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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)