Candidates Saying More About Less

This article gives a brief quote from Larry Bartels. He's quoted as saying,"Sometimes, voters only have a sketchy idea of where the candidate they support stands on many issues, especially secondary ones." The article, although a bit dated, talks about how Bush and Kerry in 2004 began to talk about "less important" issues during the campaign.

Module 12: Bartels v. Frank - Who's Right?

After reading these two articles, in my opinion, Bartels seems to be right. Frank’s article asserts that the Republican Party has created a “dominant political coalition” by attracting the lower-income working-class citizens of America on the basis of cultural issues (such as guns, abortion, gay rights). There are several reasons why this may not be the case. Frank seems to oversimplify his logic. This so-called trend we see in the Republican Party is almost entirely constituted in the South. The South is an area where support for the RP was overly inflated by segregation era feelings. It’s not this way throughout the entire country. Because there is only a high concentration of “dominant political coalition” primarily in the South, Frank is incorrect in assuming the entire country still acts and feel this way. Think of places like New York City, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, etc. – highly Democratic areas of the country. You compare this to the South and you usually see something a bit different. The South is a highly concentrated area of citizens who hold very, very strong beliefs on issues such as guns, abortion and gay rights –which make you believe that social issues are the most important political influence in this region, but this may not be the case because it’s oversimplified – it’s not like this everywhere, therefore you cannot generalize.

Bartels also argues that there is no proof that, “culture outweighs economics as a matter of public concern” when it comes to looking at working-class Americans. Bartel uses data from National Election Study (NES) surveys to test Frank's thesis and he finds that, “abortion, gun control, school vouchers, gay marriage, the death penalty, immigration, and gender roles – suggests a total impact that is only about two-thirds as large as the total impact of the economic issues included in the analysis.” It can therefore be concluded that working-class citizens haven’t moved right and that "moral values" are not pushing them to vote Republican like Frank suggests. Bartels cannot find any evidence that economic issues are no longer an issue among Americans. It’s quite clear from Bartels’ research that social issues (including abortion, gun laws, gay rights, etc.) are less strongly related to party identification and presidential votes than economic issues. Moreover, while social issue preferences have become more strongly related to presidential votes among middle- and high-income whites, there is no evidence of a corresponding trend among low-income working class, which is what these articles focus on.

Social issues are important, but not the most important influence when looking at working-class Americans. When looking at the 2008 election, we see that, while social issues like abortion and gay rights were talked about a little bit, the main focus of this election was economics. Perhaps comparing the 2008 election to these articles is unfair. We were after all in the midst of a economic “crisis” as this election as taking place, so no doubt more focus was put on economic over social issues. That gives an unfair advantage to Bartels. I think during 2008 there was still an overall concerns for gay rights, abortion, and guns, but it was highly overshadowed by economic concerns so it’s not fair to say that economic issues really do in fact always trumpet social concerns.

McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party'

The article I'm posting for this week is: McCain Strategist Warns GOP Risks Becoming 'Religious Party'.

This article discusses that fact that the Republican Party is becoming too divided with the rest of the country when it comes to gay rights. The Republicans are at risk for becoming too religion oriented and this is going to be their eventual downfall.

Module 11: My Political Party

This week we are asked to write about what a new political party would look like if either one of the other collapsed. Although this is highly unlikely, especially in our live time, this may be tricky. If the Republican Party fell, a similar party to the Republicans would probably rise, and vice versa. I don't think either party has a chance of dying right now. Sure, the Republicans have lost alot of power, but that's the natural cycle of politics. Look what happened when FDR took office. The Republicans pretty much got kicked to the side for many years, but did rise again.

If the Republican Party fell, I think a new ultra-conservative party would emerge. There are too many Americans in this country who disagree with the Democrats and if the Republican Party did die, I think something even stronger than the Republican Party would emerge.

Who are the new leaders? They are the strongest conservatives in the nation. Somewhat to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, but a politician. They leaders will stand for strict enforcement of the Constitution and preserving this nation to what it once was. This new party will care a great deal about traditional values. They will support a strong military and won't back down when the country's security is at stake. The will not tax us all into an ice age - and speaking of ice ages, there will be no more talk of global warming. This new party will be smart enough not to fall for anyones schemes when it comes to this global warming hoax. They will not tolerate the Democrats coming up with all this crazy ideas for us to "save the planet." If Americans want to use plastic bags at the grocery store, they will be allowed to. No more wasteful spending. This new party will veto every bill they come across that wastes the tax payers' money. This new party will reaffirm states' rights and the rights of individual Americans. No more telling us what we can and cannot do. They will appeal to all groups of people because the will cut taxes, but also keep them at a sustainable rate. Who doesn't want a little bit more of their hard-earned money back? Groups that may appeal to this new party would be anyone who pays taxes. Taxpayers are the backbone of this country and they don't get enough praise. Less government intervention will make the country more productive and useful. National defense will be one of their main priorities. We cannot allow other country's to see our weaknesses. We must remain strong and the only way to do that is to focus more attention on military. Harassment of soldiers will not be tolerated. Pork-filled stimulus bills will not be tolerated.

There is a strong base in this country for this type of party. Yes, it does resemble the Republican Party, but it will be even stronger and more conservative. There will become a point when Americans are sick and tired of the government trying to run their lives and take all their money - and when that day happens this new party will emerge.

Rush Limbaugh's Party of Failure

Here is an article to take a look at. I'm sure some of you have heard about Rush Limbaugh's comment that he wants Obama to fail. What do you think about this?

Module 9: Rep. Party

A little worry goes a long way. Why are so many people worried about the demised of the Republican Party? - I'm certainly not worried. Sure, the Republicans have had their share of losses in 2006 and 2008, but we've also seen this in the past as well. Each party seems to dominate for a few years, then that gets old, so the voters "switch" back to the other side. I don't think the GOP is facing a realistic risk of becoming a party unable to compete for the presidency - they just need a good candidate. And that clearly wasn't the case in 2008. John McCain wasn't exactly an "ideal Republican." Alot of people settled on him because he was the best there was, even though he wasn't the best. But you get the idea. I think alot about what happened in 2008 has to do with the media and how much they played up Obama to be the savior we all needed. They bashed Bush and the Republican Party and many voters fell into this trap. That doesn't mean the GOP is dying. We all know a majority of the country were sick and tired of Bush and just wanted "change." Obama promised that change so many people who may ordinarily would vote for a republican voted for Obama. Again, they were lured in by the mystique Obama brought. Again, we see that all the time. For long periods of time one party will "rule", then the other one takes over. Here is an article that discusses the fact that the GOP is not dying, rather they just need a little reform to gain a stronghold again. Some of the reforms the article talks about is how states need regain their rights. Yes, we are the UNITED STATES, but each state should have power of what goes on in their own region, as long as federal power remains supreme. Another interesting point this article brings up is that in order for the GOP to regain power, perhaps they should reconsider their stance on gay rights. As the article puts it, "They’re here, they can vote, so get over it." After all, aren't the Republicans all for allowing less government intrusion (yet they want a govt. ban on gay marriage?) in our daily lives? The overall point of this article is that the GOP needs to change their ways, and quick. The Democrats have a good change of staying in power unless some reform measures are taken. I do agree with this to some degree. The GOP shouldn't have to change it's entire platform, but perhaps they could change their ways in order to regain some support that's went over to the other side. As our text mentions, a strategic party should allocate resources where its efforts could make the difference between winning and losing. If the GOP changed their tune on gay rights, that's a part of the population that could be swung over.

Basically, I believe that the GOP could use some reform in order to gain a strong hold again, but they are not going anywhere. Who else would take over? With all the talk about the economic crisis, I think most people are a little more concerned about our economic health rather than the issues between the parties at the moment.