Ultimately, the 2006 and 2008 elections do strengthen Fiorina's argument for sorting. The fact that control of the House, Senate, and Presidency swung from the Republicans to the Democrats does not in itself signal that voters had never sorted themselves out based on ideology. Two simple facts support this idea. First, a large part of Fiorina's argument is that the vast majority of the electorate are not that different, so for the middle of the middle-of-the-road voters the ideological or party identification is less durable over time and events or circumstance can swing their vote from one election cycle to the next. Second, the voting differentials in any single election race that have swung control to the Democratic Party are not that vast to suggest massive amounts of missorted voters still exist. Furthermore, even where large margins do exist, there are the effects of new voters to consider. With respect to the recent presidential election, Obama's victory was larger than both of President Bush's in terms of popular vote margin, but also in terms of total votes cast. The fact that new voters are emerging in the electorate, and perhaps "sorting" themselves as Democrats or liberals does not indict Fiorina's argument any more than the idea that the moderate, independent voters are still flexible and unlikely to reliably and completely assign themselves to a single party over the long term.
The Module 14 notes reference Fiorina attributing the result of the 2004 Presidential Election to the female vote; it also mentions that it can be easy to diagnose such a result when there is a significant difference in a given voting bloc from one election cycle to the next. Nonetheless, in analyzing Fiorina's contention by comparing the 2004 and 2008 exit polls, it is striking that the gap changed just as significantly among men - Democrats lost among men 45% to 53% in '04, and won 49% to 48% in '08. Women voted 52% to 46% in favor of Democrats in '04, and that went up to 56% in '08. The tides behind this change clearly must be from the middle, and in any case the sorting of voters into the ideologically correct party is bound to be an ongoing process. Another interesting gap shift from '04 to '08, which I believe also supports a case for the ongoing sorting of the electorate, is the vote of the youngest voters, 18-29 year-olds. In 2004, this group went 55% to 44% for the Democrats; in '08, this numbers swelled to a full 66% in favor of the Democrats. This is not to say that it can be expected that the Democratic candidate will have ~66% of the 18-29 vote in every election, but those voters are more likely to have correctly sorted themselves as Democrats and voted accordingly, and as such can expected to reliably vote Democratic, all other things being equal. Overall, I think it becomes clear that while it may the sorting hypothesis cannot and does not purport to be a predictor of how large the margins between voting blocs or parties may be, it is still a significant element in explaining and defining elections for a new political era.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Build-a-Party & Group Projects Analysis
Build-a-Party
Overall I am pleased with the final proposal my group (Group 6) came up with. If the premise of a Republican Party collapse were a reality, I would suspect that something like our party would be its replacement. Apparently other groups felt the same way, as it looks like every single group chose to build a party to take over the wake of a Republican collapse, and every group contained some element of a more socially liberal and true economic conservatism. Given the recent election results this isn't particularly suprising - choosing the GOP to collapse was the obvious choice since the Democrats just won the presidency and held both houses of Congress.
The platforms of each group's party were oriented towards different main issues but, again, tended towards social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. With everyone working with the premise that the GOP had collapsed, electoral strategies were focused on what the redrawn political map would look like for this new party if it could not reliably count on support of the old Republican base in the South and Great Plains. I know that our group and a couple of others addressed specifically the potential impact of smaller splinter parties under this hypothetical scenario and I think that is an important note, particularly with respect to expectations of party viability. It is almost easier to conceive of a new party candidate competing for (if not winning) the presidency in order to promote legitimacy for the congressional party candidates.
Group Work
The group member with whom I co-authored these two assignments was pro-active in setting and showing up to meeting times, reliable in coming to the table with ideas, and willing to put in time to get the job done. I couldn't ask for more. Were there supposed to be 4 people in the group? Yeah. Oh well. Being unconvinced that more is necessarily merrier, I would just reiterate that the group interactions that did take place were informative and productive. We intially met during the first project thru campfire.org, and used that as our meeting place each time after that to discuss or combine ideas. It would have even been easy for group members who weren't there to catch up and get on the next time we met since we posted transcripts and planned meetings through the D2L group messageboard. I am not sure if I can make any overly positive or negative generalizations based on these group projects about political communication and organization over the internet. As an asset to a team or group organizing effort the internet is absolutely a positive, but the motivation to organize still has to exist for people to take full advantage of it. People who want to be tuned in are tuned in - those who don't...aren't.
Overall I am pleased with the final proposal my group (Group 6) came up with. If the premise of a Republican Party collapse were a reality, I would suspect that something like our party would be its replacement. Apparently other groups felt the same way, as it looks like every single group chose to build a party to take over the wake of a Republican collapse, and every group contained some element of a more socially liberal and true economic conservatism. Given the recent election results this isn't particularly suprising - choosing the GOP to collapse was the obvious choice since the Democrats just won the presidency and held both houses of Congress.
The platforms of each group's party were oriented towards different main issues but, again, tended towards social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. With everyone working with the premise that the GOP had collapsed, electoral strategies were focused on what the redrawn political map would look like for this new party if it could not reliably count on support of the old Republican base in the South and Great Plains. I know that our group and a couple of others addressed specifically the potential impact of smaller splinter parties under this hypothetical scenario and I think that is an important note, particularly with respect to expectations of party viability. It is almost easier to conceive of a new party candidate competing for (if not winning) the presidency in order to promote legitimacy for the congressional party candidates.
Group Work
The group member with whom I co-authored these two assignments was pro-active in setting and showing up to meeting times, reliable in coming to the table with ideas, and willing to put in time to get the job done. I couldn't ask for more. Were there supposed to be 4 people in the group? Yeah. Oh well. Being unconvinced that more is necessarily merrier, I would just reiterate that the group interactions that did take place were informative and productive. We intially met during the first project thru campfire.org, and used that as our meeting place each time after that to discuss or combine ideas. It would have even been easy for group members who weren't there to catch up and get on the next time we met since we posted transcripts and planned meetings through the D2L group messageboard. I am not sure if I can make any overly positive or negative generalizations based on these group projects about political communication and organization over the internet. As an asset to a team or group organizing effort the internet is absolutely a positive, but the motivation to organize still has to exist for people to take full advantage of it. People who want to be tuned in are tuned in - those who don't...aren't.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Critical Eras
John Aldrich, in his 1999 article “Political Parties in a Critical Era,” suggests that substantial changes in party leadership, changes in public beliefs and values, and changes in voting patterns are the baseline for the argument that the 1990’s are a critical era (Aldrich 1999, p28). I believe that he is right that all these variables are present in the 1990’s and lend credence to calling it a critical era. However, one of the essential parameters of V.O. Key’s definition of a critical era is “one of rapid change leading to a new period of relative stability” (Aldrich 1995, p261). Any period of relative stability in this case would have been very short – starting sometime during the Clinton administration and ending with the 2006 elections. Restricting the definition of the new critical era to the 1990’s misses the larger picture of changing party leadership, changes in public beliefs, and changes in voting patterns; these patterns have been in flux from 1994 to at least 2006 (or 2008 if you prefer), with no long-term equilibrium having revealed itself as of yet.
I would suggest that by the definitions of Keys and Aldrich, among others, either the 1990’s were a critical era that was punctuated by an unusually short period of equilibrium that quickly encountered another critical era; or the critical era is more properly extended into 21st century and still awaits the long-term equilibrium that the theory proposes. I believe that under the latter scenario, the critical era model proposed by Keys and Aldrich can still apply. Beginning with the 1994 elections, however, there has simply been little evidence for the long-term lock on the Presidency for Democrats or on Congress for the Republicans that Aldrich forecast as evidence for the introduction of the new stable era (Aldrich 1999, p14). Whether this equilibrium will ensue post-2008 remains to be seen, but is it not perfectly reasonable to imagine critical elections similar to 1994 and 2006 as soon as 2016 or 2018? If not, the scenario fits quite cleanly into Keys and Aldrich’s model. If so, it seems fair to suggest that the more frequent occurrence of critical elections is causing shorter periods of stability and equilibrium, and vice versa.
I would suggest that by the definitions of Keys and Aldrich, among others, either the 1990’s were a critical era that was punctuated by an unusually short period of equilibrium that quickly encountered another critical era; or the critical era is more properly extended into 21st century and still awaits the long-term equilibrium that the theory proposes. I believe that under the latter scenario, the critical era model proposed by Keys and Aldrich can still apply. Beginning with the 1994 elections, however, there has simply been little evidence for the long-term lock on the Presidency for Democrats or on Congress for the Republicans that Aldrich forecast as evidence for the introduction of the new stable era (Aldrich 1999, p14). Whether this equilibrium will ensue post-2008 remains to be seen, but is it not perfectly reasonable to imagine critical elections similar to 1994 and 2006 as soon as 2016 or 2018? If not, the scenario fits quite cleanly into Keys and Aldrich’s model. If so, it seems fair to suggest that the more frequent occurrence of critical elections is causing shorter periods of stability and equilibrium, and vice versa.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Lieberman is a POS
The first question for the week is to determine whether or not Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. I suppose he would tell you that he is not, but I think that most of the available evidence leans towards saying that he is - much to the chagrin of other members of the Democratic party-in-government - actually a Democrat. Aldrich notes that legislation is dependent the formation of voting majorities in Congress (p195) and the only clear expression of this is the voting records of particular members. The model he offers for determining a "party vote" accepts the fact that there is a lot of missing information - the data will not tell us why a member voted the way they did or what other forms of the legislation did not make it out of committee, among other subjective factors (p196). Nonetheless, a voting record is the best available data for determining preferences in comparison to other members of Congress. Turning to Lieberman specifically, his voting record is strong in terms of party votes with Democrats on a broad range of issues (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53278). Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean recently put the number for Lieberman casting Democratic party-line votes at about 90% (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/18/dean-applauds-move-to-kee_n_144667.html) - with the glaring exception of the military and national defense issues that have become more prevalent in recent years, causing the well-publicized rift between Lieberman and the party that ultimately resulted in him losing the Democratic primary and subsequently leaving the party in 2006.
Lieberman continued to caucus with the Democratic Party, and retained his seniority with regard to committees in the last session of Congress. When compared to all members of Congress across the entire spectrum of congressional business, it is difficult not to categorize Lieberman as a relatively liberal Democrat - it is only when taking into account his support of President Bush and the Republicans with regard to particular miltary and national defense issues that the case can be made otherwise. Quoting DNC Chairman Dean from the above article, "Why not allow him to vote with us on 90 percent of the stuff?" I think it is hard to make a case that someone who has a long and relatively high-profile history with the party that he votes with 90% of the time, changed his party affiliation to "Independent Democrat" rather than simply "Independent", and continues to caucus with other party members is not a member of the party-in-government as defined by Aldrich, or based on any objective criteria whatsoever.
That said, the aforementioned clashes with other Democrats and party leadership, and Lieberman's ardent support of GOP presidential candidate John McCain over the past year, many in the party feel that some sort of retribution may be in order. The question of what the Democrats should do with him appears to already have been answered - they decided by a comfortable 42-13 margin to allow Lieberman to keep his seniority and his committee chairmanship (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/blogtalk-the-lieberman-vote/), perhaps due in party to the support of President-elect Obama and concerns that his message of bipartisanship could be undermined by the Democratic Senators marginalizing a veteran (albeit Junior) Senator as a form of political retribution for supporting McCain. Not all in the party were satisfied with this decision, particularly in his home state of Connecticut where Democrats are concerned with the down-ticket effects on others of allowing Lieberman to go "unpunished." There are legitimate concerns on behalf of the state Democrats which add another dimension to what it means to be a part of the party-in-government - the way in which a particular party member is seen, especially at such a high level, can have serious ramifications for other party members. I do not think at this time that those concerns outweigh the previously discussed qualities that make Lieberman a member of the Democratic party-in-government. I think that when he is up for re-election again, that will be a dimension of the contest that voters will decide upon. But under no circumstances do I believe that the party should unilaterally force someone who votes with them, on almost every possible issue except one, out of the committee or caucus system based on publicly supporting the opposing party's candidate in one race. Whether it will cost him his seat is, again, for the voters to decide.
Lieberman continued to caucus with the Democratic Party, and retained his seniority with regard to committees in the last session of Congress. When compared to all members of Congress across the entire spectrum of congressional business, it is difficult not to categorize Lieberman as a relatively liberal Democrat - it is only when taking into account his support of President Bush and the Republicans with regard to particular miltary and national defense issues that the case can be made otherwise. Quoting DNC Chairman Dean from the above article, "Why not allow him to vote with us on 90 percent of the stuff?" I think it is hard to make a case that someone who has a long and relatively high-profile history with the party that he votes with 90% of the time, changed his party affiliation to "Independent Democrat" rather than simply "Independent", and continues to caucus with other party members is not a member of the party-in-government as defined by Aldrich, or based on any objective criteria whatsoever.
That said, the aforementioned clashes with other Democrats and party leadership, and Lieberman's ardent support of GOP presidential candidate John McCain over the past year, many in the party feel that some sort of retribution may be in order. The question of what the Democrats should do with him appears to already have been answered - they decided by a comfortable 42-13 margin to allow Lieberman to keep his seniority and his committee chairmanship (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/blogtalk-the-lieberman-vote/), perhaps due in party to the support of President-elect Obama and concerns that his message of bipartisanship could be undermined by the Democratic Senators marginalizing a veteran (albeit Junior) Senator as a form of political retribution for supporting McCain. Not all in the party were satisfied with this decision, particularly in his home state of Connecticut where Democrats are concerned with the down-ticket effects on others of allowing Lieberman to go "unpunished." There are legitimate concerns on behalf of the state Democrats which add another dimension to what it means to be a part of the party-in-government - the way in which a particular party member is seen, especially at such a high level, can have serious ramifications for other party members. I do not think at this time that those concerns outweigh the previously discussed qualities that make Lieberman a member of the Democratic party-in-government. I think that when he is up for re-election again, that will be a dimension of the contest that voters will decide upon. But under no circumstances do I believe that the party should unilaterally force someone who votes with them, on almost every possible issue except one, out of the committee or caucus system based on publicly supporting the opposing party's candidate in one race. Whether it will cost him his seat is, again, for the voters to decide.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Prospects for Republican Failure
The Republican Party has been on the (very) short end of the 2006 and 2008 elections. However, I think it is far too early and would be far too presumptous to claim that two elections have sounded the death knell for a party so entrenched and institutionalized in the American system. I think it is perhaps fair to say that the 2006 and 2008 elections may force the Republican Party into a realignment of its electoral platforms, issues, and especially campaign strategies. The 2008 election was set up well for Democrats - the presidential incumbent was horrifically unpopular and in the middle of economic meltdown, the Democrats put forward a magnetic candidate whose nomination (much less his election) would be historic in itself, and additionally the campaign was organized, structured, and disciplined in new ways that gave them an extended advantage (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/11/america/dean.php). As Nagourney notes in this article, there were many things at play, including the long and highly competitive nomination process for the Democrats. On top of that there is the simple and unusual math that put so many Republican and so few Democratic Senators up for re-election this year. Some year soon, that math will be reversed, and the partisan split in the Senate will again regress back towards the norm of a 50/50 split.
I think that in order for one to point to a collapse of the Republican Party, there has to be more than one or two election seasons of disappointment and lost seats. No one knows what will happen during Obama's first term as President. If the Democrats again gains seats in the midterm elections, and Obama wins re-election in a Reagan/Mondale-type landslide while the Democrats push towards 350 House and 70 Senate seats, then perhaps the collapse of the Republican Party is at hand. As it is I think it is more likely just part of natural political cycles, although admittedly the cycles do appear to be becoming more frequent - in my lifetime alone I can reference the 1994 Republican Revolution along with the 2002, 2006, and 2008 elections as those that have seen phenomenal, policy-changing partisan shifts take place.
In comparison with Aldrich's take on the development of party systems, I also do not see a correlation to make to substantiate a claim that the Republican Party faces collapse at our present time. Aldrich noted the near elimination of the Federalist Party from the national legislature after 1812 (p 98) and the rapid splintering of the Whig Party in the early 1850s (p 135) as the Republican Party rose to prominence. Neither of these scenarios fits the present case...but it may soon. As I said earlier, I do think the Republicans do have some choices to make about their direction and organization - they cannot wait around for Obama or the Democrat-controlled Congress to screw up and hope it buys them a big showing in the midterms or in 2012. Whether or not the new political map the Democrats are trying to create is something that they can perpetuate over time remains to be seen, but if the Republicans will certainly lose if they don't even show up for the fight.
I think that in order for one to point to a collapse of the Republican Party, there has to be more than one or two election seasons of disappointment and lost seats. No one knows what will happen during Obama's first term as President. If the Democrats again gains seats in the midterm elections, and Obama wins re-election in a Reagan/Mondale-type landslide while the Democrats push towards 350 House and 70 Senate seats, then perhaps the collapse of the Republican Party is at hand. As it is I think it is more likely just part of natural political cycles, although admittedly the cycles do appear to be becoming more frequent - in my lifetime alone I can reference the 1994 Republican Revolution along with the 2002, 2006, and 2008 elections as those that have seen phenomenal, policy-changing partisan shifts take place.
In comparison with Aldrich's take on the development of party systems, I also do not see a correlation to make to substantiate a claim that the Republican Party faces collapse at our present time. Aldrich noted the near elimination of the Federalist Party from the national legislature after 1812 (p 98) and the rapid splintering of the Whig Party in the early 1850s (p 135) as the Republican Party rose to prominence. Neither of these scenarios fits the present case...but it may soon. As I said earlier, I do think the Republicans do have some choices to make about their direction and organization - they cannot wait around for Obama or the Democrat-controlled Congress to screw up and hope it buys them a big showing in the midterms or in 2012. Whether or not the new political map the Democrats are trying to create is something that they can perpetuate over time remains to be seen, but if the Republicans will certainly lose if they don't even show up for the fight.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Election '08
Well as it turned out it appears that our group prediction was quite accurate. The numbers I will be referencing come from MSNBC's website here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23887017?GT1=43001 . They have some nice interactive maps by county that are interesting. The total number of votes cast for the two major candidates is given at 63.5 million for Obama and 56.1 for McCain. This is a bit lower than we had anticipated, and while the numbers are not yet final it is probably unlikely that there will be 10 million more votes added to that total as we had predicted (68.5M to 59.8M). Nonetheless, our predicted split is about the same as the actual at just over 53% of the two-party vote for Obama. North Carolina, which we had going very narrowly to Obama, is still listed at 50/50 as of this writing. We had predicted Indiana to go 51/49 to McCain, but Obama took that state too - the only state we forecast incorrectly (with the understanding that NC could be added to that very short list). In terms of percentages we were generally with a margin of +/- 3%, which I was happy with and I imagine was relatively normal for other groups as well. Outside of the context of the group project the election was very much in line with what I expected and hoped for (if I may editorialize), although I did think that at least one of Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania would ultimately break for McCain and lengthen at least the on-air speculation time for political commentators, if not the suspense about the outcome of the election itself.
Moving on to the congressional elections, the Democrats now have 259 seats in the House of Representatives, expanding their current majority by about 20 seats (depending on if that number holds up). Our group had projected 258 seats for the Democrats in the next Congress, which also turned out to be fairly accurate. As for the Senate, again we accurately forecast the winner in almost all cases and generally within a reasonable margin in terms of percentage. The Georgia, Minnesota, and Oregon contests are apparently still too close to call - we had Minnesota and Oregon going to the Democratic candidate. In any case it appears the Democrats will not enjoy the filibuster-proof 60 seats they hoped for - but they got close.
So did all this amount to an electoral mandate for Obama and the Democratic Party? I think it absolutely does. Some will say it is not, perhaps referencing that it was not a historically massive win in terms of either the popular vote or electoral votes, but the Obama victory combined with the substantial Democratic pickups in both the House and Senate delegations nonetheless constitutes a clear directive by the electorate. With respect to President-elect Obama specifically, I mentioned before that I expected McCain to somehow pull out a win in Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania. He lost them all. I think the idea of deriving an electoral mandate from this win comes with the fact that Obama won every state a Democrat was supposed to win, every state that is traditionally a toss-up or "battleground" in presidential elections, and then a few states that nobody would have expected him to. That said, in light of all the coverage and polling data that many of us have been looking at for the better part of a year now...purely in terms of numbers, nothing that happened yesterday should have come as much of a shock. The data said that Obama had about a 6-point lead nationally, it said he was ahead in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and it said that he and McCain were running very closely in a handful of traditionally red states. All of that turned out to be very true.
Moving on to the congressional elections, the Democrats now have 259 seats in the House of Representatives, expanding their current majority by about 20 seats (depending on if that number holds up). Our group had projected 258 seats for the Democrats in the next Congress, which also turned out to be fairly accurate. As for the Senate, again we accurately forecast the winner in almost all cases and generally within a reasonable margin in terms of percentage. The Georgia, Minnesota, and Oregon contests are apparently still too close to call - we had Minnesota and Oregon going to the Democratic candidate. In any case it appears the Democrats will not enjoy the filibuster-proof 60 seats they hoped for - but they got close.
So did all this amount to an electoral mandate for Obama and the Democratic Party? I think it absolutely does. Some will say it is not, perhaps referencing that it was not a historically massive win in terms of either the popular vote or electoral votes, but the Obama victory combined with the substantial Democratic pickups in both the House and Senate delegations nonetheless constitutes a clear directive by the electorate. With respect to President-elect Obama specifically, I mentioned before that I expected McCain to somehow pull out a win in Florida, Ohio, or Pennsylvania. He lost them all. I think the idea of deriving an electoral mandate from this win comes with the fact that Obama won every state a Democrat was supposed to win, every state that is traditionally a toss-up or "battleground" in presidential elections, and then a few states that nobody would have expected him to. That said, in light of all the coverage and polling data that many of us have been looking at for the better part of a year now...purely in terms of numbers, nothing that happened yesterday should have come as much of a shock. The data said that Obama had about a 6-point lead nationally, it said he was ahead in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and it said that he and McCain were running very closely in a handful of traditionally red states. All of that turned out to be very true.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Letter To A Maverick
McCain can hope all the predictions are wrong, or that Joe Biden keeps saying crazy stuff I guess. Firstly though when I think about it all now though, I think he's done quite a few things right in terms of his campaign. The choice of Sarah Palin could be described as hilarious, odd, disgusting, etc...but also quite shrewd. If he had people (and he probably did) telling him that he needed to attract a certain demographic of people - conservative women, conservatives in general, the Christian Right and such - to his candidacy and to the polls on election day, then that's exactly the kind of person he needed. Whatever anyone's personal thoughts on Mrs. Palin are, she certainly has been beneficial to him in terms of publicity and perhaps (yet to be seen) getting more people out to vote. Most people who laugh at the way she haphazardly and mindlessly (was that judgemental?) answers questions by, say, Katie Couric probably were never going to vote for McCain anyway. So it seems he's tried to target certain types of voters to engineer what would have to be a very slight victory...it's just not working as much as he'd like it to. And as much as voters say they hate negative campaigns, and this one has certainly become that, they still hear it all (or worse, only some of it) and those who are still undecided could be swayed by a well-executed issue or character attack even if it's untrue or irrelevant. McCain may be riding on the edge of that one though, by allowing his running mate to step out and call Obama a terrorist at what I'm sure are very fun rallies. Of course there are things that didn't make much sense either - like "stopping" his campaign and ultimately pitching a government buyout of home mortgages and then calling Obama the socialist, or implying that he personally knows some sort of terrorsist-catching secret that he's apparently been unwilling to share with President Bush.
I would say in some regard to continue what he already seems to be doing in working hard to reach certain demographics - those race, religion, and income gaps that overwhelmingly supported President Bush over Kerry in '04 (Olson and Green, 444) to make sure they vote. Perhaps his running mate will help him hold a similar distribution of women's votes too (since McCain probably creeps women out), as Bush ran almost evenly with Kerry in that category in '04 also. To the extent that it is under his control, I think it might be a good time to tone down the personal nature of some of the character attacks directed at Obama. In all seriousness - Fox News can do that part for him; I just think it makes him look desperate and tacky.
I would say in some regard to continue what he already seems to be doing in working hard to reach certain demographics - those race, religion, and income gaps that overwhelmingly supported President Bush over Kerry in '04 (Olson and Green, 444) to make sure they vote. Perhaps his running mate will help him hold a similar distribution of women's votes too (since McCain probably creeps women out), as Bush ran almost evenly with Kerry in that category in '04 also. To the extent that it is under his control, I think it might be a good time to tone down the personal nature of some of the character attacks directed at Obama. In all seriousness - Fox News can do that part for him; I just think it makes him look desperate and tacky.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Minority Parties in Congress
I write today against my better judgement to suspend my blog posts indefinitely to go to Washington and solve the economic crisis. The role the minority party in Congress, on the whole, often seems to take is to point out flaws (real or imagined) with whatever the majority is doing. Particularly in the House, this follows logically from the idea that representatives behave with all eyes on the next election - incumbents want to be re-elected, and they want their party to take more seats. Without the majority vote in their favor, members of the minority party can more freely take positions further from the ideological center out of personal preference or a desire to gain favor from voters in their district because the party leadership will tend to be less concerned with anything that doesn't directly involve winning the majority back. It is generally in the interest of members of Congress to draw attention to themselves, and in the interest of the minority party to rail against the majority, and the louder they can do so the better. This can be seen today with President Bush's party out of power in Congress - the blame game becomes much easier for both parties. The Republicans can blast Congress for not passing legislation that they favor, and the Democrats have to respect the power of the veto and consider their ability to override it when developing bills. Being contrarian can be a useful and popular tactic, in its own way. Representative Ron Paul of Texas is a good example of this I think. He has his beliefs, votes accordingly, and is well-liked enough in his district that he doesn't have to vote with the Republican Party or talk lovingly about his party-mates to get re-elected. He can always sit back and say he didn't vote for this or that when it's time to run for president again, and he has built a small army of like-minded people who back him.
As far as the bailout bill goes, the explanation for why it took the House two tries to pass it but not the House is due to the inherent differences between the two houses. House Representatives are all up for re-election and are forced to be more directly responsive to their districts. By contrast, only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election, so a full 2/3 of them are largely uninhibited by (at least immediate) electoral concerns. If they think it's good, they can vote for it. Some Representatives just can't vote for it if they still want to be in Congress in a few months...unless they have something to sell it to their constituents with. Packaging the bill with other popular tax breaks or other benefits made the bill a more viable option for certain representatives to vote in favor of when they otherwise could or would not have out of concern for their perception in the home district. Aside from individual considerations, the macro pressures of the party could also have had an effect - since the effects of the bill are unlikely to truly be felt (or even understood) by voters come Election Day, neither party desires to be the party that looked like it didn't do anything or didn't care.
As far as the bailout bill goes, the explanation for why it took the House two tries to pass it but not the House is due to the inherent differences between the two houses. House Representatives are all up for re-election and are forced to be more directly responsive to their districts. By contrast, only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election, so a full 2/3 of them are largely uninhibited by (at least immediate) electoral concerns. If they think it's good, they can vote for it. Some Representatives just can't vote for it if they still want to be in Congress in a few months...unless they have something to sell it to their constituents with. Packaging the bill with other popular tax breaks or other benefits made the bill a more viable option for certain representatives to vote in favor of when they otherwise could or would not have out of concern for their perception in the home district. Aside from individual considerations, the macro pressures of the party could also have had an effect - since the effects of the bill are unlikely to truly be felt (or even understood) by voters come Election Day, neither party desires to be the party that looked like it didn't do anything or didn't care.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Campaigns, Part II
To simply answer the question, "Do the candidates of the 2008 presidential elections seem like agents of their parties?", well...yes, despite the different ways both came to their respective party's nominations, I think they very much do. With many people having predicted '08 to be Hillary's year to run as the Democratic candidate, Obama took many by suprise with his quick rise in the early primary season. In a different way, many Republicans are still just flat suprised that McCain is their nominee. But they will, in most cases, back him up with their votes even if he screwed them by supporting some investigation or bill they didn't like because he's still preferable to the other guy. This comes back to part of what I had in mind when I defined "party" for myself, that people who are members of a party may not like every other member or agree on every point, but they come back to that group when it's time to vote. Anyway, while it is perhaps nice lip service to talk about change, bi-partisanship, or being a "maverick", ultimately both candidates need their respective party's core voters just as much as they need those moderate, undecided voters. I think for the most part they do both carry the support of the party hardcore. As they should - saying you're different or independent doesn't make one so, and just because these candidates weren't handpicked by party officials in a smoke-filled room doesn't mean they won't act as relatively typical agents of the party in order to get elected. McCain certainly has crossed that line (but that's a value judgement, I'll reserve elaboration in the interest of more scholarly matters). Moreover, to actually deliver on many of the things they are proposing, they would need that kind of support in a U.S. Congress where bi-partisanship is, in reality, pretty much a thing of the past. See http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/bigsort/default.aspx on the recent bailout bill vote. The chart is pretty stark. To me, whether or not the Democratic/Republican Party structure got behind Obama/McCain...so then he won, or he forced them to because he won doesn't really matter. The structure may have changed in terms of the frontloaded primaries and voters having a more direct say in who becomes the nominee, but there is still a large role for the party with regard to pushing candidates in the invisible primary phase and just providing the basic presidential campaign structure of primary > convention > election.
I think the difference and tensions of candidate-centered vs. party-centered campaigns certainly tips in favor of candidate-centeredness just because of the increased opportunities for congressmen or candidates to appear on television, build their own website, etc. Ultimately I don't see this as entirely different from party-centric campaigns because there can be so many tie-ins. I remember reading an article last spring about the mayoral election in London (http://www.slate.com/id/2190110/) where in the campaign itself there was almost no mention of party, party platforms, agendas, etc. whatsoever...it was quite literally both candidates insulting each other and engaging in what amounted to a personality contest. While it is perhaps an extreme example, I have not yet become aware of anything quite similar in American politics. There always seems to be some of party angle, that sense that they are still on some sort of team and very much aware of it. In most cases I think the people watching these shows or engaging themselves in politics are aware of which side representatives and candidates are on too (Joe Lieberman excluded).
As far as the candidates websites, first of all I noticed how similar both of them are in many ways. Both have frontpage links for volunteering, issues, blogs, contributing (of course), campaign calendars, etc. - the types of tools mentioned in Teachout's article. Obama's is a little easier to navigate, but for either him or McCain it's pretty simple to select the state you're from and find a local office to sign up or volunteer in just a couple clicks of the mouse. Obama also has links and tie-ins with other news and social networking sites. But if the point is to find an internet structure that in Teachout's words, "emphasizes simplicity", then I would have to give the edge to Obama.
I think the difference and tensions of candidate-centered vs. party-centered campaigns certainly tips in favor of candidate-centeredness just because of the increased opportunities for congressmen or candidates to appear on television, build their own website, etc. Ultimately I don't see this as entirely different from party-centric campaigns because there can be so many tie-ins. I remember reading an article last spring about the mayoral election in London (http://www.slate.com/id/2190110/) where in the campaign itself there was almost no mention of party, party platforms, agendas, etc. whatsoever...it was quite literally both candidates insulting each other and engaging in what amounted to a personality contest. While it is perhaps an extreme example, I have not yet become aware of anything quite similar in American politics. There always seems to be some of party angle, that sense that they are still on some sort of team and very much aware of it. In most cases I think the people watching these shows or engaging themselves in politics are aware of which side representatives and candidates are on too (Joe Lieberman excluded).
As far as the candidates websites, first of all I noticed how similar both of them are in many ways. Both have frontpage links for volunteering, issues, blogs, contributing (of course), campaign calendars, etc. - the types of tools mentioned in Teachout's article. Obama's is a little easier to navigate, but for either him or McCain it's pretty simple to select the state you're from and find a local office to sign up or volunteer in just a couple clicks of the mouse. Obama also has links and tie-ins with other news and social networking sites. But if the point is to find an internet structure that in Teachout's words, "emphasizes simplicity", then I would have to give the edge to Obama.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Campaign Finance, Etc.
I think one of the more striking points made in the reading for this week was regarding putting spending in political campaigns in perspective - "Bradley Smith observes that Americans spend two times as much on potato chips every year as candidates spend on political campaigns" (p116) - because it can be easy to simply look at the amount money goes into campaigns and be offended or morally indignant at the situation, but really there's a lot of money being spent on much less important things. The money spent on politics may appear staggering, but compared to how much is spent advertising cars or Diet Coke, it becomes less so.
So to the extent that campaign finance reform levels the playing field for all candidates in competition for an office, certainly it can be a good thing. Does it actually work that way? Well...sometimes, I think so. Maybe "in theory" is a better way to put it. While both primaries and campaign money regulations are intended to diminish the influence of political organizations and give that influence back directly to the voters, and in some ways they do, it seems more likely that this has only changed the way in which political organizations (whether they be parties, interests groups, donor groups, etc.) exert their influence. Someone always has to define and drive political, policy, and electoral discussion, and regardless of the type of primary or regulations on money, people will always naturally organize themselves into like-minded groups and attempt to win elections. In the U.S. this takes place largely through the structure of the Democratic and Republican Parties, to whom any smaller groups (or factions) tend to acquiesce to in order to get action on a particular issue that is important to them. So long as the political sphere remains broad, the logic of Madison in Federalist #10 still holds in that it is remains unlikely for either party or smaller faction to unduly affect the operation of the government in a substantially negative way. Except for the 2000 Election I guess. Just kidding!
So to the extent that campaign finance reform levels the playing field for all candidates in competition for an office, certainly it can be a good thing. Does it actually work that way? Well...sometimes, I think so. Maybe "in theory" is a better way to put it. While both primaries and campaign money regulations are intended to diminish the influence of political organizations and give that influence back directly to the voters, and in some ways they do, it seems more likely that this has only changed the way in which political organizations (whether they be parties, interests groups, donor groups, etc.) exert their influence. Someone always has to define and drive political, policy, and electoral discussion, and regardless of the type of primary or regulations on money, people will always naturally organize themselves into like-minded groups and attempt to win elections. In the U.S. this takes place largely through the structure of the Democratic and Republican Parties, to whom any smaller groups (or factions) tend to acquiesce to in order to get action on a particular issue that is important to them. So long as the political sphere remains broad, the logic of Madison in Federalist #10 still holds in that it is remains unlikely for either party or smaller faction to unduly affect the operation of the government in a substantially negative way. Except for the 2000 Election I guess. Just kidding!
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Electoral Institutions
It perhaps goes without saying that primaries be looked at as good or bad in any number of ways. While attempting to make a simple pro and con list, it was sometimes difficult to decide if a certain effect was a strength or weakness of the primary system. The one obvious thing primaries do is select a single party candidate from a pool of contenders. So, is it good or bad to have candidate selection narrowed down early in the campaign? And how soon is too soon? I remember just this past spring after it became clear that McCain would be the Republican candidate, many in the Democratic Party were clamoring for either Obama or Clinton to step aside ASAP so their party's candidate could be in the spotlight too; then, of course, there was all the handwringing over the "superdelegates" (haven't heard that word in awhile, huh?) for months while they battled in the remaining primaries. For the party and voters, the Obama/Clinton matchup also brought up questions of "electability" of each candidate - do you just vote for the candidate you prefer, or do you have to be concerned over their hypothetical performance in the fall general election? Could (should?) the party subvert the will of the voters in the face of such a concern? Of course, in the Republican Party Mick Huckabee also stuck around a little too long for some people - since he was so far behind, why keep campaigning? Maybe to get McCain to pay attention to all the people voting for him, or to a certain issue that was important to him? Or just to push his 15 minutes of fame a little farther? And this was 7-8 months away from the general election.
While the primary season is always filled with much talk of policy and/or party platforms that the candidates are going to push, in order to change (or not change) policy they first must be elected. So primaries also force candidates to tell a whole bunch of lies, make promises they can't keep, say their position on a given issue is the opposite of the way they've voted for the past 20 years...okay maybe that's a bit facetious (I'll let you decide), but it does sometimes force them to alter or conform their positions on certain issues to something more moderate so they can get enough votes to win the election. In a primary against a member of the same party this is particularly important because even within the parties - as referenced in the Hetherington and Keefe text - there exists much heterogeneity. Going back to this year's presidential primary again, there was a time when there were open questions about whether McCain could attract enough votes from the Republican base, or whether he was truly conservative enough to get out the vote from the most conservative wings of the party.
The electoral college makes the election of a president different from congressional elections. With the winner-take-all nature of each state's electoral college votes, generally speaking not all states' votes are seen as competitive. Months before the actual election, journalists and political strategists are already able to determine what the "battleground" states are. Hetherington and Keefe mention the declining number of such states in recent years, albeit with similar win differentials in popluar vote totals (p 46). Obama came out this year pushing a "50 state strategy", and has perhaps put a couple of otherwise typically Republican states into play for himself. However there are simply states that either candidate knows they are not going to win, so candidates, their party, and their voters can expend less energy and spend less money there once the party nomination has been secured. This differs from election of a Representative or Senator because even after those candidates secure the primary, they are going to continue to campaign in a similar manner in competition for the same voters.
Primary contests have a variety of affects that differ depending on the size of the election, and I generally believe most of these effects can be seen or expressed in a positive or negative light. Setting up, in most cases, a two-candidate race can simplify the process for the voters and candidates to express the policies they would support if elected, but that doesn't mean the best candidate will always be chosen in the primary. Competition for votes in a primary can moderate the positions of candidates or party platforms in order to compete for independent voters, which is good because it can eliminate more extreme candidates, but that could also inhibit the ability of the government as a whole to move policy in the direction the voters are intending.
While the primary season is always filled with much talk of policy and/or party platforms that the candidates are going to push, in order to change (or not change) policy they first must be elected. So primaries also force candidates to tell a whole bunch of lies, make promises they can't keep, say their position on a given issue is the opposite of the way they've voted for the past 20 years...okay maybe that's a bit facetious (I'll let you decide), but it does sometimes force them to alter or conform their positions on certain issues to something more moderate so they can get enough votes to win the election. In a primary against a member of the same party this is particularly important because even within the parties - as referenced in the Hetherington and Keefe text - there exists much heterogeneity. Going back to this year's presidential primary again, there was a time when there were open questions about whether McCain could attract enough votes from the Republican base, or whether he was truly conservative enough to get out the vote from the most conservative wings of the party.
The electoral college makes the election of a president different from congressional elections. With the winner-take-all nature of each state's electoral college votes, generally speaking not all states' votes are seen as competitive. Months before the actual election, journalists and political strategists are already able to determine what the "battleground" states are. Hetherington and Keefe mention the declining number of such states in recent years, albeit with similar win differentials in popluar vote totals (p 46). Obama came out this year pushing a "50 state strategy", and has perhaps put a couple of otherwise typically Republican states into play for himself. However there are simply states that either candidate knows they are not going to win, so candidates, their party, and their voters can expend less energy and spend less money there once the party nomination has been secured. This differs from election of a Representative or Senator because even after those candidates secure the primary, they are going to continue to campaign in a similar manner in competition for the same voters.
Primary contests have a variety of affects that differ depending on the size of the election, and I generally believe most of these effects can be seen or expressed in a positive or negative light. Setting up, in most cases, a two-candidate race can simplify the process for the voters and candidates to express the policies they would support if elected, but that doesn't mean the best candidate will always be chosen in the primary. Competition for votes in a primary can moderate the positions of candidates or party platforms in order to compete for independent voters, which is good because it can eliminate more extreme candidates, but that could also inhibit the ability of the government as a whole to move policy in the direction the voters are intending.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Defining Political Parties
When I think of political parties I tend to think of them as groups of voters and/or representatives, depending on whether we're talking about an election or a congressional vote, that usually come back together to vote for the same candidate, legislation, or policy that most closely fits with their own position. Perhaps it's far more complex than that (I kind of hope so, anyway), but at least in a two-party system such as in the US I think that it's a labelling process that is useful at the same time as it is frustrating. Party members have shared policy positions, goals, and platforms that they will tend to support and that can be an important part of simplifying election and voting processes that are already complex. While there is of course variation and people who consider themselves independent of party affiliation, generally in America most people identify with either the Democrats or Republicans and see it in opposition to the other, and vote (or not) accordingly. That isn't to say that smaller parties aren't also parties...certainly when I hear about the Green Party or Libertarian Party I think of them as parties in some sense of the word, even if they lack the ability of the two major parties to exert direct influence on legislation they still share ideas and positions and band together to try to win political offices. There are even battles within parties for control over what exactly the party's positions and platforms will be, but I think that exists outside of the context of party since in any large group of people, smaller groups (what Washington or Madison would probably call a faction) of more or lesser extreme positions will always form and try to steer the dicsussion in their respective direction. That would be true whether or not there was something formally called a "party" for everyone to see.
From the readings, the difference between the Washington and DeLay farewell addresses really is striking. I can see where both are coming from though, despite the literally hundreds of years of history that are also relevant when comparing the two statements. Some of what Washington was saying still resonates - even now, do people want to be in a party and win elections because they want to do what is in the best interest of the nation, or because they just want to win? Although the party system has institutionalized itself in many positive ways in the US, that isn't true everywhere in the world so it's understandable that Washington feared it when the nation was still so young. And certainly there are opportunities for personal gain in politics that - while they may not amount to "tyranny" - are attractive to those who might abuse their office. Speaking of which...Tom DeLay's statement highlights some of the positive developments of parties, pointing out that the debate is healthy, that it is in fact necessary to prevent tyranny. People see things differently, it's just how it is, and having the debates and battles over how to do things are preferable to not being able to have them.
From the readings, the difference between the Washington and DeLay farewell addresses really is striking. I can see where both are coming from though, despite the literally hundreds of years of history that are also relevant when comparing the two statements. Some of what Washington was saying still resonates - even now, do people want to be in a party and win elections because they want to do what is in the best interest of the nation, or because they just want to win? Although the party system has institutionalized itself in many positive ways in the US, that isn't true everywhere in the world so it's understandable that Washington feared it when the nation was still so young. And certainly there are opportunities for personal gain in politics that - while they may not amount to "tyranny" - are attractive to those who might abuse their office. Speaking of which...Tom DeLay's statement highlights some of the positive developments of parties, pointing out that the debate is healthy, that it is in fact necessary to prevent tyranny. People see things differently, it's just how it is, and having the debates and battles over how to do things are preferable to not being able to have them.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
About Me...and Hopes, Dreams, and/or Fears Concerning the Study of Party Politics in America
This is Matt Bluethman's blog for the Fall '08 Party Politics in America course. I generally don't refer to myself in the 3rd person, so that will be the last time. About me...well, I'm a brunette, I need to find a new apartment, I'm originally from Illinois, I like the White Sox, and even though Carlos Quentin broke his wrist a couple days ago, I'm pretty sure they'll still win the division as the Cubs slowly implode as October comes nearer. I am a senior and Political Science major in my final semester here at UWM (as an undergrad at least, you never know) and I took this class because the subject of parties is interesting to me, and having touched on the subject somewhat during Tofias' Congressional Politics course last spring (which I reccommend, it's fun), I felt some more depth would be beneficial and perhaps even fascinating. Plus it fit my schedule.
In any case my hope is that this will help me to better understand the processes and role of parties in American politics...what's right with it, what's wrong with it, how these roles have changed over time, and maybe how we might expect them to evolve in the future. My fear is that everything I thought to be true about parties will be turned on its head and I will realize I know nothing and immediately leave school. That's not true. It is a big election year and all, and I writing this right now I realized that I have not paid close enough attention to the non-presidential campaigns/races this summer (as many Americans have not, I would guess) because I have almost no thoughts on that, so it's time to do that I think, since regardless of who wins the presidency Congress still has a rather big say in what goes on even if the candidates don't like to mention that during the conventions. Anyway, looking forward to studying some parties, have a good day, goodbye.
In any case my hope is that this will help me to better understand the processes and role of parties in American politics...what's right with it, what's wrong with it, how these roles have changed over time, and maybe how we might expect them to evolve in the future. My fear is that everything I thought to be true about parties will be turned on its head and I will realize I know nothing and immediately leave school. That's not true. It is a big election year and all, and I writing this right now I realized that I have not paid close enough attention to the non-presidential campaigns/races this summer (as many Americans have not, I would guess) because I have almost no thoughts on that, so it's time to do that I think, since regardless of who wins the presidency Congress still has a rather big say in what goes on even if the candidates don't like to mention that during the conventions. Anyway, looking forward to studying some parties, have a good day, goodbye.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)