"For those of you who are feeling giddy or cocky or think this is all set," Obama said at a fundraiser at Manhattan's Metropolitan Club earlier this week, "I just have two words for you: New Hampshire."
Clearly, Obama acknowledges that this race is far from over. Despite the poll numbers in Obama's favor, the fundraising dollars he's acquired , and the fact that he won all three debates, there are still 2 weeks left that could change the course of the race. And with the right strategy, the McCain/Palin ticket could still pull ahead. As the readings explained, the Republicans hold a huge sway over white voters, southern voters (particularly southern women), religious voters, wealthy voters, and rural voters. It's important for McCain to understand this and focus his campaign to these influential groups of people.
To do this, McCain will have to dramatically change his own strategy. Thus far, he's had Palin do most of the dirty work in terms of reaching out to women and religious voters. Note this article, which shows Palin pandering to women voters while backed by former Clinton supporters, and this article transcripting a recent interview between Palin and a Christian leader. Because it's out of the question to replace Palin as his running mate, I think McCain really needs to take some of that responsibility into his own hands. He's spent so much time and energy on vicious attack ads that he hasn't painted a clear picture of his policy views. He needs to scale back the attacks, eliminate the robocalls, and instead hammer into the American people how he will change Washington with crystal clear plans and goals. And he needs to start reaching out to these voters himself, because when people go out to vote, they vote for the top of the ticket -- not the running mate. And if voters are turned off by McCain's constant attacks, I don't think Palin will be enough to sway their vote. Palin should stick to her rallies, which are drawing increasingly large crowds, and stay away from media interviews where she's failed miserably.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Party Identification
Based on the exit polls for 2008, it's safe to state that demographics play a huge roll in party identification, voter turn-out, and which candidate people vote for. It does, in fact, determine voting behavior.
The reading from Hetherington and Keefe details a list of demographics and who certain groups of people are likely to vote for. The text states that "men were seven percentage points more Republican than women, and that women were nine points more Democratic than men," which the text backs up with voter turn-out for both the 2000 and 2004 elections. The text also states that "those who attend church at least once a week have become stalwarts of the Republican party; those who attend church less often or not at all are now disproportionally Democratic." The book then says that "nearly 60% of weekly churchgoers who were white identified themselves as Republicans." The readings also state that more educated people tended to vote Republican.
The exit polls:
In terms of gender, the exit polls showed that 58% of males and 42% of females voted Republican while the exact opposite was true of the Democrats. As for church goers, those who said they went to church "occasionally" or "never" voted Democrat (68%) while those who said they go regularly voted Republican. On the Republican exit poll, the issue of abortion came up. Of those who voted, 70% believed that abortion should be illegal -- a staunchly Republican view. On the Democratic poll, the issue of education came up. 58% had no college degree, while 42% were college graduates.
Conclusion:
The results from the 2008 exit polls solidly proves the text book's claims that demographics determine voting behavior, for the most part. Most women DID vote Democratic, most regular church-goers DID vote Republican, and those with a staunch view on abortion voted Republican as well.
The reading from Hetherington and Keefe details a list of demographics and who certain groups of people are likely to vote for. The text states that "men were seven percentage points more Republican than women, and that women were nine points more Democratic than men," which the text backs up with voter turn-out for both the 2000 and 2004 elections. The text also states that "those who attend church at least once a week have become stalwarts of the Republican party; those who attend church less often or not at all are now disproportionally Democratic." The book then says that "nearly 60% of weekly churchgoers who were white identified themselves as Republicans." The readings also state that more educated people tended to vote Republican.
The exit polls:
In terms of gender, the exit polls showed that 58% of males and 42% of females voted Republican while the exact opposite was true of the Democrats. As for church goers, those who said they went to church "occasionally" or "never" voted Democrat (68%) while those who said they go regularly voted Republican. On the Republican exit poll, the issue of abortion came up. Of those who voted, 70% believed that abortion should be illegal -- a staunchly Republican view. On the Democratic poll, the issue of education came up. 58% had no college degree, while 42% were college graduates.
Conclusion:
The results from the 2008 exit polls solidly proves the text book's claims that demographics determine voting behavior, for the most part. Most women DID vote Democratic, most regular church-goers DID vote Republican, and those with a staunch view on abortion voted Republican as well.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Congress
I found it surprising how much sway minority parties have in Congress. As explained in Hetherington and Keefe, the role of these minority parties is to "mobilize congressional majorities and shape public policy." When I first heard about the Democratic takeover of the House in 2006, I was excited to hear what changes they'd enact after 12 years of Republican rule. When I failed to see any real action, I wondered why. Was it because the House couldn't come up with groundbreaking new legislature? Was there no media coverage of their decisions? Or did President Bush have something to do with it?
Now, while I don't understand the whole process completely, I think that the fact that Democrats didn't have that wide of a majority over the Republicans made a huge difference. The Republicans were still able to filibuster or in other ways block the House from passing Democratic-backed bills. And even though Democrats hold the majority, not every Democrat will vote with his party 100% of the time. The vote of the moderates can make or break a bill.
As explained in the class video, when a bill is presented to five people on varying places in the political spectrum, it will usually appeal to 2 of those people and not appeal to the other 2 on the opposite side. The majority vote, then, goes to the person square in the middle. The moderate. If he agrees with parts of the bill, it will pass. If he mostly disagrees with it, it will fail. It seems that moderates play a vital role as tiebreaker for the House. The Richert article, "Moderates Come Front and Center,"describes a specific scenario in which the moderates decided the fate of a certain bill. "In 1994, Clinton bet much of his political capital on being able to sell his health care initiative to a solidly Democratic Congress, completely misunderstanding how many moderates in his own party hated his ideas and were willing to join with virtually everyone on the Republican side to bury his ambitions." Certainly, the minorities play a huge role in determining the effectiveness of legislature negotiations.
As for the bailout bill that flew through the Senate but failed in the House, I found a number of explanations for the result. First of all, congressmen seemed reluctant to vote for a bill so unpopular with their districts. During a reelection year, congressmen generally will not vote for a bill that will doom their campaigns in the future. And since the term limit for congressmen is two years versus Senators' six, the Senators had less to lose by passing the bill.
There was also the question of partisanship related to this bill. Right after the bill failed, Minority Leader John Boehner blamed Nancy Pelosi's speech, right before the voting began, for the failing of the bill. He stated, "I do believe we would have gotten there had the Speaker not made this partisan speech on the floor of the house." Whether or not that speech actually made that big of a difference is unknown, but it was amusing to hear Rep. Barney Frank's opinion of Boehner's comment. "We don't believe they had the votes and I think they are covering up the embarrassment of not having the votes. But think about this: somebody hurt my feelings so I will punish the country. I mean that's hardly plausible. And there were twelve Republicans who were ready to stand up for the economic interest of America but not if anybody insulted them. I'll make an offer: Give me those twelve people's names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are, and maybe they'll now think about the country."
Now, while I don't understand the whole process completely, I think that the fact that Democrats didn't have that wide of a majority over the Republicans made a huge difference. The Republicans were still able to filibuster or in other ways block the House from passing Democratic-backed bills. And even though Democrats hold the majority, not every Democrat will vote with his party 100% of the time. The vote of the moderates can make or break a bill.
As explained in the class video, when a bill is presented to five people on varying places in the political spectrum, it will usually appeal to 2 of those people and not appeal to the other 2 on the opposite side. The majority vote, then, goes to the person square in the middle. The moderate. If he agrees with parts of the bill, it will pass. If he mostly disagrees with it, it will fail. It seems that moderates play a vital role as tiebreaker for the House. The Richert article, "Moderates Come Front and Center,"describes a specific scenario in which the moderates decided the fate of a certain bill. "In 1994, Clinton bet much of his political capital on being able to sell his health care initiative to a solidly Democratic Congress, completely misunderstanding how many moderates in his own party hated his ideas and were willing to join with virtually everyone on the Republican side to bury his ambitions." Certainly, the minorities play a huge role in determining the effectiveness of legislature negotiations.
As for the bailout bill that flew through the Senate but failed in the House, I found a number of explanations for the result. First of all, congressmen seemed reluctant to vote for a bill so unpopular with their districts. During a reelection year, congressmen generally will not vote for a bill that will doom their campaigns in the future. And since the term limit for congressmen is two years versus Senators' six, the Senators had less to lose by passing the bill.
There was also the question of partisanship related to this bill. Right after the bill failed, Minority Leader John Boehner blamed Nancy Pelosi's speech, right before the voting began, for the failing of the bill. He stated, "I do believe we would have gotten there had the Speaker not made this partisan speech on the floor of the house." Whether or not that speech actually made that big of a difference is unknown, but it was amusing to hear Rep. Barney Frank's opinion of Boehner's comment. "We don't believe they had the votes and I think they are covering up the embarrassment of not having the votes. But think about this: somebody hurt my feelings so I will punish the country. I mean that's hardly plausible. And there were twelve Republicans who were ready to stand up for the economic interest of America but not if anybody insulted them. I'll make an offer: Give me those twelve people's names and I will go talk uncharacteristically nicely to them and tell them what wonderful people they are, and maybe they'll now think about the country."
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Campaigns & Elections II
In this year's campaign, both candidates are focusing their platforms on change, and in the simplest terms possible, both platforms seem to center on change from the current administration. John McCain's aim is to set himself apart from typical Republicans through his "maverick" title and his choice of maverick Sarah Palin as his running mate. He strives to accentuate the differences between himself and the current president, citing how often he has voted against Bush or stood up to his own party. Barack Obama is running his campaign on change -- not just from a Democrat standpoint, but from a seemingly ideological standpoint as well. His speeches don't declare that the Democratic party will bring about change, but that he will. In this respect, neither candidate seems like an agent for his party; both seem pretty intent on keeping their respective parties out of their campaigns.
In terms of the impact of technological advances on the presidential race, I think that the ability of candidates to separate themselves from their parties becomes much easier. With the ability to create web sites, post videos, reach out to social networking sites, and contact millions of people through a simple listserv, candidates don't need to rely on their parties to spread the word. Candidates are able to promote themselves any way they'd like for very little cost.
After studying both candidate's web sites, I've observed that both adhere very closely to Teachout's recommendations.
1.) Meeting tool
Both web sites offer visitors the opportunity to search for events in their areas. By typing in their zip code, and the max miles they're willing to travel, they're offered pages worth of debate watching parties, phone-bank volunteerism, or even pot-luck dinners. The meeting tools, in both cases, are offered right on the front page of each site.
However, it seems as though Obama's site offers more in terms of meeting venues and making arrangements. Obama's site offers visitors the change to make their own web page to connect with people in their area.
2.) Listserv
Again, both web sites encourage visitors to enter their email addresses to get on their candidate's listserv. However, Obama once again one-ups McCain's site by offering a listserv via text messages as well as email.
3.) Blogs
Yes, both sites also have blogs! Both blogs appear to be updated on a daily basis -- sometimes several times a day. Both seem to have a primary contributer (Matt Lira for John McCain and Amanda Scott for Barack Obama), and both utilize photos, links, and videos in their entries. The only real difference here is that Obama's site features the blog on the home page while McCain's is only accessible via a link.
In terms of the impact of technological advances on the presidential race, I think that the ability of candidates to separate themselves from their parties becomes much easier. With the ability to create web sites, post videos, reach out to social networking sites, and contact millions of people through a simple listserv, candidates don't need to rely on their parties to spread the word. Candidates are able to promote themselves any way they'd like for very little cost.
After studying both candidate's web sites, I've observed that both adhere very closely to Teachout's recommendations.
1.) Meeting tool
Both web sites offer visitors the opportunity to search for events in their areas. By typing in their zip code, and the max miles they're willing to travel, they're offered pages worth of debate watching parties, phone-bank volunteerism, or even pot-luck dinners. The meeting tools, in both cases, are offered right on the front page of each site.
However, it seems as though Obama's site offers more in terms of meeting venues and making arrangements. Obama's site offers visitors the change to make their own web page to connect with people in their area.
2.) Listserv
Again, both web sites encourage visitors to enter their email addresses to get on their candidate's listserv. However, Obama once again one-ups McCain's site by offering a listserv via text messages as well as email.
3.) Blogs
Yes, both sites also have blogs! Both blogs appear to be updated on a daily basis -- sometimes several times a day. Both seem to have a primary contributer (Matt Lira for John McCain and Amanda Scott for Barack Obama), and both utilize photos, links, and videos in their entries. The only real difference here is that Obama's site features the blog on the home page while McCain's is only accessible via a link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
