Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Obama Will Headline Fund-Raiser for Senate Majority Leader
This article discusses how the president will throw his mandate and formidable approval ratings behind Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and attend a fundraiser in May. The article eludes to the productive political relationship between Reid and the president, a relationship that both parties would obviously prefer to continue. Also, I think delaying any significant fundraising activity these past few tumultuous months was a wise move on the part of the administration.
The Obama Mandate
I believe it is safe to conclude that most people interpreted the 2008 election as a fairly definitive mandate for Obama. It seems to me that any other alternative explanation would be invalid. Of course, there were certain conservative pundits who desperately attempted to spin the results in a different way, and there were those who accepted this spin as fact. However, there was simply no rational way to deny the sheer force and decisiveness of the numbers.
Obama's victory was impressive on several fronts. Needing 270 electoral votes to win the election, Obama collected 365 to McCain's 173. By anyone's definition, this margin would have to be regarded as an electoral mandate. In regard to the popular vote, the spread was a convincing 53% to 46% in favor of Obama. These numbers clearly indicate a strong desire for change and a new direction on the part of the voting public, and in this particular election it was Obama who manifested this change most effectively. Obviously, he benefited from a failing economy and the ineptitude of the previous administration, however, because of his youth and enthusiasm, Obama seemed to instill a genuine sense of hope in people.
If we accept the premise of an electoral mandate for Obama, then we also need to determine what this means for his administration. I feel that this mandate was given on the contingency that Obama would act quickly and decisively on the myriad of issues currently at play, foreign and domestic. While there is a honeymoon period, there is also a sense of urgency because of the immediacy of our problems and the current dire nature of the economy. Personally, I feel that the mandate still exists and the administration has performed sufficiently enough to justify continued support and confidence.
Obama's victory was impressive on several fronts. Needing 270 electoral votes to win the election, Obama collected 365 to McCain's 173. By anyone's definition, this margin would have to be regarded as an electoral mandate. In regard to the popular vote, the spread was a convincing 53% to 46% in favor of Obama. These numbers clearly indicate a strong desire for change and a new direction on the part of the voting public, and in this particular election it was Obama who manifested this change most effectively. Obviously, he benefited from a failing economy and the ineptitude of the previous administration, however, because of his youth and enthusiasm, Obama seemed to instill a genuine sense of hope in people.
If we accept the premise of an electoral mandate for Obama, then we also need to determine what this means for his administration. I feel that this mandate was given on the contingency that Obama would act quickly and decisively on the myriad of issues currently at play, foreign and domestic. While there is a honeymoon period, there is also a sense of urgency because of the immediacy of our problems and the current dire nature of the economy. Personally, I feel that the mandate still exists and the administration has performed sufficiently enough to justify continued support and confidence.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Early Voting and Exit Polls
This is an articlewritten a week prior to the 2008 election. It examines the relevance of exit poll data accumulated from early voting. While the information is obviously useful, it is questionable whether these early numbers provide a large enough sample to detect any potential trends in voting behavior or predict a higher turnout. It is suggesting that relying to heavily on early data, even a week before the election, can be counterproductive.
The Transcendent Candidate
After probing several exit polls from the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, I would venture to say that examining these statistics in detail is the equivalent of political cocaine. It really is quite addictive, and somewhat overwhelming. Initially, I was going to attempt to single out one crucial issue that may have resonated with the voting public and therefore propelled Obama to victory. However, there really were a myriad of forces at work in this election, including the residue of the previous administration as well as the transcendent nature of the Obama candidacy. Therefore, I decided to simply compare exit polls from 2004 and 2008 and provide some random musings on these numbers.
Of course, there were different variables at play in 2004, as Kerry was running against an incumbent, albeit an unpopular one who’s approval rating had already begun to decline. While the circumstances were obviously different, there is much to learn from these numbers.
Obama enjoyed a five-point advantage over Kerry amongst male and female voters, garnering 49% of the male vote and an impressive 56% of the female vote. There was an increase of four points to 41% amongst white men and a modest two-point gain to 46% in regard to white women.
Also in reference to the racial dynamic, Obama earned 95% of the African-American vote, which represented a seven-point increase over Kerry in 2004. While the Democratic candidate usually wins the vast majority of this group, it should be noted that along with this significant increase there was also a much larger African-American turnout at the polls in 2008. In addition, the breakdown of the Latino vote is enlightening. The Republicans had actively courted the Latino vote in 2004, and this effort prove to be successful as Bush improved from 35% in 2000 to 44% in 2004. However, this was quickly reversed in 2008, as McCain’s support among Latinos fell a staggering 13 points from Bush in 2004 to 31%. At the same time, Obama won 67% of the Latino vote as compared to Kerry’s 53% in 2004.
Some additional categories of note include the youth vote, where Obama earned 66%, a 12 -point increase over Kerry in 2004. While the generational divide between the two candidates certainly explains the disparity, the numbers remain significant, although the turnout of the 18-29 demographic was not as profound as expected. Also, among voters who reported income of more than $100,000 or more annually, Obama made surprising headway as he split this group evenly with McCain. This 49% is impressive when you consider that Kerry was at 41% in 2004.
Finally, this brings us to the independent voters, whom I believe were the most important group in the electorate. Because of the consistent partisanship in voting on both sides, self-described independents turned out to be a critical voting bloc to curry favor with. Obama claimed this group in convincing fashion, collecting 52% compared to McCain’s 44%. These numbers are more significant because of the larger turnout of independent voters than in previous elections.
Again, considering factors such as Iraq and the economy and how the electorate perceived them, an Obama victory was likely inevitable regardless of what the Republicans may have done. I still maintain that Obama is a generational candidate who has transcended many traditional political norms and realities. However, there remains a wealth of information to be found in the examination of polling data.
The polling data in question comes courtesy of observationalism
Of course, there were different variables at play in 2004, as Kerry was running against an incumbent, albeit an unpopular one who’s approval rating had already begun to decline. While the circumstances were obviously different, there is much to learn from these numbers.
Obama enjoyed a five-point advantage over Kerry amongst male and female voters, garnering 49% of the male vote and an impressive 56% of the female vote. There was an increase of four points to 41% amongst white men and a modest two-point gain to 46% in regard to white women.
Also in reference to the racial dynamic, Obama earned 95% of the African-American vote, which represented a seven-point increase over Kerry in 2004. While the Democratic candidate usually wins the vast majority of this group, it should be noted that along with this significant increase there was also a much larger African-American turnout at the polls in 2008. In addition, the breakdown of the Latino vote is enlightening. The Republicans had actively courted the Latino vote in 2004, and this effort prove to be successful as Bush improved from 35% in 2000 to 44% in 2004. However, this was quickly reversed in 2008, as McCain’s support among Latinos fell a staggering 13 points from Bush in 2004 to 31%. At the same time, Obama won 67% of the Latino vote as compared to Kerry’s 53% in 2004.
Some additional categories of note include the youth vote, where Obama earned 66%, a 12 -point increase over Kerry in 2004. While the generational divide between the two candidates certainly explains the disparity, the numbers remain significant, although the turnout of the 18-29 demographic was not as profound as expected. Also, among voters who reported income of more than $100,000 or more annually, Obama made surprising headway as he split this group evenly with McCain. This 49% is impressive when you consider that Kerry was at 41% in 2004.
Finally, this brings us to the independent voters, whom I believe were the most important group in the electorate. Because of the consistent partisanship in voting on both sides, self-described independents turned out to be a critical voting bloc to curry favor with. Obama claimed this group in convincing fashion, collecting 52% compared to McCain’s 44%. These numbers are more significant because of the larger turnout of independent voters than in previous elections.
Again, considering factors such as Iraq and the economy and how the electorate perceived them, an Obama victory was likely inevitable regardless of what the Republicans may have done. I still maintain that Obama is a generational candidate who has transcended many traditional political norms and realities. However, there remains a wealth of information to be found in the examination of polling data.
The polling data in question comes courtesy of observationalism
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Partisanship Is a Worthy Foe in Debate on Stimulus
As our subject this week is Congress and attempts at bipartisanship within this structure, I give you an interestingarticlethat discusses the maneuvering that Obama and the Democrats performed in trying to get the stimulus passed without making to many concessions to the Republicans. It also suggests that the tradition and long history of partisanship in Congress is so deeply embedded that it would be exceedingly difficult to reverse and that the general makeup of the House makes this problematic as well.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Congress and the Minority Party
In Congress, the role of the minority party can be extremely difficult to define. There are a myriad of forces at play that dictate just how much legislative influence the minority party can wield. One mitigating factor would be the temperament of the majority party at the time and the genuineness of their promises to set aside partisan rancor and work together for the common good.
When the political climate is conducive, the minority party can have a significant impact on the shaping of policy in government. Obviously, the competence of the respective house leaderships is crucial to the success of either party. As documented in our readings, because of various rules changes and the neutering of committees and subcommittees, more power and influence has been placed in the hands of the Speaker of the House. This trend, along with the increasingly partisan nature of Congress, has put the minority party in a more precarious position than ever.
It has been argued that the primary role of the minority party is to be the voice of dissent and to protect the people from tyranny by the party in control. This argument is a convenient one and can be used to justify obstructionist behavior in Congress. Consider the efforts of the Republicans in 2006, who after losing the House after twelve years in control, proceeded to use the filibuster and other parliamentary procedures to thwart the Democratic legislative agenda. Now I do appreciate that there was culpability on both sides for the stalemate, as the Democrats did not exhibit enough party unity and Nancy Pelosi, while tenacious, can be rather polarizing at times.
As far as the Republicans being discouraged or feeling ineffectual, there is always another election right around the corner. While they have now lost control of the White House as well, they could still regain control of the House and Senate in two years. Of course, this possibility is directly contingent on the Obama agenda failing miserably and the country plunging further into the depths of despair, so we would prefer this didn’t occur.
When the political climate is conducive, the minority party can have a significant impact on the shaping of policy in government. Obviously, the competence of the respective house leaderships is crucial to the success of either party. As documented in our readings, because of various rules changes and the neutering of committees and subcommittees, more power and influence has been placed in the hands of the Speaker of the House. This trend, along with the increasingly partisan nature of Congress, has put the minority party in a more precarious position than ever.
It has been argued that the primary role of the minority party is to be the voice of dissent and to protect the people from tyranny by the party in control. This argument is a convenient one and can be used to justify obstructionist behavior in Congress. Consider the efforts of the Republicans in 2006, who after losing the House after twelve years in control, proceeded to use the filibuster and other parliamentary procedures to thwart the Democratic legislative agenda. Now I do appreciate that there was culpability on both sides for the stalemate, as the Democrats did not exhibit enough party unity and Nancy Pelosi, while tenacious, can be rather polarizing at times.
As far as the Republicans being discouraged or feeling ineffectual, there is always another election right around the corner. While they have now lost control of the White House as well, they could still regain control of the House and Senate in two years. Of course, this possibility is directly contingent on the Obama agenda failing miserably and the country plunging further into the depths of despair, so we would prefer this didn’t occur.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The 2008 Election
The two major party representatives in the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama and John McCain, weren't completely in step with their parties respective elite and general ideology. That is to say, in comparison to nominees in previous elections, these two candidates didn't bring together their parties coalitions and the many factions contained within quite as unanimously.
On the Democratic side, the primaries became a two candidate race after John Edwards was forced to remove himself from consideration. In the invisible primary, discussed at some length in the Cohen piece, Hillary Clinton was the presumptive party favorite who had garnered the majority of the major party endorsements, although it certainly wasn't a consensus and there was some trepidation within the party ranks. However, after the initial primaries, Obama quickly emerged and it became clear to most that he was a polished campaigner and had put together an impressive organization. I feel in the end that the Democratic Party must have realized that Obama represented their best chance of taking back the White House, even though he wasn't a creature of the party and the party establishment may have been somewhat hesitant to support him.
On a quick note, I recall supporting Obama initially because I believed he would fare better than Hillary in the general election, as there was more ammunition for the Republicans to fire at her. In addition, a polarizing candidate such as Hillary would have provided the Republicans with additional motivation to rally around McCain more completely in an effort to keep her out of the White House.
On the Republican side, there were a group of possible nominees who differed significantly in style and ideology. Eventually, McCain survived the scrum and the party, somewhat begrudgingly, mobilized around him. Obviously, McCain has developed a reputation in the Senate for being a moderate, and he has certainly alienated many elements of the Republican Party. However, in the general election, McCain began to sound more and more like a typical Republican, parroting the Bush administration on the economy and Iraq, and became someone the right would approve of. In the end, I believe he was more an agent of his party than his Democratic counterpart.
In regard to advances in technology, I feel that this has caused the balance between party-centered campaigns and those that focus on the candidate to be more elusive and difficult to achieve. The Internet and other modern forms of communication seem to have produced more campaigns revolving around the candidate. As detailed in Teachout, parties have yet to take full advantage of the organizing potential of the Internet and haven't harnessed its complete power, instead using it mainly as a fundraising mechanism. Obama explored this to great effect in his campaign, as he generated much enthusiasm and raised a staggering amount of money through online means.
On the Democratic side, the primaries became a two candidate race after John Edwards was forced to remove himself from consideration. In the invisible primary, discussed at some length in the Cohen piece, Hillary Clinton was the presumptive party favorite who had garnered the majority of the major party endorsements, although it certainly wasn't a consensus and there was some trepidation within the party ranks. However, after the initial primaries, Obama quickly emerged and it became clear to most that he was a polished campaigner and had put together an impressive organization. I feel in the end that the Democratic Party must have realized that Obama represented their best chance of taking back the White House, even though he wasn't a creature of the party and the party establishment may have been somewhat hesitant to support him.
On a quick note, I recall supporting Obama initially because I believed he would fare better than Hillary in the general election, as there was more ammunition for the Republicans to fire at her. In addition, a polarizing candidate such as Hillary would have provided the Republicans with additional motivation to rally around McCain more completely in an effort to keep her out of the White House.
On the Republican side, there were a group of possible nominees who differed significantly in style and ideology. Eventually, McCain survived the scrum and the party, somewhat begrudgingly, mobilized around him. Obviously, McCain has developed a reputation in the Senate for being a moderate, and he has certainly alienated many elements of the Republican Party. However, in the general election, McCain began to sound more and more like a typical Republican, parroting the Bush administration on the economy and Iraq, and became someone the right would approve of. In the end, I believe he was more an agent of his party than his Democratic counterpart.
In regard to advances in technology, I feel that this has caused the balance between party-centered campaigns and those that focus on the candidate to be more elusive and difficult to achieve. The Internet and other modern forms of communication seem to have produced more campaigns revolving around the candidate. As detailed in Teachout, parties have yet to take full advantage of the organizing potential of the Internet and haven't harnessed its complete power, instead using it mainly as a fundraising mechanism. Obama explored this to great effect in his campaign, as he generated much enthusiasm and raised a staggering amount of money through online means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)