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?"