http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD96S2OD00
I figured I'd post this article just to remind everyone that this thing still isn't over. I know, you probably started ignoring this story sometime in mid-January, but it is pretty important considering its legislative implications. If Franken wins, which looks likely at this point, the Democrats will have a 59-41 majority, bringing them one step closer to that magic number of sixty.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Hey Nation, Your Gaps are Growing
CNN exit polls of the 2008 Presidential election indicate that a certain voting “gap” was in fact larger than in the 2004 Presidential race: the generation gap. According to the Gapology article we read this week, the generation gap did not play a critical role in the 2004 election between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, resulting in a difference of only 2.2% more voters younger than forty casting their ballots for the Democrat. To me, and many others I’m sure, this gap is strikingly small. Most view the Republican Party as that of the old and the rich. With only 2.2% more of the younger vote going to the Democrat however, it can be seen that perhaps the GOP, at least in 2004, had something to offer young voters.
In the 2008 race, however, the story was drastically different. According to the CNN exit poll, of voters between the ages of 18 and 24, 68% voted for Barack Obama, while only 30% voted for John McCain. That’s a difference of nearly 40%! In terms of voters between ages 25 and 29, some 69% voted for Obama, while only 29% voted for McCain. Again we see a 40% difference between the two candidates. The figures are closer amongst voters aged 30-44, with 52% voting for the Democrat and 46% for the Republican, but the difference is still significant. In fact, the only age group that voted in favor of Sen. McCain was those voters aged 65+.
Another interesting facet of the 2008 race was that high income voters (those who claim to make $100,000+ per year) voted in favor of Sen. Obama by a margin of 52% to 47%. This statistic is striking because it calls into question the old stereotype of the “fat-cat” Republican, and presents a possible shift in America’s political landscape. These exit polls help to elucidate the evolution of America’s political attitudes in the short period between 2004 and 2008. More young voters are becoming involved and electing Democratic candidates, a clear sign that they have grown tired of the policies of the Bush regime and those associated with it. The same is occurring amongst the wealthy, which is perhaps an even greater indication of the Nation’s unrest, because let’s face it, it takes a lot of injustice for wealthy Republicans to become disillusioned with their party.
In the 2008 race, however, the story was drastically different. According to the CNN exit poll, of voters between the ages of 18 and 24, 68% voted for Barack Obama, while only 30% voted for John McCain. That’s a difference of nearly 40%! In terms of voters between ages 25 and 29, some 69% voted for Obama, while only 29% voted for McCain. Again we see a 40% difference between the two candidates. The figures are closer amongst voters aged 30-44, with 52% voting for the Democrat and 46% for the Republican, but the difference is still significant. In fact, the only age group that voted in favor of Sen. McCain was those voters aged 65+.
Another interesting facet of the 2008 race was that high income voters (those who claim to make $100,000+ per year) voted in favor of Sen. Obama by a margin of 52% to 47%. This statistic is striking because it calls into question the old stereotype of the “fat-cat” Republican, and presents a possible shift in America’s political landscape. These exit polls help to elucidate the evolution of America’s political attitudes in the short period between 2004 and 2008. More young voters are becoming involved and electing Democratic candidates, a clear sign that they have grown tired of the policies of the Bush regime and those associated with it. The same is occurring amongst the wealthy, which is perhaps an even greater indication of the Nation’s unrest, because let’s face it, it takes a lot of injustice for wealthy Republicans to become disillusioned with their party.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Democrats use Web to Mock Rush Limbaugh, Prominent Republicans
http://www.nydailynews.com/tech_guide/2009/03/04/2009-03-04_democrats_use_web_to_mock_rush_limbaugh_.html
This article ties back to two previous Party Politics blogging topics: who controls our parties, and how is technology influencing our nation's political culture. It discusses some guy who's first name is actually Rush, and the Democrats' attempt to deride him with a web-based property.
This article ties back to two previous Party Politics blogging topics: who controls our parties, and how is technology influencing our nation's political culture. It discusses some guy who's first name is actually Rush, and the Democrats' attempt to deride him with a web-based property.
Sitting, Waiting, Wishing
As a great man once said, democracy is about making losers. That great man, in case you’re wondering, was Dr. Michael Tofias, who I now expect will grade this entry preferentially. The idea of “making losers” is one inherent in the principles of democracy, and more particularly, American democracy. In a winner-take-all electoral system, there is bound to be equally as many winners as losers. Following each election cycle, this principle manifests itself in our nation’s legislative body, resulting in majority and minority parties in both houses of Congress.
One then begins to wonder, what is the role of the minority party in these situations? The answer to that lies within the primary objective of each party, and that is to control the legislature. When a party is in the minority, the most it can really do is maneuver and wait. Because each party’s chief desire is to have elected the most possible representatives from their camp, a minority party often spends its time in the minority to try to change their situation come the next election cycle. This focus was strikingly apparent in the two years between the election of Democrat Bill Clinton to the office of President in 1992, and the Republicans’ takeover of Congress in 1994. During that period, House Minority Whip, Newt Gingrich, engineered a complex plan of attack for gaining control of the body. By recruiting viable candidates and instructing the professional behaviors of House and Senate Republicans, as well as initiating the Republican “Contract with America,” Gingrich was able to garner the party unprecedented success in the 1994 Congressional elections.
This sort of strategizing is common, if not necessary, amongst the legislature’s minority party. Because it is extremely difficult to pass legislation originated by the minority party, it is only logical for the minority to construct a plan for becoming the majority. This is the chief concern of all minority parties. Optimal conditions for successfully carrying out these strategies exist when the majority party is perceived as ineffective by the electorate. This was the case in the Democrats’ success in the 2006 Congressional elections. Because the majority party, the Republicans, were so closely identified with the Republican President, his failings were often associated with the ineffectiveness of the controlling party. This led to an overwhelming string of electoral successes for Congressional Democrats. It can also be said, however, that Democratic strategizing by Representatives such as Rahm Emanuel played a crucial role in this “coup.”
Ultimately, the role of a minority party is to work toward a situation in which they are no longer the minority. Though it may seem pointless for Congressional Republicans to even report to work in an arena controlled solely by the Democratic legislative machine, it is in fact absolutely essential that they do so. By presenting themselves as a strong oppositional force to the Democratic agenda, regardless of how factually accurate that image may be, the minority party sets themselves up for the time when Americans grow tired and desire a change. Republicans must appear to be doing all they can to hinder the influence of Congressional Democrats. Only once they have demonstrated this to the ever-fickle electorate will they be able to mount a legitimate attempt at regaining control of Congress.
One then begins to wonder, what is the role of the minority party in these situations? The answer to that lies within the primary objective of each party, and that is to control the legislature. When a party is in the minority, the most it can really do is maneuver and wait. Because each party’s chief desire is to have elected the most possible representatives from their camp, a minority party often spends its time in the minority to try to change their situation come the next election cycle. This focus was strikingly apparent in the two years between the election of Democrat Bill Clinton to the office of President in 1992, and the Republicans’ takeover of Congress in 1994. During that period, House Minority Whip, Newt Gingrich, engineered a complex plan of attack for gaining control of the body. By recruiting viable candidates and instructing the professional behaviors of House and Senate Republicans, as well as initiating the Republican “Contract with America,” Gingrich was able to garner the party unprecedented success in the 1994 Congressional elections.
This sort of strategizing is common, if not necessary, amongst the legislature’s minority party. Because it is extremely difficult to pass legislation originated by the minority party, it is only logical for the minority to construct a plan for becoming the majority. This is the chief concern of all minority parties. Optimal conditions for successfully carrying out these strategies exist when the majority party is perceived as ineffective by the electorate. This was the case in the Democrats’ success in the 2006 Congressional elections. Because the majority party, the Republicans, were so closely identified with the Republican President, his failings were often associated with the ineffectiveness of the controlling party. This led to an overwhelming string of electoral successes for Congressional Democrats. It can also be said, however, that Democratic strategizing by Representatives such as Rahm Emanuel played a crucial role in this “coup.”
Ultimately, the role of a minority party is to work toward a situation in which they are no longer the minority. Though it may seem pointless for Congressional Republicans to even report to work in an arena controlled solely by the Democratic legislative machine, it is in fact absolutely essential that they do so. By presenting themselves as a strong oppositional force to the Democratic agenda, regardless of how factually accurate that image may be, the minority party sets themselves up for the time when Americans grow tired and desire a change. Republicans must appear to be doing all they can to hinder the influence of Congressional Democrats. Only once they have demonstrated this to the ever-fickle electorate will they be able to mount a legitimate attempt at regaining control of Congress.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)