Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Grading
I was very happy at the beginning of the semester when Tofias introduced blogging in the place of class papers. Even thought i must confess i do enjoy writing the occasional paper, I believed it was a very interesting idea to use the new channel known al blogging. Its really not that hard to set up and blog every week at all. It just comes down to whether or not the blogger is disciplined enough to remember when to blog and what to blog about as well as commenting on others blogs. I think we would have gotten a bit more interaction if somehow the blogs were introduced in class. Say maybe for 5 minutes at the beginning, Tofias read some exerts and the class got to interact and talk about their own blogs. It's just a thought, maybe then people would blog more or comment on others more if it was directly tied to in class discussions. Overall i believe it was a wonderful idea and the time for this kind of implementation is here and now. I give it an A- for an overall grade. It's a great idea, but maybe more could have been done. As for my own personal participation, I'll good ahead and throw myself a generous C-. I forgot to blog a lot because i would save it till Sunday nights and on Sunday nights i had soccer games every week. Additionally, i would always forget to read others blogs and comment on them. To be blunt the main reason was the fact that i am a business major, and i took this class for enjoyment and to further my knowledge on the subject. Therefore, Poli Sci 421 came last on my list of things to do for school. I however, place the blame solely on my own self and do henceforth apologize for not getting completely involved in this venture with 100% of my ability.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Sorting
According to our reading, "Those who affiliate with a party today are more likely to affiliate with the ideologically correct party than they were in earlier periods." This is known as sorting. We have previously discussed polarization which involved the electorate shifting toward either ends of the political spectrum. In the past we also saw that people would actually vote for the party that did not have the same ideological preferences as they did. Presently, the electorate is one or increasingly more informed and politically educated voters. Thanks to advancements in media, one can get any information they would like at their fingertips in seconds. Voters in recent years are beginning to change their votes to better match the ideology of the correct party. Due to these factors we can see the process of sorting take place. The voters with democratic ideals that were voting incorrectly conservative, and vice versa, will now vote correctly and are therefore "sorted" into the correct voting category. It is due to this that we see more ideologically unified parties in recent years.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Periwinkle Party
After the failure of the Democratic party, the Periwinkle party rose from the ashes. Periwinkle is a shade of purple, a combination of blue and red.
We are attempting to gain conservative votes while holding on to as many liberal votes as we can. We believe we can have a solid base in the minority vote, as well as people age 18-24. We will stay strong on the classic social issues but we will take a tougher stance on immigration. This will affect the minority vote but we hope we can hold on to enough of their votes with various social programs while gaining conservative votes due to the crackdown on illegal immigration. We will support a government run health care system. We will implement this over the long run, not immediately.
On the issue of the conflict in Iraq, we will continue to fund the war as long as a realistic timetable for withdrawal is formed. We hope to attract the median voter on this particular subject. Since the republicans are alienating the executive branch we believe we can gain some of their votes based on the Iraq issue.
When it comes to the budget, we will be fiscally conservative in nature. Based on some current events we will attempt to appeal to the southern conservatives in states suffering from the drought by creating new policies to cover such circumstances.
The party will concentrate the bulk of its resources on congressional elections. We will have strong grassroots campaigns and from local coalitions at universities and major city centers.
When it comes to a possible presidential candidate we have chosen Rudi Guiliani as our eventual choice. We hope his conservative nature and liberal views on some issues will make him a good fit for our party and for the median voter. We will also enlist John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.
In the long run we hope to gain a strong presence in congress and make a successful bid for the White House.
We are attempting to gain conservative votes while holding on to as many liberal votes as we can. We believe we can have a solid base in the minority vote, as well as people age 18-24. We will stay strong on the classic social issues but we will take a tougher stance on immigration. This will affect the minority vote but we hope we can hold on to enough of their votes with various social programs while gaining conservative votes due to the crackdown on illegal immigration. We will support a government run health care system. We will implement this over the long run, not immediately.
On the issue of the conflict in Iraq, we will continue to fund the war as long as a realistic timetable for withdrawal is formed. We hope to attract the median voter on this particular subject. Since the republicans are alienating the executive branch we believe we can gain some of their votes based on the Iraq issue.
When it comes to the budget, we will be fiscally conservative in nature. Based on some current events we will attempt to appeal to the southern conservatives in states suffering from the drought by creating new policies to cover such circumstances.
The party will concentrate the bulk of its resources on congressional elections. We will have strong grassroots campaigns and from local coalitions at universities and major city centers.
When it comes to a possible presidential candidate we have chosen Rudi Guiliani as our eventual choice. We hope his conservative nature and liberal views on some issues will make him a good fit for our party and for the median voter. We will also enlist John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.
In the long run we hope to gain a strong presence in congress and make a successful bid for the White House.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Party Identification
I went back to the topic of Party Identification and how we choose our parties. The first book we read states and i believe that a great deal of influence comes from out parents. I examined my personal experiences and then decided to ask some of my friends about theirs.
My parents chose to never tell me whom they voted for and to what party they identified with. To this day they still wont tell me who they vote for but i can obviously figure out who they support and where they fall on the political spectrum. Now i will definetly not consider myself a political elite i will say that i have a much greater interest in politics than the layman. Therefore, i was able to read and examine the issues on my own and decide where i stood before i was even able to vote. I should also mention it helped that i had some very close friends that shared the same interest.
My best friend and current roommate is an interesting case. He will say no matter what he is a Liberal and nothing can change his mind. Most of us that are friends with him know that he is a little off when it comes to this. When i got a chance to ask him a few questions the results where outstanding. I asked him what he thought about gay marraige. His answer, "those queers shouldnt be allowed to get married anywhere no matter what." Next, i asked him what he thought about illegal immigration. His answer, "My solution is to put snipers towers every hundred feet and shoot em all dead as they try and cross the border." After some more questions it was clearer than ever he held some extremely right views. When i asked him why he considers himself conservative he answered, "My says we are, so i assume we are."
I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine who goes to Stevens Point. When i asked her how she voted she replied, "I vote based on what mom says."
I was astonished by what some of my friends said. The worst who were the ones who just said they didnt care. I didnt really believe the extent of parental influence on voting behavior and party identification until i witnessed it right infront of me. Now my roommates considers himelf a liberal and will vote liberal but is clearly a conservative. He grew up in a conservative household and family based primarily on his father. However his father doesnt consider himself political while his mother does. For this reason he listens to his mother and considers himself liberal and votes accordingly. It brings up a startling realtiy that a majority of the electorate might actually vote against their true beliefs. In a perfect democracy every voter would be political elites and experts on the issues and candidates and inturn vote on those beliefs. However, the american electorate is far from this. It leads me to question whether or not the electorate can be held responsible for some of the faults and critiques of political partys?
My parents chose to never tell me whom they voted for and to what party they identified with. To this day they still wont tell me who they vote for but i can obviously figure out who they support and where they fall on the political spectrum. Now i will definetly not consider myself a political elite i will say that i have a much greater interest in politics than the layman. Therefore, i was able to read and examine the issues on my own and decide where i stood before i was even able to vote. I should also mention it helped that i had some very close friends that shared the same interest.
My best friend and current roommate is an interesting case. He will say no matter what he is a Liberal and nothing can change his mind. Most of us that are friends with him know that he is a little off when it comes to this. When i got a chance to ask him a few questions the results where outstanding. I asked him what he thought about gay marraige. His answer, "those queers shouldnt be allowed to get married anywhere no matter what." Next, i asked him what he thought about illegal immigration. His answer, "My solution is to put snipers towers every hundred feet and shoot em all dead as they try and cross the border." After some more questions it was clearer than ever he held some extremely right views. When i asked him why he considers himself conservative he answered, "My says we are, so i assume we are."
I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine who goes to Stevens Point. When i asked her how she voted she replied, "I vote based on what mom says."
I was astonished by what some of my friends said. The worst who were the ones who just said they didnt care. I didnt really believe the extent of parental influence on voting behavior and party identification until i witnessed it right infront of me. Now my roommates considers himelf a liberal and will vote liberal but is clearly a conservative. He grew up in a conservative household and family based primarily on his father. However his father doesnt consider himself political while his mother does. For this reason he listens to his mother and considers himself liberal and votes accordingly. It brings up a startling realtiy that a majority of the electorate might actually vote against their true beliefs. In a perfect democracy every voter would be political elites and experts on the issues and candidates and inturn vote on those beliefs. However, the american electorate is far from this. It leads me to question whether or not the electorate can be held responsible for some of the faults and critiques of political partys?
Sunday, October 7, 2007
An article by Newt Gingrich
I stumbled across a interesting little article today posted back after the 2006 elections. It is a letter from Newt Gingrich to republicans on how to become the majority party again. He states some interesting points that tie into our in-class discussions.
First up, he informs the republicans to not "shrug off" the losses but to accept the defeat and use it as an informational springboard and to learn from the losses. Each race should be looked at individually and nothing should be overlooked.
Secondly, Newt asks a very important question. He wonders if the house republicans are electing leaders that will regain the majority, or if they are electing leaders that will run an effective minority. Right now, for me, i could not convince myself to lean towards either answer. I think the closer we get towards the elections the clearer the answer will be.
Newt's third point is that republicans must turn all their focus from Washington back towards the country. He believes that if the republicans focus on Washington and PACs instead of their districts and the electorate then they will be in for a long stay as the minority party. We have discussed this at length in class and we see here that the focus of politicians on either Washington or the home front, can truly have a monumental effect on their elections.
The fourth point Newt makes is extremely relevant seeing all of the intra-party disagreements and the way in which republicans in Washington are doing everything they can to alienate the white house. Newt states, "Over the next two years, House Republicans and the White House will have very different institutional interests and very different time horizons." His answer to this is a grassroots campaign to try and force real change in Washington. It doesn't seem like anyone is trying to get a republican grassroots coalition started these days. The republicans in congress have abandoned the white house and that seems to be their top priority.
Skipping to the sixth point, Newt talks about something we have also recently discussed in class. He calls for the republicans to forget the seniority when it comes the choosing chairs and to appoint republicans that have the value necessary to reach make a serious push for majority status. It seems the republicans would have to make a big push to make sure the house was run by republicans who had the interests of the party in mind rather than the interests of themselves.
Unfortunately, the vulnerable American politician worries much more about himself and his own race rather than the status of the party. With the republicans now turning their backs on the white house and the party seemingly up in arms with each other i believe the outcome of the 2008 election might already be starting to take shape. I guess the big question is can the republicans pull together and somehow gain enough momentum to overturn the democratic rule. Who knows? Maybe the fact that they are alienating themselves from the executive branch will help them more than hurt them. All we do know is that they have a very tough task ahead of them in 2008.
First up, he informs the republicans to not "shrug off" the losses but to accept the defeat and use it as an informational springboard and to learn from the losses. Each race should be looked at individually and nothing should be overlooked.
Secondly, Newt asks a very important question. He wonders if the house republicans are electing leaders that will regain the majority, or if they are electing leaders that will run an effective minority. Right now, for me, i could not convince myself to lean towards either answer. I think the closer we get towards the elections the clearer the answer will be.
Newt's third point is that republicans must turn all their focus from Washington back towards the country. He believes that if the republicans focus on Washington and PACs instead of their districts and the electorate then they will be in for a long stay as the minority party. We have discussed this at length in class and we see here that the focus of politicians on either Washington or the home front, can truly have a monumental effect on their elections.
The fourth point Newt makes is extremely relevant seeing all of the intra-party disagreements and the way in which republicans in Washington are doing everything they can to alienate the white house. Newt states, "Over the next two years, House Republicans and the White House will have very different institutional interests and very different time horizons." His answer to this is a grassroots campaign to try and force real change in Washington. It doesn't seem like anyone is trying to get a republican grassroots coalition started these days. The republicans in congress have abandoned the white house and that seems to be their top priority.
Skipping to the sixth point, Newt talks about something we have also recently discussed in class. He calls for the republicans to forget the seniority when it comes the choosing chairs and to appoint republicans that have the value necessary to reach make a serious push for majority status. It seems the republicans would have to make a big push to make sure the house was run by republicans who had the interests of the party in mind rather than the interests of themselves.
Unfortunately, the vulnerable American politician worries much more about himself and his own race rather than the status of the party. With the republicans now turning their backs on the white house and the party seemingly up in arms with each other i believe the outcome of the 2008 election might already be starting to take shape. I guess the big question is can the republicans pull together and somehow gain enough momentum to overturn the democratic rule. Who knows? Maybe the fact that they are alienating themselves from the executive branch will help them more than hurt them. All we do know is that they have a very tough task ahead of them in 2008.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Hyper-Democracy
The vulnerability of the U.S. politicians in today's political enviroment makes them overly responsive to every twitch of the American electorate. With the onslaught brought forth by the ever increasing media coverage, politician's every words and moves are documented in real time and spread throught the electorate instantly. I believe that the media has lead to a change not only in politicians but also in the way campaigns are carried out. In previos years well before the world wide web and up-to-the-minute headlines politicians had much more freedom to carry out a campaign with the issues important to them at the for front. Now it seems that a politician can only talk about the issues that are polling highest or the issues that the media is covering. For example, imagine a scenario where a politician wants to go out and talk about an issue that he cares about and believes he has strong policy ideas only to be told by his campaign manager to stick to the issues that the press or the public want to hear about. However, i can also play devils advocate and say that the public influencing politicians is the very essence of democracy. Without it politicians could pursue personal policy choices. The media is leading the United States further and further down a path of unparralled participation by the masses. This inturn, creates a new breed of American Politicians that are ever increasingly affected by every shudder of the electorate. The overall extent of this influence is yet to be seen, but it will be extremely interesting to see how this election shapes up and how future elctions utilize the new forms of media to an even greater extent.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Florida and their January 29th primary
As we have covered the rapidly increasing trend of states bumping their primary up to earlier and earlier in the year I thought it would be a good time to bring up Florida. The Democratic National Committee currently has a rule forbidding any states from holding primary elections before February 5Th of the election year. The only exceptions to the rule are Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The state Democratic Party in Florida has announced it will hold its state primary on January 29Th, therefore breaking the National Committee's rule. The Democratic National Committee gave the state party in Florida until Saturday to come up with an alternative primary. On Sunday afternoon the DNC followed up on their threats by announcing they will strip Florida of its 210 convention delegates. The State party is sticking with the primary date even after the hearing about the sanctions. I think it is fascinating to see how a state party cares so much about getting their state earlier in year to attract more time and focus from the candidates. They go so far as to practically forfeit there nominating votes for the presidential candidate who will eventually make the run for the White House. Florida is not the only state stepping outside the DNC's rules and moving up their primary date. Michigan has gone ahead and scheduled a January 15Th primary. The trend seems to be increasing just as we discussed in class and now state parties are flexing their muscle and overstepping National Party boundaries in order to get their states into the heart of the fight between the remaining candidates. Florida has even created the motto "Make It Count Florida", to try and persuade voters to stand behind their decision to defy the DNC. The state party in Florida states on their website that their are looking for more recognition than the other states that vote later. They also state they want to actually make a difference is determining who will run as the Democratic Candidate for president. Now one can only wonder how long it is until we see a primary on January 1st? Or even a primary in December?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)