwarzenegger

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1878814,00.html

This story address several of the topics covered in this weeks readings. Funding, partisanship, other topics are coming to the forefront as Schwarzenegger's time in office runs out. The story does a good job of covering each candidate, or potential candidate in what I found to be there rawest form. I am waiting to see what the "fat cats" will do with there money in this election.

Election rules and Factions

Over the years the rules of politics have changed. This is due to changes in many areas. New technologies, immigration, and world affairs are just a few of the changes on the political landscape. I am not sure if the consequences of these changes were intended or not, but some of these changes have made things easier for voters. I believe that this is a great outcome. Now we are able to readily view information about candidates, (Hetherington and Keefe, Ch2), and we are able to "weed out" candidates through primaries. This gives the candidates more exposure to speak about his or her platforms and beliefs so long as the "horse race" is kept under control. (Hetherington and Keefe, ch3, pg 96) This also gives people a chance to form alliances or groups that have a common interest, or a faction. I do not believe that this was an intended consequence as they do may make things a bit more strenuous for candidates, especially at a higher level due to many different views and ideas, but it has helped the people to be heard.

New rules in regrades to primary elections and the supreme court outlawing blanket primaries are also changing the political scene. Primaries are becoming more candidate based at local levels over party based and are increasing partisanship and factionalism. The problem that we are now facing is that primaries are not doing what they were meant to do, make politics more competitive. (Hetherington and Keefe, ch 3 pg 75) It seems that if a candidate does not think that they have the ability to win they pull out of the race and the opposition wins by default. Normally the opposition is the parties selection. This is not what I had in mind for improvement. This seems that the party, weather through caucus or another means of choosing there candidates, is still controlling who we are "pushing through" to the next round so to say, and voters with a less popular cause seem to be forgotten because they can be.

Now this is not always true as we most recently saw with the election of Barack Obama as president. Hilary Clinton was the supposed inevitable choice for Democrats. Due to primaries this was not the case. (Dodge a bullet there. :-) In this instance primaries did there job and let the people decide who they wanted to be on the ballot.

There is always controversy before, during, and after any election. These arguments often include funding. Was there soft money being thrown around, was all of the money taken in accounted for, and so an and so forth. The laws put on place to regulate the money being taken in by candidates and parties have done a great job of leveling the playing field. This, however, is not enough. The "Fat cats" are now using there money else where. "527" groups are a great investment for a wealthy person that has there own agenda. They are able to put advertisements out there that will sway voters in the direction that they want and need so badly to fulfill there goals. I understand the idea of free speech, but this is a bit more then that. Is everything that that they are saying truthful? Are they putting a twist on things to shine a certain light on things? This is taking the attention off of the candidates records and issues and making the election all about competition. (Hetherington and Keefe, ch3 , pg 96.)

I believe that this may have a negative consequence on partisanship. There may be an increase in membership in parties, but I do not feel that it is for the appropriate reasons. If people are making there decisions about who to vote for and what agenda matters to them based on these advertisements and propaganda we have made no progress. It has been shown that most Americans are not going out and doing their own research, but that they are making their decisions based on the propaganda, (This is why we still need the electoral college.)

Addressing the question. "Do efforts to reform elections through primaries and the regulations of money in elections work at a cross-purpose?" I believe that they do. Both of these reforms were made to make the election process more fair, and in my opinion to involve the voter more. It would seem that they are both working towards the same goals but addressing the problems on two different ends. I believe that their goals are slowly being met, (look at the recent election.) Factions can not be purged as people will always try to find other with the same agenda and push for what they want. People that are more ambitious will see what they want to happen become a reality. It is a part of the American dream. This has been apart of the American identity since the beginning of our nation and should be.

Check out this page!!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/default.htm

This is a link to the USA today's politics page. There are news articles and blogs that are very insightful. I would suggest looking at the links that have been broken down in each portion of the government.

I found the portrayal of Michelle Obama interesting as well. It is simply amazing to me the huge impact the wife, or husband, can have on an election. From here clothing to her flirting with her own husband and what she does with her children, its all there. I guess even though she will not be running the country she will have a significant pull on many decision.

Moduel 1 What is a Political Party?

What is a political party? The obvious answer is the dictionary definition, "an organization made up of people who think alike on various issues that seeks to attain power within a government." (http://www.lwvmi.org/voterpower/voting-terms.html)



Upon trying to further understand what a political party is i found it helpful to look at what usually drives a political party. Is it self interest? Do they think that they know what is best for the good of the people and they should be the ones to make decisions? Pompous? even when its seems that they do not realize this themselves.



As the Federalist 10 and 51 point out there is no separation of what one wants and there own principals and what they strive for the the people. They tend to see it from there point of view. Is it impossible to know one thing is good for you and make the a decision that is not regardless of how good it is for the majority of the people?

There are so many questions and even more answers. I have decided that i will make my own definition of a political party.

Political Party- A group of like minded individuals who have made the decision that they should be responsible for what is best for the greater good of the people and wish to direct society in a view of there own and run for political offices in hopes of gaining power.

The problem here is quite obvious. Most politicians are not like the rest of the society. They are mostly wealthy white males. It is no wonder now that this is why the government of the USA does not service a great majority of the people as well as it could.

Welcome module

Hello everyone,
This is the first time that I have had a blog so bare with me. I will do my best to make it interesting. So where to start..... Well, my name is Megan. I am very interested in politics and the way that are government works. I am excited to be taking this class not only because of the material that it covers and the fact that I got to choose to take this coarse, but also because i can graduate after these three credits. Finally!!!!

I am always ooking to study with people so if anyone needs a study buddy let me know. It is helpful for me to have a real immediate commitment to do the work as I am sure is true for many of you. Shoot me an e-mail if your interested.