Chaffee, Daily Show, and Wrap Up

Well I had no idea what I'd write for "wrap up", but tonight (12/11) on the Daily Show (I'd link to a clip but it just aired, maybe later if I can find it) Lincoln Chaffee was interviewed by John Stewart. He started out by blaming sorting for why there are only three moderate Republicans in the Senate (which all eat lunch together every Wednesday by the way). Interestingly enough is his claim that the Senate majority is not held together by any punishment system, for instance reducing any pork projects, but rather a rally around the President push (coat-tails). Perhaps Bush should thank Democrats-or rather Van Buren for inventing parties and a coat-tail system. What was really striking was that Chaffee admitted to finding various ways to "inoculate" himself from Bush and conservative Republicans, including publically stating that he didn't vote for Bush in order to convince the Rhode Island electorate that he was moderate enough for them to vote for him (which still didn't work). He later couldn't come up with anything Congress should be proud of in the last five years. (Why he stuck with the Republicans is beyond reason since he viewed them in such negative light.) What is telling is that his words and his situation seem to confirm a lot of what we have been studying throughout the semester. First off, sorting is responsible for some of the polarization occurring in Congress (yes, that's a duh!). Second, was his lament that the Republican Party has been overrun by conservatives. This plays into Frank’s research of how conservatives displaced moderate Republicans in Kansas. Finally, Chaffee was annoyed how primaries have been taken over by the extreme and force candidates to appear more conservative. The Chaffee interview was a great wrap up of the class, although I’m not sure Aldrich would approve of a rally around the President as a way of solving social choice and collective action problems (it got them tossed out as a majority). I will try to find the Daily Show link.

P.s. good cookies Alex

P.s.s. Oh, and for the blog in general: it would have been better if we would have had more structure on what was expected of us and when. I'm ambivalent about a term paper subsitute, It wouldn't have been bad, but probably another stress. Reading response papers would have been annoying! Try the blog again, but for the start give the students topics and a date in which the blog for the week would be due. (I think we collectively decided Sunday, or at least that's what it seemed.) As for the books, just the first one was bad. The Aldrich book will take students a bit longer to understand, but it was good and I'm keeping it as a future reference.

What’s the Matter With Connecticut and Other Kansasian Thoughts

So what is the matter with Connecticut? They have the second highest average income, but they vote for Democrats who would like to take part of that income and redistribute it to others. People like Ann Coulter would make an argument the exact opposite of Frank’s. (Though ironically, both would have to deal with economics.) Conservatives would say that the people of Connecticut, and in fact those of the New England states, are being hoodwinked by Liberals into caring more about the environment and their fellow man than their pocketbooks. Of course this view doesn’t take into account the liberal history/traditions of Connecticut and the rest of the New England states. The thing that most irritates Frank the most is how those in Kansas have forgotten their progressive/populist roots. I do not know too much about Connecticut, but as for the New England states, they have a tradition of an active government promoting the social welfare. Since the traditions in Connecticut were not as disrupted by the Con movement in the 90’s like Kansas was, they still vote the traditions they remember and hold dear. The reason why they probably keep these traditions could be linked to a higher percentage of college and postgraduate degrees.
Moving on…
Backlash mythology, Martyrs, and Antipopes…OH MY! (It is after all Kansas so a Wizard of Oz reference is needed.)
Professor Tofias hates the culture in decline mentality. This idea, however, makes winning people to your side easy. As he stated, most people can remember some part of their childhood that fits the classic stereotype and find something that they miss now. Frank takes this idea actually further, scarier place. It is one thing to believe the past was wonderful, its another thing to reinvent it to fit your purposes. That is what Frank alleges is happening in Kansas. In our history we have seen the past glorified, but people rarely deny the truth (they may gloss over it—but deny it, no). By changing the past, and its meaning the cons in Kansas have created a movement that can not be stopped by almost anything. They are right for their actions today, since their past heroes did the same things before. Normally in politics we have references to the Founding Fathers and other important figures, but those references are usually vague or lofty. This switch to a made up history that demands revival and action today is something that has not been seen before, or at least in such an extent to take over all three branches of government. While Frank goes on about economics, the realization of the backlash mythology, the decline thesis, is more important. In the response we are supposed to read, it supposes that perhaps “cultural” ideas are more important to people than economics. I would have to say the bigger idea is that the “cultural” ideas are not more important, but rather that their conception in people’s mind have changed to force people take action on them. This is why Democrats will have a hard time gaining back all the seats they lost. They only gained roughly 30 on the heels of the war, not because of any renunciation of con values. That is why some are still scratching their heads wondering why they lost, and only now have been given a small majority to work with. The Democrats past accomplishments have been hijacked by the cons and twisted into a way that they are no longer accomplishments. The trick for the Democrats to win in the future will be to either undo or override the backlash mythology that Frank talks about.

Why does Aldrich ignore important parts of our history?

Aldrich is concerned about putting politics into nice little chunks of critical and stable political time periods. Looking at the 90’s to see if it fits this frame of either stable of critical seems a bit of a folly. First off, it seems odd that Aldrich would consider the 60’s the closet critical period with the 70’s as stable. The 70’s had seen the impeachment proceedings off a president, as well as growing anti war movement that culminated in the passage of legislation that was supposed to restrict the war powers of the executive. Also during this decade we saw big social changes made: the APA (American Psychiatric Association) removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, the USSC legalized abortion in Roe V. Wade, and the Middle East started causing trouble (oil embargo, Iran Hostage Crisis). While these may not be directly be tied to party leadership, they do however change party platforms from then on. The 80’s isn’t without its share of political issues either: AIDS, rise of the Moral Majority, FOX News is started, and the Berlin Wall came down (talk about changing the political landscape). Of course all of that was supposed to be the “stable era”. Now the 90’s could be critical; however, other than the Republican takeover, there hasn’t been much change institutionally since the decade started. The impeachment of Clinton doesn’t count since the impeachment proceedings and resignation of Nixon didn’t. As for redistricting, it is nothing new, and while I don’t know as much as others in the class, I do think the new way of gerrymandering (the 51% margin of victory) isn’t probably that much different than other ways—at least in its ramifications (there will always be gerrymandering unless we write a computer program to split states into districts based on whatever). The political landscape is always changing, and there is never any stability. Are we supposed to believe that there are only six, maybe seven critical eras in our history. Aldrich doesn’t discuss the Civil War or Reconstruction (as mentioned in passing in class) surely a time period that split the nation in half and ended with an increase of power to the Federal government, as well as expanding the electorate to former male slaves should be worthy of the designation of “critical”. Secondly, he doesn’t mention the Progressive Era from the 1900’s to the 1920’s where three important Constitutional Amendments were passed, the income tax, direct election of Senators, and not to mention Women’s suffrage (talk about institutional change). Of course what about Teddy Roosevelt’s run with the (class favorite) Bull Moose party as a third party candidate during this period (big political ramifications). If the 90’s were critical, than I’m not convinced we’re living in stable times. We have a president who’s intent on absorbing the other two branches into the executive. A vice president who has become, arguably, one of the most powerful man in the country in an office that Constitutionally has no power. We have seen the passage of a law that has overturned centuries of common law (the disappearance of Habeas Corpus). Finally, we have parties using referendum as ways to influence elections. Either the 2000’s (why hasn’t anyone came up with a name for this decade yet?) are continuation of the 90’s critical era, or the start of a new one. I’m not convinced that America has any periods of stability, all periods are critical to its future.

Problems...

currently having problems publishing...

The Election Results...no surprises here, gaps make no sense to study!

First off, as I write this the AP has declared Virginia for Webb—giving control of the Senate to the Democrats.
Okay time for three Senate races…
For a Democratic stronghold I choose our quirky state of Wisconsin. The candidates were Kohl (D) 67%, Lorge (R) 30%, Vogeler (G) 2%, and Glatzel (I) 1%.
What is interesting is that the Republican candidate won absolutely no counties. As a Wisconsinite, I know there is great like for Kohl, but I thought that Waukesha and/or Washington counties surely would have voted Republican since they are conservative counties. Kohl, though scrapped by with 51% and 50%, respectively. As for the Gaps, well, their a bit irrelevant here. In the gender gap, males voted for Kohl 65% and women voted 71%. They have a six point difference, but both overwhelming voted Democrat. As for an ethnic gap, Wisconsin’s minorities don’t add up to any significant percentage of the vote (or maybe in this case the exit poll); however, if minorities were in larger numbers I would bet that they would have voted for Kohl too. The age gap is almost as insignificant as the ethnic gap. There wasn’t a single age group that voted less than 65% for Kohl. The only real difference was between the 30-44 and the 60+ group, but that has only a five point difference (65% and 70%). As for the income gap, their was a slight trend that the more money you made the less you voted for Kohl, but again his numbers were still high among all groups. The biggest difference was between those who made under $15K (84%) and those who made between $100k and $150K (58%). The education gap was insignificant, with every level supporting Kohl with at least 60%. The biggest difference was between Postgraduate education (73%) and College education(60%). In this case, only those with just a college education voted less for Kohl, but still overwhelmingly. Finally, the religion gap. Every religious group voted at least 60% for Kohl. The only significant difference is between those who attend church weekly and everyone else, with 57% to 74% (for the occasional attendees) to 82% (for the those who never attend). The religious gap is understood poorly to make and conclusions though. It is possible that the Republican candidate was more “Christian”, or it is possible that those who attended church weekly or more where told more often to vote (indirectly, hopefully) Republican.
Overall, the gaps had no impact on the election of Kohl. He has developed somewhat a cult of personality that spans all groups. He could run as an independent and still win; however, I think he would not want to face both a Republican and Democratic challenger. On the political spectrum Kohl fits along the center, gathering votes from both sides and consistently gathering votes on both sides.
For the Republican stronghold, I choose the senate race in Texas to examine. The candidates were Hutchison (R) 62%, Radnofsky (D) 36%, and Jameson 2%.
In this race, the Democrat was able to pick up some counties. The gaps are more pronounced in the race. For the ethnic gap, whites voted for Hutchison 68% where African-Americans voted 26% and Latinos 44%. As for the gender gap, it is insignificant with only a two point difference. The age difference has only a seven point difference, those who are 60+ (66%) and those 18-29 (51%). The income gap is big with steady climb between $15K-$30K (44%) and $150K-$200K (71%). The education gap isn’t that significant with those with no college education voting 58% for Hutchison and those with 63%. Finally, I would do the religion gap, but CNN did not post any religious polling data. I can only assume that it didn’t matter what religion you were or if you went to church, you voted for Hutchison. Of course there is the bigger probability/stereotype that those in Texas are more Christian and go to church more. I do find it odd that there isn’t a poll for different sects. For the electorate, only 16% of them where liberals, and the other percentage was divided between moderates (51% voted for) and conservatives (84% voted for). Hutchison probably didn’t have to go as center as Kohl to win his election.
Finally for the switcheroo, Montana! The candidates were: Tester (D) 49%, Burns (R) 48%, Jones (I) 3%.
As expected by a race so close, each had a mixture of counties. The most interesting thing about this race is that just part of the independent bloc could have swung the election either way. One’s vote may not count much, but if you get a group together it matters a lot. For the gender gap, their was only a four point difference between women voting for Tester (52%) and men (48%). The ethnic gap is big (however it is only 8% of the vote), with the category marked “other” (I’m assuming it must be Native Americans since it’s Montana) voting for Tester 61% and whites voting 49%. As far as the age gap, there’s not too much difference. The biggest difference is between 18-29 (56%) and 30-44 (45%); however, it goes up to 53% in the 45-59 age group. The income gap hovered around a ten point difference bouncing between the income levels, of course the lowest income voted the most for Tester. For the education gap, a somewhat proper linear relation forms between the higher the education the more one voted for Tester. The biggest difference being between post-grads (68%) and no high school (40%). As for the religious gap, there were significant differences between those who attended often and those who didn’t (33%-67%, respectively).

For the three races, the gaps didn’t show much. Occasionally a traditional gap did show up, but explaining the gap is the work for psychologists or sociologists. I would like to know why Texas didn’t have any postgraduates in its survey. I find it hard to believe that postgraduates are rarer in Texas than in Montana, especially with one of the world’s few particle accelerators located there in a notable university, Texas A&M. I don’t think Texas is suffering from brain drain, or at least I haven’t heard about it. So then Texan postgraduates: don’t exist, don’t vote, don’t participate in exit polls, or don’t vote in precincts with exit pollsters. This just makes me think that the poll must be flawed in other ways, such as disregarding any other ethnicity other than white in Wisconsin. I know we are not a very diverse state; however, I believe there would be enough for at least a few significant percentage points. I feel that this blog has been a waste of my time, that analyzing media exit polls is worthless. I would rather study (if they took it) the NES results of this election. The only thing I found in analyzing the polls was a common thread of moderates deciding the race. As pundits have been saying, moderates voted this time and choose to reject the Republicans for being too conservative.

Sources:
WI:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/WI/S/01/index.html
TX:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/TX/S/01/index.html
MT:http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/MT/S/01/index.html

Party Collapse Activity...

So I have different thoughts on the probable collapse of one the parties. First, the Democrats only need stronger leadership right now and the fringe needs to be consulted more. As for the Republicans, they will probably blow up soon (within 20 years). I predict that something like the Faithful Dems presented in class will form, as will a stronger libertarian party. I do not think however, they will be as moderate as the group said they will be. The best way for this party to gain strength will be to play from their base and build out. They should start by converting Republican South to FD (Faithful Dem) South. From that they can win district by conservative district in traditional Dem states. The Libertarians will have to decide what is more important to them: personal freedom, or economic freedom. If personal, they will join the Dem's. If economic, they will form a small third party that might be able to compete locally but not nationally.

I do think the Democrats could pull of a 50 state win, if and only if they developed tighter unity and took back control of the issues. It's all about framing the debate. If you present the estate tax (for example) as yet another tax the government levies on you and even death is no escape from the government, then who would be for it; however, if you frame it as a tax on those with multipile million dollar mansions who's children have already huge trust funds then the public will side with you. The Democrats' position is probably closer to that of the average voter, but they do not clearly voice what that posistion is, and instead let their opposition state it for them. From this, I think the Democrats could go back to New Deal ideals and disagree with that they should only go back to 1992.

Oh and scandals...well there is just the one in Colorado with the newly outed drug using gay pastor.

Political Science gets more sciencey

So looking over at CQ Politics.dom I found something that might make some of you roll your eyes or get a headache.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/11/running_the_numbers_an_electio.html

It's an article about a formula to tell who will an election. I urge all of you to look at it!

Vote Tuesday!