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...

Red Mist....

As you can probably deduct from the title of this blog, I totally agree with Mr. Tofias that the Republican party is undergoing a current "hiatus" from the center stage of American Politics. Being tasked with answering the question as to why the GOP has gone up in smoke since the 2006 mid-term elections, while I do not doubt the traditional "political cycle" played some part, I think the root of the problem lies with two major issues. Iraq, and more recently, the economy.

I am not planning on passing political judgment on Iraq, on a personal level anyway. Nonetheless, according to my research for this blog, the Iraq war was one of the key reasons Republicans lost the 2006 mid term elections in such emphatic fashion. As Gary Langer pointed out in his article for ABC news, titled Midterm Election: Referendum on War; In What Comes Down to a Referendum on Iraq, the Center Peels Away , he explained, "An improving economy notwithstanding, opposition to the war remains the prime issue driving congressional voter preference. And the war's critics include not just eight in 10 Democrats but 64 percent of independents, 40 percent of conservatives, 35 percent of evangelical white Protestants and a quarter of Republicans.

It matters: Among the four in 10 registered voters who favor the war in Iraq, 73 percent support the Republicans in their congressional districts. But many more, nearly six in 10, oppose the war, and 78 percent favor Democrats for the House."

Keep that thought about the "improving economy" in mind for later. So, with regards to the data in this article, I personally feel the striking stand out number in that list is the 35% of Republicans in the voting electorate, whom at that time, voiced disapproval of the Iraq war. Sure, the 8/10 democrats is not a great surprise; as we have learned in this class, the opposition party can and usually will campaign on the mistakes of the incumbent party - but the Republican figure is quite telling.

Source for 2006 election data (ABC News)

Further evidence of the GOP's disintegration in 2006 due to the Iraq war is provided with some key, prominent Republican political figures who openly broke with the President with regards to his war strategy. This was exemplified most poignantly by one man in particular, as I can remember. Chuck Hagel, a long serving senator from Nebraska, a Vietnam war veteran, strongly came out against the President's strategy in an op-ed piece for the Washington Post titled, quite meaningfully, Leaving Iraq, Honorably . Within the article, Hagel points out that, "The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose".

Washington Post Article

Harsh words from a self confessed devout GOP member. Hagel further shocked some of his Republican colleagues by stating in 2008 that he would not rule out running on the democratic ticket with then candidate Obama as his Vice President.

Fast forward to 2008, and you could have been forgiven for believing that the GOP could experience a bounce in the polls due to the decreased violence in Iraq after the "surge" was introduced in 2007. As Bill Ardolino points out in his blog The Long War Journal, "The drop began in September, as civilian deaths (884) fell 52 percent from August and 77 percent year-over-year, while military deaths (65) fell 23 percent and 10 percent over the same periods. October’s declines made it a trend: Civilian deaths (758) dropped an additional 12 percent from the previous month and 38 percent year-over-year, while US military deaths (38) dropped 42 percent and 64 percent during the same periods."

Drop in violence source

So in the cold light of day, you might think that this should have provided the GOP with a political "shot in the arm", in particular John McCain who put his entire political career on the line with his continued support of the Iraq strategy while some others on the Republican ticket were, originally, not as vocal in their support for the Iraq war. Well, we all know, if you thought that, you were terribly mistaken. The financial downturn sky rocketed the popularity of the democrats and provided them with an unbeatable platform upon which to campaign on. What many people seem to forget is that, in August 2008, before the September stock market crash on Wall Street, McCain's numbers were very strong. As Michael Barone points out in his article in U.S. News and World Report titled Poll Numbers Are Bad News for the Obama Campaign, " The Battleground poll, conducted by Republican pollster Ed Goeas and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and sponsored by George Washington University, has McCain ahead by a statistically insignificant 47 percent to 46 percent. They have Democrats ahead on the generic vote-for-Congress question by 47 percent to 40 percent, just a tad less than the 49 percent-to-41 percent Democratic edge in their September 2006 poll. Obama's favorable/unfavorable rating has gone from 59 percent to 28 percent in July 2007 to 57 percent to 39 percent now. That's almost identical to McCain's 57 percent to 36 percent fav/unfavs. Offshore drilling is supported by 72 percent, oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by 58 percent. The other poll, Reuters/Zogby, will be discounted by many because of pollster John Zogby's reputation for tweaking the rules. (Here's a criticism by David Moore on the pollster.com website.) It shows McCain ahead by 46 percent to 41 percent, in contrast to Obama's 47 percent to 40 percent lead in Zogby's July poll. Interestingly, it shows McCain ahead on managing the economy by 49 percent to 40 percent—further evidence that high gas prices and Democrats' opposition to offshore and ANWR drilling have cost them dearly. Voters under 30 went for Obama, but by only a 52 percent to 40 percent mark."

As Barone points out, Obama's popularity was severely waning. His approval rate in July 2007 was 57%, and in August 2008 it dropped to 39%. And most critically, Barone links the sky rocketing gas prices to the economy, with many Americans favoring McCain's stance on offshore drilling and hence linking this to personal economic freedom, because remember, back then, gas prices were through the roof at $4 a gallon.

Link to Poll Numbers from August 2008

Nonetheless, following the stock market crash in September, the game changed dramatically. Remember when I said "hold that thought on the economy"? Well, as Dalia Sussman points out with her poll data for the New York Times in an article titled Times/CBS Poll: Economic Worries Dominate Voters’ Minds, "Over all, nearly 8 in 10 rate the condition of the national economy negatively and 6 in 10 say it is getting worse. And the number who says their financial situation is worse off now than it was four years ago is higher than it was in polls leading up to the last presidential election in 2004. The poll was conducted Friday to Tuesday, during the financial upheaval that started to unfold over the weekend."

Furthermore she stated that, "Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, currently has the edge on the issue: Six in 10 voters say they’re very or somewhat confident in the Illinois senator’s ability to make the right decisions about the economy, while about 4 in 10 are not. Voters are somewhat more divided in their confidence in Senator John McCain’s ability: 53 percent are confident, 46 percent are not."

Link to November Poll Data from New York Times

As you can see, 8/10 were worried about the financial situation - and Obama had the edge in terms of voter's opinion over who was best suited to manage the crisis. Given that neither Obama's or McCain's background is not in economics; this tells me that party identification [i.e. the fact that Obama was running on the Democratic ticket] sold the deal to the American people.

So in conclusion, I decided to analyze the specific, generic reasons as to why the GOP have fallen away in recent years. I think this is more down to the specific policies of the Republicans and how they have impacted the American people, rather than the regular political cycle that see parties "recycled" between the Democrats and the Republicans. I do not doubt that the political cycle played a role in the ousting of the GOP, nonetheless, as someone who has lived through the post 2006 political landscape, I believe that that two key issues, the economy and the Iraq War, contributed severely to the GOP downfall.

Excellent Article by NPR detailing how game theory could have decided the Democratic Nomination in 2008

Game Theory Source


I enjoyed reading the notes on D2L this weekend because, as economics major, I have studied Game Theory extensively. They even have a Game Theory course in the economics department if anyone is interested (just throwing it out there).

Anyways this article is interesting because it really analyzes how the actions of Clinton and Obama were "zero sum" during that heated primary battle royal. I highly recommend everyone read it.

Does Obama Have An Electoral Mandate?

I think it is unclear as to whether Barack Obama has an electoral mandate. While it is clear he was elected to change course and policies from the Bush administration, Obama should be aware that Americans have been historically unwilling to adopt a left wing, liberal agenda.

Upon researching for this blog, I read an excellent piece in the "Fundamentals of Interactive Journalism" blog by Michael Preston. He argues that, "Barack Obama better tread carefully. I’m sure that he will. He’s a cautious man, which is one reason that he is now the 44th President of the United States. But if people like Mr. Meacham start to get antsy if Obama does begin to move the country leftward, make sure you show them the numbers from above so they understand what a mandate looks like."


Fundamentals of Interactive Journalism Source


Preston's argument is that although Barack Obama scored impressive totals in the election, in terms of popular vote, states won, and demographics, he has to be careful and cautious about moving the country too far left because America is essentially a center-right country.

Preston's article came on the back of an article in Newsweek written by Jon Meacham titled : "America remains a center-right nation—a fact that a President Obama would forget at his peril."

A great point made by Meacham is that both Republican and Democratic candidates eventually move towards the center in American politics. He writes, "Republican presidents, too, are frequently pulled from the right to the center. Nixon instituted wage and price controls and created the Environmental Protection Agency. Reagan cut taxes, then increased them, presided over the expansion of the federal government and wound up successfully negotiating with what he had once called the Evil Empire. George H.W. Bush swore he would not raise taxes, but did."

These are two excellent examples, in particular the last point about George H.W. Bush saying he would not raise taxes... only to go ahead and do so. This brings me to my point that politicians should not be completely subservient to their party's interests or their so called "electoral mandate". I believe Presidents should be able to adapt to different conditions and changing your mind and or policies is not such a bad thing because, let's face it, the world changes frequently. Socialism used to be a "dirty word" in the United States of America, but today, companies left right and center are begging for government intervention - was any of this imaginable 2 or 3 years ago? Not a chance. But today, it is becoming the norm.

Finally, on the Meacham article, he argues that although America is a centrist country, it is a centrist country that tilts to the right. He argues, "So are we a centrist country, or a right-of-center one? I think the latter, because the mean to which most Americans revert tends to be more conservative than liberal. According to the NEWSWEEK Poll, nearly twice as many people call themselves conservatives as liberals (40 percent to 20 percent), and Republicans have dominated presidential politics—in many ways the most personal, visceral vote we cast—for 40 years. Since 1968, Democrats have won only three of 10 general elections (1976, 1992 and 1996), and in those years they were led by Southern Baptist nominees who ran away from the liberal label. "Is this a center-right country? Yes, compared to Europe or Canada it's obviously much more conservative," says Adrian Wooldridge, coauthor of "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America" and Washington bureau chief of the London-based Economist. "There's a much higher tolerance for inequality, much greater cultural conservatism, a higher incarceration rate, legalized handguns and greater distrust of the state."


Link to Newsweek article


Added to the results of the NEWSWEEK poll, in which nearly twice as many people call themselves conservatives as liberals (40 percent to 20 percent), I have personal experience of living in Europe. Europeans are much more liberal than Americans (on average), Europeans have universal, government funded healthcare, and in many European nations the government will pay for your education all the way to PHD level. But it is not just those facts that distinguish Europe from the United States in a liberal vain, it is the mindset as well. There is a stronger liberal mindset in Europe, more collective, and more socialist than the United States. Maybe America's fear of going too far left comes from the days of taxation without representation ; which eventually led to the revolutionary war. Whatever the case, as someone who has lived in 4 different European countries and 3 different American states, I wholeheartedly agree with Adrian Wooldridge about Europe being more liberal than the USA.


In conclusion, I think I have accurately displayed that although Barack Obama won a decisive victory in the 2008 election, he will have to tread carefully as Americans are historically nervous and fearful of a left wing, liberal agenda. His electoral mandate is clear, a vast number of people wanted a change from the Bush years, but if he pounds the liberal drum too hard he could ruin his chances of re-election in 2012.

Link Post detailing why exit polls can be deceptive

I think this article on Forbes.com by Karlyn Bowman is very detailed and explains how exit polls are not always completely reliable. In the article she explains how the exit polls duped many in 2000 and 2004, especially that eventful night in Florida in 2000 when it seemed Gore had won, only for incoming data on Fox News to give the election to Bush...


Link to the Forbes.com article

Exit Polls of the US Presidential Election, 2004 v.s 2008 - what changed?

Exit polls - what do they tell us about election(s)? From the readings and my own analysis, I have come to a clear conclusion that the 2004 election was largely decided on national security, whereas in 2008, the election was decided primarily on the economy [Thesis Statement].

It's hard to be really creative in a blog without taking a slightly opinionated view, however, being strictly objective, it's clear that in 2004 the Republicans decided to run on national security. I don't think that this is an opinionated view, this is as near to a cast iron fact as you're ever going to get. I think the reason the Republicans chose to do this was because terrorism and national security was one of the most forefront, national issues at the time. This is backed up by the readings, especially the Gapology report by Laura Olson and John Green. They state that, "Given the increased prominence of national security after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as well as the war in Iraq, voting in 2004 could reflect uncharacteristic unity between the genders on these topics of the day."

Link to Gapology report

That, in my view, provided the Republicans with a strong platform upon which to base their success in 2004 upon. The entire public was united on the theme that national security is important, and something I have yet to mention, the Iraq war. Although it's kind of debatable whether Iraq had anything to do with US national security, and I'm not going to go down that road - the Republicans did an EXCELLENT job of linking the two together.

And my independent research backs this up. according to CNN, terrorism was the third most important issue in 2004, with 19% of people saying that was their most important issue. The top two were economy/jobs with 20% and moral values with 22%. But look at the percentage of people who stated that terrorism was their most important issue, and an overwhelming 86% went for Bush, with only 14% selecting Kerry. That's as emphatic as a Texas Rangers grand slam in the 9th inning against the Boston Red Sox (the directions said to be creative....).

Now it's true that I stated that I thought that National Security was the issue that decided the 2004 election, but it is true that the "Religious Right", with their "moral values", played an important role too - you can't single that out of the equation in 2004. And, again, going by CNN's numbers, Bush again walloped Kerry in that issue by 80% to Kerry's dismal 18%. So if my terrorism analogy about the Texas Rangers beating the Boston Red Sox was relevant, maybe Bush's dominance on moral values could be likened to the Houston Rockets nailing a game winning 3 pointer in overtime against the Celtics....


Source for CNN poll data


Moving on to 2008, I think the poll data strongly backs up my view that the electorate had changed their views about National Security, and moved the economy to issue number one with regards to the election. According to ABC's national exit polls for 2008, the economy was BY FAR the most important issue, with a whopping 63% of people stating that as their most important issue in 2008, versus terrorism at only a meager 9%. So, to re-cap, in 2004 terrorism was the third most important issue at 19%, but in 2008, it was the 4th most important issue at 9%, with energy policy coming in at bottom place with 7%. And, unsurprisingly, the most important issue in 2008, the economy, led the voters to flock to Barack Obama. Voters who stated that the economy was the most important issue in 2008 voted with Obama 53% to McCain's 44%. OK, those numbers are not individually decisive - 53 versus 44 - but take into account that 63% of people stated it as the most important issue, and that extra 7% that Obama gained starts to look real big...


ABC Poll Data link


Furthermore, according to exit poll data by CNN, when the question of : "Worried that the Economic Crisis will hurt your family?" was put to the voters, a staggering 81% said "yes", with 18% saying "no". Among those who said yes, roughly four fifths of Americans, 58% went with Obama, versus 40% who went with McCain. Again, the 58 versus 40 on its own is not decisive, but when you consider that 81% thought the economy would get worse... it really tipped the scale in Obama's favor.


CNN link to 2008 exit poll data


On a final note, many were concerned that there could be the so called "Bradley effect", and that might change the election results dramatically. The Bradley effect relates to the 1982 governor's race in California in which exit polls predicted the African American candidate, Bradley to win, however in the end the white candidate, George Deukmejian, won. The reason I am mentioning this is that it is important to remember that exit polls are what people say they "intend" to do in the ballot box. What they actually do in the ballot box can be very different, because people can feel pressured psychologically whilst taking a survey. I think it's safe to say that we're all glad that this did not rear its ugly head in 2009, the election should be about issues, not race, whether the candidate is Black, White, or Hispanic, Asian... etc...


Link describing the Bradley effect


So, overall, in conclusion, I think I have accurately shown how the dynamics changed in the 2004 election - which was largely decided on national security, to 2008, where the election was decided about the economy.

Follow up to the "McCain for President?" link provided by the Professor

I enjoyed reading the article by Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal about John McCain and his history of reaching across the aisle. I think the article did a good job at describing McCain's true strengths. I always thought the reason he was considered a Maverick was because of his rugged style of answering reporter's questions and dealing with the media, but in the article by McCarty, Poole and Rosenthal they highlight his "Campaign Finance Reform" legislation as one of the main reasons he is known as a maverick.

This article by CNN describes why the New York Times endorsed John McCain over Rudy Giuliani as the GOP nominee. I think the article does a good job of echoing the sentiments in the article suggested by the professor, which I enjoyed reading.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/25/nytimes.endorses/index.html

The Role of the Minorty Party

According to the reading(s), the role of the minority party is more complex than I originally perceived it to be. I originally thought that the minority party's sole job was to just to reject everything the majority party proposed, acting as a complete and utter "Devil's Advocate".

According to John H. Aldrich and David W. Rohde in their quarterly, "The Transition to Republican Rule", they explain that:

"... no one finds it in their interest to act on behalf of the floor, as the Speaker, majority and minority leaders, and others find it in their interests to act on behalf of their party and its collective interests. Thus, even if there is a majority on the floor, it is unlikely to act as a collective, and it is especially unlikely for anyone to act in its collective interests in settings remote in time or place from voting on the floor."

Source = http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2657691.pdf


This explanation is interesting, because I was always under the assumption that members were subservient to their party - and nothing else. But this explanation indicates that the goals of members might be acting in their own self interests versus what the party's interest might be.

Relating this to the Professor's specific question for this week, "Focusing on the US Congress, what is the role of a minority party in a democracy?" - I think that Kathryn Pearson and Eric Schickler do a great job of describing the role of the minority party in their article, "The Transition to Democratic Leadership in a Polarized House". Both Pearson and Schickler describe vividly the toiling between the majority party, the democrats under Nancy Pelosi, and the minority Party - the Republicans. One analysis in particular that I enjoyed was the way in which the Republicans, with the help of the presidential veto pen, were able to foil the democrats' bid to end the war in Iraq. The President rejected Nancy Pelosi's approach that included deadlines for withdrawal of US combat forces, and so the President vetoed the legislation that arrived on his desk. The Republicans in congress put the democrats in a difficult position by claiming that if the Democrats "stopped funding" the war, this would in turn cut off vital supplies to the troops such as armored equipment, and other various supplies. I remember watching this play out in the media, and political commentators frequently said that Pelosi, Bush, and Congress were playing a game of "chicken" with regards to funding for the troops [NOTE: That is not my opinion, it was the opinion of some political commentators and talking heads at the time, if you don't believe me, see the several links provided below].

http://thehill.com/john-fortier/playing-chicken-on-war-funding-2007-03-27.html

http://www.newser.com/story/12264/pentagon-congress-play-chicken-over-iraq-funds.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1687160,00.html

Eventually, according to Pearson and Schickler, Pelosi accepted that timetables for withdrawal were a no-go as far as the majority of Republicans and the President was concerned, and the Democrats proposed legislation that included benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

This, in my opinion, is a good example of the minority party achieving a victory against the numerical power of the majority party. The Republicans used the idea of troops in Iraq with no supplies as a reason as to why funding was necessary. This lead to the democratic leadership being forced to kowtow to the wishes of the President, and although some concessions were made, the key - a time line for withdrawal - was missing, and this upset many in the anti-war movement; according to the article by Pearson and Schickler.

Based on the two readings that I felt best answered the question by the Professor, I believe that the role of a minority party in a democracy is to act as some kind of buffer against the majority party. If you are familiar with corporations, the role of many boardrooms is to challenge management, ask tough questions, and demand good answers and the highest possible standards. This is a good analogy in my opinion, but the question is open-ended and there is no one right answer.

Currently, I am at 500+ words, approximately 200 above what is required. I will reference some more of the readings in the link-post, but I believe this is a good start to answering the Professor’s question: "Focusing on the US Congress, what is the role of a minority party in a democracy?"

Rudy Giuliani's website

Rudy Giuliani's website still has a message of "Contribute", strange, consdiring his participation ended, effectively, over a year ago.

He hasn't adopted many teachout06 hints, in fact, his campaign strategy might as well have been written by a 4th grader - they would have done a better job...

see link:

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/

2008, Politics, and Beyond

When we consider the year 2008, and what an amazing year it was for Politics, it is important to consider that, for many of the candidates; the race began much earlier than that. Barack Obama, for example, started eulogizing about a run in October 2006! And John Sidney McCain III declared his candidacy as early as February 2007, in New Hampshire, where McCain is formally known as "The Maverick" for his fantastic showing in that state in 2000 against "Dubya".

Of course it's important to remember that, back then, the main issue was the war in Iraq. And initially, on the Republican side [although I'm sure many will have forgot this] Rudy Giuliani was the early frontrunner, despite his pro-gay rights and pro-abortion views antagonizing much of the far right. Despite an endorsement from Pat Robertson, one of America's most crazed, fanatical evangelicals, Giuliani's risky, Las-Vegas style campaign strategy of not showing the cards in his hand until Florida proved disastrous, absolutely disastrous, and embarrassing. Did I say disastrous!? He spent roughly $40 million and never even carried a state. What a complete and utter joke of a candidate, surely the 2008 election's equivalent to the Detroit Tigers....??????? Ultimately, the Republicans countered the Democratic ticket by selecting the most experienced candidate in the race, McCain, though doubts over his age and potential longevity in office lingered among many on the right, left, and centre.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton was the early frontrunner - she had more name recognition than the then candidate Senator Barack Obama n co. However, with Edwards winning Iowa, it gave others in the democratic ticket legitimate hope that an upset could be on the cards. Clinton proceeded to rebound strongly in New Hampshire (do we all remember those infamous, FAKE, tears...?) but really lost her way after "Super Tuesday" when Obama carried [something like] 11 states in a row. She then resorted to cheap, gutter-snipe politics and her public support continued to wane, eventually deteriorating, and Obama's campaign slogan of "Change we can believe in" really hit the nail on the preverbal head.

Then, out of the blue – the Alaska blue skies to be exact, came Mrs. "YOU BETCHA" - Sarah Palin. A successful governor in a large, yet isolated state in Alaska, she proved to ultimately be a laughing stock for the Republicans - though initially energizing the base - her inability to define the Bush doctrine or name a national newspaper really left her a sitting duck for the media "gotcha" giants like MSNBC, CNN, and somewhat surprisingly, FOX.

Then in September, all hell broke loose. The economy plunged south faster than a bat out of hell, and many conservative-leaning middle class Americans began to think with their wallet, not their so called "value system". Obama's economic populism resulted in a spiking in his poll/approval ratings across the country, and he even came close to beating McCain in his home state of Arizona, whilst taking previous Republican strongholds like Nevada and Colorado, ultimately - the “Joe The Plumber” mentality is really what sealed the final nail in McCain's political coffin. McCain tried to pretend to be in touch with the average American, while at the same time trying desperately to keep his lavish lifestyle and [multiple?] houses out of the newspapers. Obama's lower-middle class upbringing, meanwhile, did him a world of good.

The rest, as they say, is history...

Link Post to Cricket Financing

I now realize why I only received an 8/10 last week. I was so stupid to forget the link post assignment.

Anyways this story kind of goes "out of bounds" so to speak but it concerns Sir Allen Stanford, the Texan Billionaire who has contributed so heavily to cricket.

What exactly a Texan is doing investing in Cricket, well... seems a bit strange to me, but it again highlights how corrupted outside donations/influence can be.

Here is a link to the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/7895611.stm

Here is a link to Sir Allen Stanford's views on Cricket, claiming it can "replace" Soccer as the most popular team sport within 10 years... ambitious? Certainly. But I think Cricket has got a long way to go before it replaces baseball and American Football in Texas, let alone take over the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7365806.stm


Maybe he should have followed his fellow Texan George W. Bush's lead and stuck with Baseball...

Election Rules and Factions.

I think the modern era of primaries is a good one, it is decentralized. Since Wisconsin has moved to a direct primary, I think it has been a benefit to the voters, and a hindrance to the candidates - but that is the way it should be, we [the general public] should have as much control as possible.

Obviously the biggest criticism of the primaries in the 2008 Presidential election was the fact that in some primaries, open primaries to be exact, any voter can vote for any candidate. However, in closed primaries, you can only vote for whom you are registered for (i.e. Registered Republican can only vote for a Republican). This can create problems for some candidates because, for example, many republicans were said to have something against Hilary Clinton. I don't have any numbers to back that up but it was considered a popular unsung rule within the Republican party that anyone but Hilary would do. So, in open primaries, some Republicans would come out and vote for Obama, or John Edwards, because they were desperate that Hilary not take the oath of office. This discrepancy needs to be addressed because I believe it is an unfair tactic and is harmful to America's democracy because it is, in my opinion, gutter-snipe politics with a vicious end game. You should vote for who you want to vote for, not against who you do not want to win. That seems pretty cut and dry to me... [What do you think....?]

I also think the US Government should scrap the electoral college, and switch to an all out General Election. Personally, I think this would be a better representation of Democracy. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election due to the electoral college. I don't think it makes sense to have someone get the most votes in the country (i.e. the "will of the people") and still end up on the losing side.

With regards to factions and financing, there is absolutely no doubt that factions play a role in politics. Federalist 10 was very clear about the reality of what factions are and how they can damage the goal of the party and hence damage and tarnish the image of the country. I am going to define the word faction :

"cabal: a clique (often secret) that seeks power usually through intrigue"

source = http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=faction

When it comes to American politics, that definition certainly sounds familiar doesn't it (i.e. special interest groups, lobbying, etc..)? In truth, I think the overall idea of Campaign Finance Reform is positive but implementing it is another story. Implementing laws that limit the individual contribution of personal donors to $2000 and PAC to $5000 is a solid start, nonetheless, there's no guarantee this will root out all of the dirty money in politics. What's to stop wealthy individuals from special interest groups (i.e. NRA, Board of Education) from giving out money to others in order to provide the money to the candidates? The IRS? Give me a break.

In conclusion, however, I think we are very lucky to live in the United States. In some countries for example, like China and Russia, you still have de-facto dictatorships. While America's democracy is not perfect, it's better than the alternative. I also think it's important that the same side doesn't always win. I wouldn't be very nice if we had 50 years of consecutive Democratic or Republican rule, would it?!

Decentralization and how it affects Political Parties.

In my opinion decentralization was a massive factor in the election of 2008 and blew the traditional "election map" out of the window in many states, and showed us all that, despite many people losing faith in the system, there is a great deal of hunger out there in the country for "something different".

Take the Republican party, for example. Their traditional mantra was : "Less Taxes, Less Government, Less spending." Despite this, as we all know, the Bush administration has ballooned the Federal budget, deficit, and the national debt to levels not seen since WWII. I am not passing political judgment either way on this, good or bad, but the Republicans lost their identity with the voters, in my eyes. They decided to base their campaign around "the politics of fear" and portrayed the democrats as too weak to combat the non stop terrorist threat that we face from Islamic extremists.

While that probably took Bush, and the Republicans over the line in 2004, the voters were less convinced this time around. And all of a sudden, you get a candidate like Ron Paul, who - when the election started - was a virtual unknown outside Texas, but by the end of the political cycle he became infamous for winning every "Fox News post debate poll" and arguing with Sean Hannity about public policy. The notion of a 70 year old Congressman from Texas with some extreme, radical views (i.e. banishing Social Security, closing all foreign US military bases) could harness incredible awareness in the political spectrum says a great deal about the decentralization of the Republican party. There is an "identity crisis" within the party at the moment, and the fact that Ron Paul did as well as he did speaks volumes for the transformation the GOP is going through at this present moment in time.

As for commenting on political heterogeneity, as the Professor indicated in this week's video, heterogeneity and decentralization are correlated. Moving away from the lesser known Ron Paul, to the super-star status of Barack Obama tells its own story. It is obvious to talk about Obama being the first African American to be elected into the White House, and that is a marvelous achievement. But what interests me, as someone who has lived in many different countries, is his unique International background.


Below is a fine article about why his international background "is an asset, not a flaw." :


http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8713


This receives less attention in the media, but it nonetheless speaks volumes about the heterogeneity of the USA today and the way globalization has shaped the world we live in. Obama's roots are in Hawaii, Indonesia, Kenya, and England (his step-mother and sister live in Bracknell, England). That's 4 different countries, on 4 different continents! Not to mention his sojourn at Harvard, and "political upbringing" in Chicago, Obama is an extremley diversified candidate for many reasons. To me, that is absolutely incredible that this country has a President of such a global, diverse, international background. The fact that someone like Barack Obama can become President indicates a shift in heterogeneity within the US, moving away from the small town, rural mentality, and thinking on a broader, more global scale about how to change the country in order to face up to the challenges in the future.


In conclusion, even though the individual messages of Obama and Paul differed vastly, their common message of a need for "change" within the political system catapulted both straight to the forefront of American politics.