Link Post to interesting CBS article regarding 2006 mid-term elections

This article by CBS news' Sean Alfano provides an excellent commentary of how the Democrats won in 2006.

2006 and 2008 Elections enhance Fiorina's argument of "sorting"

Having read the notes I agree that both the 2006 and 2008 elections strengthened Fiorina's argument about sorting. Fiorina defines sorting as : "Those who affiliate with a party today are more likely to affiliate with the ideologically ‘correct’ party than they were in earlier periods".

In 2006, I think this came to light as evidenced by the change in the public's opinion regarding the Iraq war. Poll numbers from 2006 suggest that nearly 60% of Americans thought the invasion in March 2003 was a mistake. In 2003, that number was reversed; 60% thought the invasion was the right thing to do.

This helps reinforce Fiorina's idea of the ideologically "correct" party. I think this is symptomatic of 2006 because, as the sources I have put forth suggest, poll numbers indicate a complete 180 degree 'U-Turn' by the public with regarding the war. Naturally, many believe that the sky-rocketing increase in violence that year was one of the main causes for the drop in support for the war, with more Americans coming home in coffins - the public's support is naturally going to wane... yet the lack of any substantial evidence for going to war in the first place (i.e. no weapons of mass destruction) also played on the public's mind. So, to re-cap, in 2004 - people thought it was the "correct" thing to do. But this opinion 'flip-flopped' in 2006.

In 2008, the economy took center stage as the main issue in the election. According the CNN poll data, 62% of people said that the economy was their main concern. This is sharply contrasted to 2006 where Iraq dominated the agenda. Nonetheless, having the economy to campaign on for the democrats gave Obama a massive advantage because the Democrats had not been in power for 8 years; they could lay the majority of the blame on the hands of the GOP. Also, it did not help the Republican's case that their candidate, John McCain, admitted: "The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should".

So here, it seems as if Fiorina's argument about voters siding with the 'correct' party is here for all to see. The democrats were the 'correct' party in 2006 and 2008 due to two key issues, the Iraq war, and the economy respectively.

Link to an excellent article concerning the two economic voting blocks.

This piece by Gary Younge, originally published in The Guardian Newspaper, describes why voting Republican and not being a multi-millionaire isn't a bad thing after all.

The article is appropriately titled... i.e. "What's the matter with... etc..." and it references both Bartels and Frank and compares both arguments very well.

Frank vs Bartels - who's right, and who's wrong...?

I was already familiar with the book What’s the Matter with Kansas before class, though I confess to never reading it. I was familiar with the ideology expressed in the book; that America had lost its liberal soul and that moral values were trumping the economic interests of so many Americans. As a European who is not used to the massive role religion plays in American politics, I was always confident that Thomas Frank was telling the truth. However, as Larry Bartels points out, closer analysis of the data shows Frank's argument(s) to be slightly skewed.

According to Frank, "Then, on the morning after the election, the country's liberals were astonished to hear that, according to exit polls, at least, "moral values" outranked all other issues in determining voters' choices.[16] Later on that same day, the reelected President Bush set out his legislative objectives for his second term. Making America a more moral country was not one of them. Instead, his goals were mainly economic, and they had precious little to do with helping out the working-class people who had stood by them: he would privatize Social Security once and for all and "reform" the federal tax code."

Now on the face of it, that seems a very convincing argument. However, Bartels decides to delve a little further into Frank's definition of "working class" in the review of Frank's book, sarcastically titled, What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter with Kansas?. Bartels states that, "While it seems fruitless to quibble about who is really in the working class, it is important to be clear about what we are talking about.The potential for confusion is illustrated in a 2005 New York Times column by David Brooks entitled “Meet the Poor Republicans.” Brooks writes that “we’ve seen poorer folks move over in astonishing numbers to the G.O.P.” In support of this assertion Brooks notes that “George W. Bush won the white working class by 23 percentage points in this past [2004] election.” The 23-point margin refers to white voters without college degrees – precisely the definition of the white working class now proposed by Frank. But are these really “poorer folks”? Poorer than Brooks and Frank, yes. Poor by the standards of ordinary Americans, not really."
(Bartels, 205).

I never thought about it this way. There is a common stereotype that all conservative voters are rich fat cats who make $500,000 per year, but as Bartels explains, "Even in 2004, after decades of increasingly widespread college education, the economic circumstances of whites without college degrees were not much different from those of America as a whole. Among those who voted, 40% had family incomes in excess of $60,000; and when offered the choice, more than half actually called themselves “middle class” rather than “working class.” (Bartels, 205).

As Bartels expertly explains, Frank's definition of "the poor" and "working class" is a slightly lopsided. I mean, let's put it this way, if $60,000 a year is poor - I wish I was "poor" - or at least Frank's definition of poor anyway! Sometimes, though not always, there is an accurate description by conservatives of "liberal elites" who looks through their lenses with rose tinted spectacles. Bartels lands a knock out blow here, in my view. He exposes the weaknesses in Frank's research and accurately describes that all these so called "working class" conservatives are not all on food stamps or living helplessly on paycheck to paycheck. In fact, according to data from the US Census Bureau, $60,000 a year is higher than the average yearly American household income of $50,000 (approx).



Bartels continues to tear Frank's 'culture war' argument to shreds, explaining that in actuality - the voting gap between lower and higher income voters is increasing dramatically, "The voting behavior of Frank’s white working class in the 2004 election suggests that, if anything, the partisan divergence between its richer and poorer segments is continuing to increase. John Kerry received 49% of the two-party vote in the poorest third of Frank’s white working class, virtually identical to the 50% received by previous Democratic candidates over the preceding three decades. However, his support fell to 40% among middle-income whites without college degrees, and to 30% among those in the top third of the income distribution. Thus, insofar as Kerry’s performance reflects a continuing erosion in Democratic support among Frank’s white working class, that erosion continues to be concentrated among people who are, in fact, relatively affluent." (Bartels, 209).

Bartels explains that, in 2004, Kerry held firm with low income voters, but lost some middle income voters without college degrees, and lost a significant portion of high income voters. I commend Bartels for his expert analysis here because I always thought the book, What's the Matter With Kansas, was symptomatic of the truth in the heart of this country. But Bartels has shown that clumping people into broadly defined groups such as the "working class" can be misleading, and deceptive.

Bartels uses facts and figures to stipulate his opinions, whereas on the other hand, Frank seems to attack the argument from a self-centered ideological approach; in other words - Frank personally believes it is cynical for the "working class" to vote conservative - so just because Frank thinks that it seems cynical - that means we all have to agree with him.... no, I much prefer Bartels' argument because he sticks to facts, figures, and statistics. In essence, I am not necessarily saying that Bartels is right and Frank is wrong (or visa versa) - but if it was a boxing match, I'd say Bartels would win on points...


On a final note, per the instructions in the notes, I think what happened in 2008 did not influence my views. In 2008, there was (and still is) an economic crisis not seen since the Great Depression. In 2005 there was still positive economic growth - so I don't think it would be 'fair and balanced' to compare the elections of 2004 and 2008 in this sense. However, if you did want to use 2008 as a reference point to back either Frank or Bartels, it would most likely strengthen Bartels' argument because the Republicans lost some of their traditional "values voters" in 2008 as the attentions centered primarily on the economy [I analyzed this extensively in my blog describing what changed between 2004 and 2008].



Works Cited [MLA Format] :


Bartels, Larry. "What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter with Kansas?!" Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2006: 201-226.

Link to an excellent interview with Bobby Jindal

Here is an excellent link to an interview with Bobby Jindal in Townhall Magazine in which he carefully describes the political cycle and how the GOP can recover.

"There are at least three lessons that immediately jump out at me. The first is that the party must consistently do what it says. You can't be the party of fiscal discipline and tolerate the kind of spending that our party has accepted in the last several years, especially in Washington. Our actions have to match our rhetoric. If the Democrats had proposed many of the spending initiatives and projects that Republicans ended up approving, we would have been the first to criticize them. It isn't just earmarks. Look at some of the discretionary spending increases in Washington. We can't be the party of fiscal discipline when we're tolerating and approving the kinds of spending we've seen at least the last eight years."

This guy is on the right page. He could be the savior the Republicans are seemingly so desperate for...

How the GOP can recover

Rising from the ashes of the Republican collapse will not be an easy feat. The Republicans are reeling from their recent election defeats, and this has devastated the foundations of the party. According to Drew Mckissick, writing in The Conservative Outpost , he states : "Unfortunately, we got off base with big-government conservatism, or "active" conservatism, as some in that camp prefer to style it. The problem with big government conservatism (apart from its obvious philosophical flaws) is that there are always big government liberals that will shamelessly outbid you every time, (because they know it's not their money anyway). It will never work, nor should it."

I definitely agree with Mr. Mckissick. The Republicans campaign on smaller government, but in the last 8 years, they ballooned the size of the federal government. Some may argue that some aspects of this increase were necessary, for example more defense spending in a post 9/11 world - but the infamous "No Child Left Behind Act" really annoyed some conservatives, I know this by talking to some of my Republican friends who have parents who teach. They told me that the idea is unrealistic, and it is also unfair because the act punishes schools that are not doing well - shouldn't schools that are not doing well get aid to help the students perform better?

The best way to tackle the question of what the new Republican party would look like is to answer why the Republicans have collapsed like a deck of cards recently. In my previous blog, I vividly described how 2 main events, the Iraq war and, more recently, the economy, contributed to the G.O.P. downfall - so how do the Republicans combat this in 2012 and, in the nearer future, the mid-term elections of 2010?

One man on the tip of everyone's lips is Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. Young, at 37 years of age, intelligent (educated at Oxoford and Brown), and diverse (Indian heritage), he certainly fits the bill. Look at Barack Obama, young, well educated, and a diverse candidate. A perfect democrat vs. republican mirror image?


One person who agrees with me is Michael Lehay, writing in the Houston Chronicle, in an article entitled "Some in GOP see their Obama in Jindal; Young Louisiana governor is being talked up as key player in party's future". In the article, Lehay explains, "...a mostly Republican crowd of self-described conservatives received their first introduction to someone many prominent members of the GOP think could be the party's own version of Obama. Like the president-elect, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is young (37), accomplished (a Rhodes scholar) and, as the son of Indian immigrants, someone familiar with breaking racial and cultural barriers. He came to Iowa to deliver a pair of speeches, and his mere presence ignited talk that the 2012 presidential campaign has begun here, if coyly. Already, a fierce fight is looming between him and other Republicans — former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who arrived in Iowa a couple of days before him, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is said to be coming at some point — for the hearts of social conservatives."

I definitely would go along with Lehay's assessment that the Republicans need to do a better job at capturing the increasingly diverse melting pot that is the United States of America. For example, everyone knows that Barack Obama convincingly won the African American vote, but one area in which he was surprisingly successful in was the Hispanic vote. According to Ina Jaffe writing for NPR.com, "Even in Florida — where Hispanic voters have traditionally backed Republicans — a majority supported Obama, says Arturo Vargas, head of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials. He says Latinos focus on their interests — which include the economy, the war in Iraq, access to health care and the need for comprehensive immigration reform — not a particular party."

Considering the vast amount of Hispanics in the United States, this is a vote that will be heavily sought after in the future elections, no doubt about it, and I think Jindal could play a key role in reviving the flat-line that the Republicans seem to have encountered with this diverse demographic, because as Jaffe points out, the Republicans have traditionally done well with Hispanic voters, but Obama's message of unity for all races, combined with the democratic party's more flexible view of immigration, seems to have sealed the deal.

So, what about the rest of party's makeup. Well, for Vice President, I would have Chuck Hagel. Hagel spoke true words of wisdom regarding Iraq, and as a long as distinguished U.S. Senator from the ultra red state of Nebraska, he would provide Jindal will bullet-proof cover from any potential democratic attacks about a perceived "lack of experience in war-time" argument. Hagel would add a much needed wise head to the ticket. But unlike some of his other long serving Republican counter parts, Hagel has a history of positive bi-partisanship, and he admitted that he would have considered running on the democratic ticket with Barack Obama had he been asked to do so.

As for which state(s) the Republicans should target to resurrect their political heartbeat, as I've already stated, they should be very worried about the Hispanic vote. In 2008, Obama was not far away from embarrassing McCain in his home state of Arizona, and surprisingly won in Colorado and New Mexico - both Republican states in 2004 under George Bush. If things continue, how long before the Republicans lose other major states in the nearby area of the country? If Texas, for example, were ever to go Democrat in a presidential election - you can bet your life the Democrats would sweep to victory. I know what you're thinking, Texas going democrat - pigs will fly, but in 2004 had you said that Colorado and New Mexico would both go blue, and Arizona would be close to going blue, you would have got the same reaction from most people...

Finally, as for the make-up of the personnel within the party, appointing both democrats and republicans to key positions could prove fruitful; this would indicate a willingness to display bi-partisanship and would convince the electorate that the party is willing and able to work for the greater good of the country. One candidate for Secretary of State could be Mike Huckabee. I think Huckabee articulated that he was clearly going to adopt a different foreign policy to that of Bush-Cheney. He explained, "The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad,” the former Arkansas governor writes. He called for a change in “tone and attitude,” and said that President Bush “has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism."

As someone who has lived outside the United States, one common criticism and misconception people have of America is the representation of an arrogant, rugged mentality with regards to foreign relations and affairs. I think Huckabee would provide a fresh perspective to this notion that US foreign policy is either America's way, or the Highway. Considering the job title of the United States Secretary of State is to be responsible for handling foreign affairs - I think Huckabee would be a fantastic addition to a Jindal-Hagel Presidency.

To summarize, I think I have explained some pointers as to how the Republicans could potentially transform themselves for a strong run in 2012. A Jindal-Hagel ticket would really give the Obama-Biden team a run for their money in the next Presidential election!

Will the Republicans Rebound from their recent defeats? Dick Cheney seems to think so....

The Republicans will rebound from their recent election heartbreaks, that's according to former Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney believes that the Republicans are capable to respond to the recent sweeping victories by the Democrats, and states, "it [The GOP] will rebound from this year's electoral defeats but only going through a political cycle like that in the 1970s. After Watergate, Republicans lost the White House, but President Jimmy Carter got only one term before losing to Republican Ronald Reagan."

Source for Cheney thoughts.

Despite his optimism, would you trust a man who finished with job approval ratings in the teens? I wouldn't...