http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/us/politics/29decide.html?_r=1&hpw
This article is called "Early Resolve- Obama Stand in Auto Crisis
This article talks about what Obama plans to do if the Auto industries can't get their act together. Will Obama let any of the three Big Car Companies go under? It is a real possibility!!!
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Frank and Bartels
Both Frank and Bartels have good arguments against one another, but I'm going to hve to go with Frank and with his views. In 2008 the big issue had to deal with the economy and people voted accordingly with the Democrats to give them a chance. Bartels seems to use the poor get poorer and the rich get richer argument here. He talks about the Republican party creating the gap and making equality something that will never happen because Republicans have in the past seem to favor the rich.
Also in comparison to the working class that Frank talks about, what he says is th working class is much broader than what Bartels says is the working class. Franks describes working class as those without degrees. Also the conservatives were able to persuade white workers to vote in favor of them even though it didn't necessarily benefit them. This was to be blamed for Kerry's loss. You can't blame the conservatives for winning. Maybe they ran a better campaign and that seeing Bush in a cowboy hat and jeans made them realize that he was more like them than Kerry who's wife may not have known what chili was and the snobby attitude that Kerry seemed to be known for.
As for the 2008 election the economic issues dominated the election and the Democrats took office. Every election is different and will continue to be. It all depends on the issues that are important at the time of races that will determine who will win. Also another factor that will be of importance will be if the candidates and parties can persuade people from the other side as did Obama in 2008.
Also in comparison to the working class that Frank talks about, what he says is th working class is much broader than what Bartels says is the working class. Franks describes working class as those without degrees. Also the conservatives were able to persuade white workers to vote in favor of them even though it didn't necessarily benefit them. This was to be blamed for Kerry's loss. You can't blame the conservatives for winning. Maybe they ran a better campaign and that seeing Bush in a cowboy hat and jeans made them realize that he was more like them than Kerry who's wife may not have known what chili was and the snobby attitude that Kerry seemed to be known for.
As for the 2008 election the economic issues dominated the election and the Democrats took office. Every election is different and will continue to be. It all depends on the issues that are important at the time of races that will determine who will win. Also another factor that will be of importance will be if the candidates and parties can persuade people from the other side as did Obama in 2008.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/mayor-bloomberg-quits-the-gop/?scp=3&sq=political%20parties&st=Search
This article is called "Mayor Bloomberg Quits the G.O.P."
This article talks abou how Myor Bloomberg is now considring himself as an independent and planned to run as such or as a third-party candidate. He says he wants to put partisanship aside and focus on real issues with real solutions. Check it out!!
This article is called "Mayor Bloomberg Quits the G.O.P."
This article talks abou how Myor Bloomberg is now considring himself as an independent and planned to run as such or as a third-party candidate. He says he wants to put partisanship aside and focus on real issues with real solutions. Check it out!!
A New Party
This week’s blog is to focus on what would happen if a new political party formed and what would it look like? I would like to take this stance as if the Republican Party collapsed. What would come from the so called “ashes” is what I feel would be a moderate party.
It seems that in the past elections the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party has become very polarized. The Democrats seem to be more to the left than ever and Republicans more to the right. This polarization is forcing people to pick sides and most people these days are shifting more to the Democratic Party.
In our readings it is said that the political party must be understood in three parts. Those three parts are the party in the electorate, the party in government, and the party in an organization (Aldrich, p.164). As far as the new party goes in the electorate the moderate new party would have to work more with liberal views and make them more right leaning in order to gain support from still conservative voters. Also by doing this in elections this might shift our traditionally conservative states that went democrat in the past election back to being more Republican. As far as the party in government they will obviously have to take a more moderate stance on issues that the Republicans would normally own. This would push Republicans more to the left, but it is much better than pushing them completely out and only having one political party. As for party organization the party will have to organize to persuade those states that have been in the past more conservative to being more moderate.
The party’s leaders can no longer be someone who is a polarized candidate, but somebody with more moderate views. A name that comes to mind as a possible candidate would be Nancy Pelosi. As far as the platforms goes at first it must be more moderate, but as time goes by the party could push itself back towards the right which would mean a more competitive race for office.
It seems that in the past elections the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party has become very polarized. The Democrats seem to be more to the left than ever and Republicans more to the right. This polarization is forcing people to pick sides and most people these days are shifting more to the Democratic Party.
In our readings it is said that the political party must be understood in three parts. Those three parts are the party in the electorate, the party in government, and the party in an organization (Aldrich, p.164). As far as the new party goes in the electorate the moderate new party would have to work more with liberal views and make them more right leaning in order to gain support from still conservative voters. Also by doing this in elections this might shift our traditionally conservative states that went democrat in the past election back to being more Republican. As far as the party in government they will obviously have to take a more moderate stance on issues that the Republicans would normally own. This would push Republicans more to the left, but it is much better than pushing them completely out and only having one political party. As for party organization the party will have to organize to persuade those states that have been in the past more conservative to being more moderate.
The party’s leaders can no longer be someone who is a polarized candidate, but somebody with more moderate views. A name that comes to mind as a possible candidate would be Nancy Pelosi. As far as the platforms goes at first it must be more moderate, but as time goes by the party could push itself back towards the right which would mean a more competitive race for office.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Should GOP go upscale
This article is called "Should GOP Go Upscale."
It talks about who the GOP should target for better results in the 2012 election as well as how targeting a crtaon group could help them win. Check it out.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/the_gop_should_go_upscale.html
It talks about who the GOP should target for better results in the 2012 election as well as how targeting a crtaon group could help them win. Check it out.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/the_gop_should_go_upscale.html
module 9--- GOP
I do not feel that GOP will be unable to compete for presidency or congress after 2006 or 2008. As we all know this has happened in the past just as the Democrats lost big time in 1994 and in 2002. People were sick of the way things were going with the Republican Party, so they voted differently back in 2008. There were many factors, the major one being the economy that moved people to vote Democrat. Just because they did this in this election doesn’t mean that they will never get the chance again to be in office or congress.
As far as I’m concerned this is just a normal political cycle and that when the Democrats start doing things that the people don’t like they will once again vote back to the Republicans. The thing that I feel the Republicans could have done better was to choose a better candidate than McCain and this might have improved their chances of election or an election that was not so broad when it comes to the numbers. I don’t think that the Republican Party is ever going to diminish, but they definitely need to do some sort of reforming in order to get back on track. In our readings it says that a strategic party should allocate sources if it will make the difference between winning and losing. If the Republican party re-evaluates their platforms they would most likely gain more support and be able to be more competitive in the next election.
As far as I’m concerned this is just a normal political cycle and that when the Democrats start doing things that the people don’t like they will once again vote back to the Republicans. The thing that I feel the Republicans could have done better was to choose a better candidate than McCain and this might have improved their chances of election or an election that was not so broad when it comes to the numbers. I don’t think that the Republican Party is ever going to diminish, but they definitely need to do some sort of reforming in order to get back on track. In our readings it says that a strategic party should allocate sources if it will make the difference between winning and losing. If the Republican party re-evaluates their platforms they would most likely gain more support and be able to be more competitive in the next election.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
electoral mandate fpr obama
This article looks at what Obama will have to to do in order to get things done in office as well as the support he will need.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/mbarone/2008/11/10/does-barack-obama-have-a-mandate.html?s_cid=rss:does-barack-obama-have-a-mandate
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/mbarone/2008/11/10/does-barack-obama-have-a-mandate.html?s_cid=rss:does-barack-obama-have-a-mandate
As far as Barack Obama goes and if he has a mandate, I’m going to have to say yes he does? Just looking at the electoral map there have been some major changes in this election compared to previous elections. There are states that haven’t voted democrat in decades that have recently voted in the past election in favor of Obama.
To also prove that he has a mandate just look at the numbers from the election. Obama won with 53% of the votes. That is a majority. Not to mention that he also kicked McCain’s but with the 364 electoral votes compared to McCain’s 163 votes.
Looking at now and whether or not Obama has a mandate I’m still going to have to say yes he does. It seems that more and more of Obama’s policies are being considered while some have already been put into action. For our country this means that the mandate for Obama will push us to the left and make policies less conservative.
The definition of an electoral mandate has to deal with a command on a given issue by the electorate. This is why I feel that Obama had a mandate and still does. He is continuing to work to get his policies pushed through as well as using bi-partisanship to get more support for these policies.
To also prove that he has a mandate just look at the numbers from the election. Obama won with 53% of the votes. That is a majority. Not to mention that he also kicked McCain’s but with the 364 electoral votes compared to McCain’s 163 votes.
Looking at now and whether or not Obama has a mandate I’m still going to have to say yes he does. It seems that more and more of Obama’s policies are being considered while some have already been put into action. For our country this means that the mandate for Obama will push us to the left and make policies less conservative.
The definition of an electoral mandate has to deal with a command on a given issue by the electorate. This is why I feel that Obama had a mandate and still does. He is continuing to work to get his policies pushed through as well as using bi-partisanship to get more support for these policies.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)