Fiorina's sorting theory is certainly an interesting one, but in the end, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in the modern day it's not exactly provable.
The example of the Reconstruction-era conservative democrats is certainly a vivid one, but that same trend doesn't necessarily even mean 'misindentification' it means that when a party supported some, but not all, of the positions a voter favored they had to pick some over the other.
In 2008 the republican party lost significant holdings, especially in states that Bush had cleaned out in 2004 and 2000. But does that mean voters 'misidentified' to switch to the democratic side? Or does it mean that the positions of the Republican party changed? Does it mean voter disillusionment with the policies of the party or with Bush as a person making them discard their actual preferences?
Truth is it may be some of all of these, Bush/Kerry was close to a 50/50 split, Bush/Gore was even closer, Obama had a 7.2% lead over McCain. This clearly shows some people switched camps, but the final effect of this on the sorting theory is inconclusive because McCain didn't toe the party line strictly, Obama did moreso, so it's impossible to say if McCain's deviation cost him. In addition the democratic party overall gained tremendously, a near-bulletproof majority in both houses, meaning it's clear the nation swung, the WHY of that swing, however, is not conclusive and has as many reasons as there are swich voters. The change in the Republican party under Bush's tenure easily could account for the loss of support, if they've lost voters it can be argued changes in policy and practice made them no longer a good ideological match.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
It's a (theoretical) party!
I think that my group's part, the Maverick party, has a strong foundation in current and perennial electoral trends.
Both parties have largely lost credibility on economic matters. By putting things in kitchen-table terms powerful charges could be lobbed at democrats and republicans both. Talk to the average person in my circle at least and the 'waste' of government and distrust of big business is deeply ingrained, and that's in all of them: from fellow students to working-class college dropouts. A target of eternal ire is the hemmoraging of US funds overseas when people in our own country are still suffering poverty. Those issues are virtually can't-lose, especially in the coveted middle-class block abandoned by the democrats increasingly (see Frank readings). No one is going to come down pro-waste or pro-deficit, leaving opponents no option to outmaneuver the Maverick party.
Environmental issues are also a big hot-button, but they're largely 'owned' by the democrats. By re-using the old turn-of-the-century Republican ideal of "responsible conservation" and "preservation" we can turn the debate away from that of tree-hugger vs. evil corporatist into one of preserving resources for both future economic and recreational use. Emphasizing Wise Use and common-sense preservation of natural resources avoids angering those fearful of economic impact by focusing on the fact that we want our economic resources to last longer and produce better, and taking care of their source is the best way to do so. Eliminating dependence on foreign oil can be pitched as not economic, but geopolitical: reducing the stranglehold OPEC has on US production capability and our vulnerability to the whims of arab shieks.
The working class can be further attracted with the RIGHT pitch for universal health care. The real issue is one of the way democrats frame it. Working-class hear "for all" and think "for welfare queens and crack addicts" so we'd take a different approach, echoing the sentiment of one political ad who's candidate I can't remember: "If a criminal has a right to a lawyer, a working man has a right to a doctor."
There are small but powerful blocs of people that can be courted with select positions. Pro-equal-rights stances attract former liberal democrats but cost us only the radical right that would vote republican until the day they die or get taken by the rapture, net gain maverick party.
Overall I think our performance was somewhat disorganized, but good. It was a difficult time to organize, with thanksgiving break coming up and all, but I think we did well. everyone got at least their hand in, myself included, though I did wish I could have been more active it was tough with events in my real life. All in all I'm happy with how we did.
Both parties have largely lost credibility on economic matters. By putting things in kitchen-table terms powerful charges could be lobbed at democrats and republicans both. Talk to the average person in my circle at least and the 'waste' of government and distrust of big business is deeply ingrained, and that's in all of them: from fellow students to working-class college dropouts. A target of eternal ire is the hemmoraging of US funds overseas when people in our own country are still suffering poverty. Those issues are virtually can't-lose, especially in the coveted middle-class block abandoned by the democrats increasingly (see Frank readings). No one is going to come down pro-waste or pro-deficit, leaving opponents no option to outmaneuver the Maverick party.
Environmental issues are also a big hot-button, but they're largely 'owned' by the democrats. By re-using the old turn-of-the-century Republican ideal of "responsible conservation" and "preservation" we can turn the debate away from that of tree-hugger vs. evil corporatist into one of preserving resources for both future economic and recreational use. Emphasizing Wise Use and common-sense preservation of natural resources avoids angering those fearful of economic impact by focusing on the fact that we want our economic resources to last longer and produce better, and taking care of their source is the best way to do so. Eliminating dependence on foreign oil can be pitched as not economic, but geopolitical: reducing the stranglehold OPEC has on US production capability and our vulnerability to the whims of arab shieks.
The working class can be further attracted with the RIGHT pitch for universal health care. The real issue is one of the way democrats frame it. Working-class hear "for all" and think "for welfare queens and crack addicts" so we'd take a different approach, echoing the sentiment of one political ad who's candidate I can't remember: "If a criminal has a right to a lawyer, a working man has a right to a doctor."
There are small but powerful blocs of people that can be courted with select positions. Pro-equal-rights stances attract former liberal democrats but cost us only the radical right that would vote republican until the day they die or get taken by the rapture, net gain maverick party.
Overall I think our performance was somewhat disorganized, but good. It was a difficult time to organize, with thanksgiving break coming up and all, but I think we did well. everyone got at least their hand in, myself included, though I did wish I could have been more active it was tough with events in my real life. All in all I'm happy with how we did.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Lieberman
A member of a political party in a ruling system is more or less expected to maintain a certain ideological purity. After all, these people advance to power on the backs of others. Or more accurately on their hands, minds and feet as the party workers strive with long hours to implant their candidates in power.
This of course creates a certain obligation in return, the obligation to support the party.
In this aspect, Sen. Lieberman seems to have a serious issue.
There is one thing you don't do in politics, you don't turn your back on the party, and by extension the people that helped elect you. As Chris Mathews sums up in his book Hardball: You dance with the ones that brung 'ya.
Mathews offers some interesting examples as well, how loyalty is won in Washington ("he was the kind of man that switched teams without giving away the signals" was one example of high praise) and how it is lost.
Lieberman perhaps committed the greatest political sin of all, he not only broke with the party, he tossed a grenade into his own party's trenches. His essay in the Wall Street Journal, which came from a speech delivered for a neoconservative event no less (Salon, P1) was an unabashed attack on his own party.
He even took the conservatives own terms, their own weaponry, casting the democratic party as un-American and unpatriotic, echoing the worst of the Bush-era neoconservative Zoroastrianism.
But you have to ask what it's all for? Is he trying to woo conservative voters? after the last election you have to wonder if there are any left... is he aiming for a split in the party between left-wing antiwar liberals and moderate social liberals?
Lieberman broke with his own party to endorse McCain. This is not unheard of, some charismatic conservatives have garnered support from moderate liberals. Notably the Regan Democrats of '80 and '84, chaired by another example from hardball, Connolly, who earned derision for masquerading as a democrat.
But in the case of Regan Democrats most were the average Joe (no pun intended), not elected federal legislators. No one cares who the grocery bagger at Copps is voting for, he can switch loyalties and party identification any day of the week; but for a man who has advanced his career on the work of others in the party, such a betrayal is not as easily forgotten.
This of course creates a certain obligation in return, the obligation to support the party.
In this aspect, Sen. Lieberman seems to have a serious issue.
There is one thing you don't do in politics, you don't turn your back on the party, and by extension the people that helped elect you. As Chris Mathews sums up in his book Hardball: You dance with the ones that brung 'ya.
Mathews offers some interesting examples as well, how loyalty is won in Washington ("he was the kind of man that switched teams without giving away the signals" was one example of high praise) and how it is lost.
Lieberman perhaps committed the greatest political sin of all, he not only broke with the party, he tossed a grenade into his own party's trenches. His essay in the Wall Street Journal, which came from a speech delivered for a neoconservative event no less (Salon, P1) was an unabashed attack on his own party.
He even took the conservatives own terms, their own weaponry, casting the democratic party as un-American and unpatriotic, echoing the worst of the Bush-era neoconservative Zoroastrianism.
But you have to ask what it's all for? Is he trying to woo conservative voters? after the last election you have to wonder if there are any left... is he aiming for a split in the party between left-wing antiwar liberals and moderate social liberals?
Lieberman broke with his own party to endorse McCain. This is not unheard of, some charismatic conservatives have garnered support from moderate liberals. Notably the Regan Democrats of '80 and '84, chaired by another example from hardball, Connolly, who earned derision for masquerading as a democrat.
But in the case of Regan Democrats most were the average Joe (no pun intended), not elected federal legislators. No one cares who the grocery bagger at Copps is voting for, he can switch loyalties and party identification any day of the week; but for a man who has advanced his career on the work of others in the party, such a betrayal is not as easily forgotten.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
RIP GOP?
After their stunning defeat in two consecutive elections, costing them majorities in the senate and house, and also the presidency, some liberal commentators are already hailing the death of the Republican Party. But is it too soon to put on the toe tag? I think the answer is, unfortunately, 'yes and no'.
I think the results of the last two elections are indicative more of 'running against hoover' than of a serious long-term downturn in the party. The economy was bad, that doesn't bode well for the party in power. Bush had critically low approval ratings, yes it's true, but so did Carter, and while it took a while for the US to get in a democratic mood again, it did come back around full circle. One cynical blog post I read described the cycle as such: "This sucks, elect a democratic congress. This is working, elect a democratic president! This sucks again, elect a republican congress! This is working, elect a republican president!..." and so on sinusoidally forever. Bad economies bode poorly for the president's party, simple as that.
On the other hand, I do think that this does show the failure of the neoconservative agenda. Americans, in fact I'd venture all voters, vote behind their pocketbooks more than on moral issues. When the economy is poor, Americans vote for who they think can restore it, while you may pick up some single-issue voters, face it, single-issue voters on neocon whipping horses like abortion and gay rights are never going to vote democrat anyway, you don't need to convince them of anything.
The republicans were the party that owned economic issues, by continually stumping on budget reform and economic reforms. They appear to have lost their central credibility on the economy. Perhaps this dates as far back as Regan and the specter of voodoonomics is catching up to the Grand Old Party, maybe they've just squandered their credibility in corporate scandals, but I think that's a transient problem indicative of the current mode of conservative discussion: Their party will continue to alienate so long as they force social issues over practical ones, and let themselves be hamstrung by scandal and perceived corporate ties, but I don't think that's the death of the traditional conservative ideology.
After all conservitivism is much more than neoconservativsm and the party is much more than Bush: what the GOP needs is a strong, charismatic leader that doesn't run on specters of fear, but rather the bulwarks of conservative philosophy that I think the average american can get behind. Talk to my friends, even the most liberal ones, and some of them start sounding very conservative at times, talking about responsible government, lower deficits, business incentives, the end of porkbarrel boondoggles and the return of the expectation of morality to politicians. The problem is the Republican party seems to have lost sight of those values that made it attractive to voters, if they ever find them again, I wouldn't count them out of the running. If they don't find them: R.I.P. G O P.
I think the results of the last two elections are indicative more of 'running against hoover' than of a serious long-term downturn in the party. The economy was bad, that doesn't bode well for the party in power. Bush had critically low approval ratings, yes it's true, but so did Carter, and while it took a while for the US to get in a democratic mood again, it did come back around full circle. One cynical blog post I read described the cycle as such: "This sucks, elect a democratic congress. This is working, elect a democratic president! This sucks again, elect a republican congress! This is working, elect a republican president!..." and so on sinusoidally forever. Bad economies bode poorly for the president's party, simple as that.
On the other hand, I do think that this does show the failure of the neoconservative agenda. Americans, in fact I'd venture all voters, vote behind their pocketbooks more than on moral issues. When the economy is poor, Americans vote for who they think can restore it, while you may pick up some single-issue voters, face it, single-issue voters on neocon whipping horses like abortion and gay rights are never going to vote democrat anyway, you don't need to convince them of anything.
The republicans were the party that owned economic issues, by continually stumping on budget reform and economic reforms. They appear to have lost their central credibility on the economy. Perhaps this dates as far back as Regan and the specter of voodoonomics is catching up to the Grand Old Party, maybe they've just squandered their credibility in corporate scandals, but I think that's a transient problem indicative of the current mode of conservative discussion: Their party will continue to alienate so long as they force social issues over practical ones, and let themselves be hamstrung by scandal and perceived corporate ties, but I don't think that's the death of the traditional conservative ideology.
After all conservitivism is much more than neoconservativsm and the party is much more than Bush: what the GOP needs is a strong, charismatic leader that doesn't run on specters of fear, but rather the bulwarks of conservative philosophy that I think the average american can get behind. Talk to my friends, even the most liberal ones, and some of them start sounding very conservative at times, talking about responsible government, lower deficits, business incentives, the end of porkbarrel boondoggles and the return of the expectation of morality to politicians. The problem is the Republican party seems to have lost sight of those values that made it attractive to voters, if they ever find them again, I wouldn't count them out of the running. If they don't find them: R.I.P. G O P.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
election
Wow, what an election, still came down to a within-error-of-margin squeaker in the popular vote, but it's nice to see a little harmony for a change.
Honestly given the last two elections I expected a hardscrabble fight to the last bitter moment.
Makes me happy that the margin was really too far to be litigated away.
I expected it to go until 4am
it was over, practically, by 8:30 central when Obama hit 206 electoral votes and you could count of California Oregon and Washington to put him over the 270 mark and into the white house.
It was almost... anticlimactic. The Bush administration and eight long years of neoconservative domination died in, well from 6am to 8:30pm. Not that McCain was a neocon anyway, not a Bush-style one beholden only to the radical party fringe. That itself says something to.
A lot of pundits are going over McCain's performance with a fine-toothed come, looking for the moment it went wrong. Some say it was choosing Palin, which took experience off the issue and, in CNN's words "made voters question his judgement." Some point to wall street deciding to spontaneously and utterly lose their collective sh*t a month before the election. But in the end, it's one lone bullet point that did it. Bush. Distance from Bush, support of bush, accepting endorsement from Bush.
He screwed the pooch so badly his party was in an untenable position. Nothing associated with the Republicans could do well this year, not in the house, not in the senate, not for the white house, not govenors, heck, I think it'd be tough to get elected as a republican mayor of a small town.
in 2000 and even 2004 it's arguable whether Bush actually won, let alone if he had a clear mandate to act. But here, as fractitious as politics are a close popular vote doesn't tell the tale as much as the electoral does. And obama won almost than three fourths of the country. Whether it was a vote against Bush or against McCain or a vote for Obama the message was pretty clear: Americans want change now.
Honestly given the last two elections I expected a hardscrabble fight to the last bitter moment.
Makes me happy that the margin was really too far to be litigated away.
I expected it to go until 4am
it was over, practically, by 8:30 central when Obama hit 206 electoral votes and you could count of California Oregon and Washington to put him over the 270 mark and into the white house.
It was almost... anticlimactic. The Bush administration and eight long years of neoconservative domination died in, well from 6am to 8:30pm. Not that McCain was a neocon anyway, not a Bush-style one beholden only to the radical party fringe. That itself says something to.
A lot of pundits are going over McCain's performance with a fine-toothed come, looking for the moment it went wrong. Some say it was choosing Palin, which took experience off the issue and, in CNN's words "made voters question his judgement." Some point to wall street deciding to spontaneously and utterly lose their collective sh*t a month before the election. But in the end, it's one lone bullet point that did it. Bush. Distance from Bush, support of bush, accepting endorsement from Bush.
He screwed the pooch so badly his party was in an untenable position. Nothing associated with the Republicans could do well this year, not in the house, not in the senate, not for the white house, not govenors, heck, I think it'd be tough to get elected as a republican mayor of a small town.
in 2000 and even 2004 it's arguable whether Bush actually won, let alone if he had a clear mandate to act. But here, as fractitious as politics are a close popular vote doesn't tell the tale as much as the electoral does. And obama won almost than three fourths of the country. Whether it was a vote against Bush or against McCain or a vote for Obama the message was pretty clear: Americans want change now.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
...as the band played on
If I were McCain's advisor... wow what a question.
Well it's obvious that something's not working, unfortunately the shots you are taking are hard to volley, your credibility, as a Republican, on the economy is a negative number, and Obama is showing better in the polls.
Now, we have to talk damage control. First of all, it's time to recapture the economy issue. Republicans are historically far more credible on responsible spending. Go after Obama where it hurts, hit him right in the porkbarrel. Try to muddy up his image on the economy and then go double-whammy.
Republicans have credibility about debt, and in the midst of a massive mortgage crisis, it's suddenly REALLY easy to bring the otherwise brain-warping issue of national debt down to the public's level. Use mortgage analogies, talk about the federal debt, talk about liquidity, attack the democratic party as a whole not just Obama.
another other issue is age. Regan's issue was age too, he won the election with a single line: "I will not exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." Pull the same. It's time to frame as Chris Mathews puts it in "Hardball," Frame this as a great contest between age and youth, experience and energy.
Palin is a foot-in-mouth machine, minimize her. Sure at the debates the gaffs were minimal, but she's more-or-less a laughingstock, get her out of the public eye and someplace her skeletons don't get turned into powerful charges leveled at you.
In short: Switch to issues where you have natural credibility, distance yourself from the republican regime, reframe the debate and put skeletons back in closets, the deeper the better.
Well it's obvious that something's not working, unfortunately the shots you are taking are hard to volley, your credibility, as a Republican, on the economy is a negative number, and Obama is showing better in the polls.
Now, we have to talk damage control. First of all, it's time to recapture the economy issue. Republicans are historically far more credible on responsible spending. Go after Obama where it hurts, hit him right in the porkbarrel. Try to muddy up his image on the economy and then go double-whammy.
Republicans have credibility about debt, and in the midst of a massive mortgage crisis, it's suddenly REALLY easy to bring the otherwise brain-warping issue of national debt down to the public's level. Use mortgage analogies, talk about the federal debt, talk about liquidity, attack the democratic party as a whole not just Obama.
another other issue is age. Regan's issue was age too, he won the election with a single line: "I will not exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." Pull the same. It's time to frame as Chris Mathews puts it in "Hardball," Frame this as a great contest between age and youth, experience and energy.
Palin is a foot-in-mouth machine, minimize her. Sure at the debates the gaffs were minimal, but she's more-or-less a laughingstock, get her out of the public eye and someplace her skeletons don't get turned into powerful charges leveled at you.
In short: Switch to issues where you have natural credibility, distance yourself from the republican regime, reframe the debate and put skeletons back in closets, the deeper the better.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
"consider is there any scenario where we might want to consider low turnout a sign of a healthy democracy?"
This little line from the notes on our reading really struck me, for some reason. Primarily because it's so counterintuitive. How could NOT voting be a sign of health in a democracy? I mean, voting is what democracy is all about, it's the center of the entire system. But then I started to think about potential scenarios.
The point of voting is not to take a shot in the dark, but to make an educated decision about a candidate that meets their needs and matches their positions and beliefs. If there is no such viable candidate, then the theory that some have proposed, like Dahl if I recall, say that you should just give it your best go. I disagree. If there is no candidate that matches your positions, a credible candidate now, then there really is no point in compromising the vast majority of your opinions just for the sake of feeling like you've done your civic duty. You're creating a false sense of mandate for ALL the positions of the guy you vote for, if he wins. In addition, if there just isn't enough information available to decide, then it's likewise irresponsible to vote.
To bring up an example it was for these reasons that brave dissidents in the USSR didn't vote: There was no such thing as information about candidates and the candidates were all party-loyal communists. That meant it was largely pointless to vote and as a result, if you were brave enough to stand up to the soviet system, you didn't.
Now the soviet system was not a democracy, but the same principle stands, if you are ill-informed, or ambivalent the system is better off without your vote. If there are enough people that are ill-informed (because information does not exist or is not clear) or ambivalent (usually because of frustration with the system), then a low voter turnout could be a sign of a POLITICALLY healthy system with problems in other areas.
This little line from the notes on our reading really struck me, for some reason. Primarily because it's so counterintuitive. How could NOT voting be a sign of health in a democracy? I mean, voting is what democracy is all about, it's the center of the entire system. But then I started to think about potential scenarios.
The point of voting is not to take a shot in the dark, but to make an educated decision about a candidate that meets their needs and matches their positions and beliefs. If there is no such viable candidate, then the theory that some have proposed, like Dahl if I recall, say that you should just give it your best go. I disagree. If there is no candidate that matches your positions, a credible candidate now, then there really is no point in compromising the vast majority of your opinions just for the sake of feeling like you've done your civic duty. You're creating a false sense of mandate for ALL the positions of the guy you vote for, if he wins. In addition, if there just isn't enough information available to decide, then it's likewise irresponsible to vote.
To bring up an example it was for these reasons that brave dissidents in the USSR didn't vote: There was no such thing as information about candidates and the candidates were all party-loyal communists. That meant it was largely pointless to vote and as a result, if you were brave enough to stand up to the soviet system, you didn't.
Now the soviet system was not a democracy, but the same principle stands, if you are ill-informed, or ambivalent the system is better off without your vote. If there are enough people that are ill-informed (because information does not exist or is not clear) or ambivalent (usually because of frustration with the system), then a low voter turnout could be a sign of a POLITICALLY healthy system with problems in other areas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)