Auto Union Drove GM to Trouble

Can President Obama really fire executives?! While I agree these companies need shakeups, starting w/ the all too powerful unions, the government is crossing the line here by "recommending" personnell moves.

Green Bay tea party rallies against federal programs

If you haven't seen CNBC's Rick Santelli's proposal for a Chicago Tea Party, make sure to check that out first!  Residents of Green Bay who agreed w/ Santelli recently held their own rally in opposition to government bailouts, handouts and in support of working hard, being smart, and being responsible for their own actions.

Santelli said it best and Wall Street doesn't lie -- they don't like President Obama's plan for the economy!

Democratic Party Increases

During the past 2008 US Presidential Election, the Democrats were the recipients of the largest Party Identification advantage over the course of the last 20+ years.  According to PewResearch, the Democrats achieved a 7% identification advantage over the GOP.  In previous election cycles, the Democrats had advantages, but failed to win the general election due to higher Republican turnout – a common identify of the GOP.  However, this time the GOP couldn’t overcome the wide margin, as the Democrats captured the White House.

 

This may signal a new switch in party identification.  Since the 1950’s, the Democrats have lost party identifiers, while the GOP has remained steady and the independents have increased.  With more and more people becoming involved (most notably the grassroots efforts on the Democratic side), I feel it is likely that the Democrats will soon see a notable increase in party identifiers.  And while this party identification doesn’t necessarily reflect voting behavior, the recent increased partisanship may reflect this and help the Democrats.

 

This isn’t good news for the GOP, since party identification is something learned at a young age and usually doesn’t change over time, only strengthens.  This growing Democratic advantage may stay for decades (as the GOP has dominated the last few decades, winning 7/10 I believe).  And since one of the only ways party identification is changed is due to an intense issue interest (currently Iraq, War on Terror, etc.), the Republicans may have already lost some to the left, only hurting their cause for the future even more.

 

In addition, the recent upswing in upswing in political activity and identification over the last 8 years is also helping to mold the next generation the Democratic Party.  Since party identification is the single most stable political attitude and influences opinions and behaviors (rather than vice versa), it is safe to say that in the near future the Democrats may experience the same success of the GOP over the last few decades.

 

Some noteworthy tidbits to take from the exit polls include:

·      The only voting identification that President Obama didn’t gain ground was that among active Democrats; however he didn’t lose any either.  He picked up votes among Republicans, won the independent vote, and increased the Democratic share among virtually all other demographics

·      From the 2004 election to the 2008 election the Democrats switched to their favor the 18-29 white vote, Post-Grad white vote, Eastern region white vote, and the Urban white vote

·      The only region that President Obama won among white voters was in the east

 

In addition, for the first time history (probably?!), the youth vote actually may have made a difference.  Obama drew about 2/3 of the youth vote and won it by a much greater margin than Senator Kerry in 2004.  Had Kerry reached out and appealed to the youth vote the same way President Obama did, he probably would have won the White House.

 

Overall, the Democrats have made strides among basically all demographics over the last couple years.  However, all this success can be wiped out due to the successes/failures of the single most important issue to voters – the economy.

 

Why the GOP Shows Up!

In Congress, I’d have to say the most obvious answer to the role of the minority party is to keep the majority party in check. We have a “miniature” version of checks & balances for Congress in the two chambers. While the majority party still may be able to pass questionable legislation, you can bet that the American people will hear about it (whether it be from the party leaders pointing fingers at the other party or talking heads on the Cable News channels such as Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann) if one side doesn't like it. And if after hearing about it, the American people don’t like it, that party will face repercussions at the polls next time out. These checks and balances hopefully make politicians think twice about making questionable calls if they know it may hurt them at the polls, because w/ these career politicians, their loyalties often lie w/ thier constituents in order to get reelected, and not the party.

In addition, the biggest, most daunting and of course MOST important objective of the minority party has to be how they are going to switch and become the majority party. To do this they need to retain active leadership, build coalitions, practice bipartisanship, and keep a stable positive image of the party. As our text points out, whether or not the minority party is actually successful depends on both inside and outside Congressional forces. The main external forces are as follows:
o Temper of the times, such as the presence of a domestic or international crisis
o The relative political strength of the minority party in the electorate
o The degree of unity w/in the parties outside Congress
o The power of the president and his willingness to use the advantages inherent to his office
Conditions w/in Congress that are most likely to affect Congress are:
o Legislative procedures
o The majority party’s margin over the minority
o The relative effectiveness of majority and minority party leadership
o The time the party has been in a minority status (mentality)
o Relative strength of the party in the other house

More often than not, the above mentioned external forces will play the largest role in affect behavior and strategy while the internal forces will affect the size of vote margins and the effectiveness of both party leaders.

The question of why even bother to call for bipartisanship is a very good one. If the democrats have a mandate, shouldn’t they just do what they want, because that’s obviously what the voters want…right?! And that is basically what is happening right now w/ their massive spending bills. To their defense however, the same happens when the GOP is in the majority, as the call for bipartisanship I feel is more symbolic and “feel-good” than anything. One side will claim they are trying to be the good guy and offer out their hand, while the other side will argue that they just aren’t being reasonable.

As to why the 214 Republicans even show up, it’s a simple answer; to prevent the Democrats from pushing through too radical of an agenda. They were elected by people who want conservative (most of the time) values on Capitol Hill, so it their duty to the people to represent them. It’s similar to that of our legal system. In the US there is a Judge who acts as a referee, and two sides (Prosecution and Defense) that battle it out to find all the facts, prove/disprove all the theories, and come to the best conclusion possible. This is an adversarial system w/ a goal of obtaining the most information possible to make the best possible decision in the end. The same holds true w/ Congress…the minority will bring ideas, values, etc. that the majority won’t often bring, so in order for the best decision to be made, these must be heard. Because I’m sure both sides can agree that you need to analyze each side’s ideas and consequences first before making a decision…..or maybe they just always think their ideas are best?!?!

How Can the Dead Old Party Become the Grand Old Party Again?

Tammy Bruce's blog outlines a party in disarray and touches on everything from the beloved Reagan years to the current clash between RNC Chair Steele and Rush....and of course everyones favorite conservative, Ann Coulter.

Vote for all your favorite problems, and then vote against the deficit!

In this past election cycle, there was basically just an “Anti-Bush” and “Anyone but the GOP” sentiment coming out of the Democratic camp, while the Republican camp….really didn’t have a camp, because that would involve their organization. The Republicans were faced w/ a daunting challenge of distancing themselves from the unpopular Bush Administration and choosing from a cast of nominees that all had their flaws, while the Democrats had two very feasible presidential candidates.

Both camps were very candidate-orientated, as is becoming the trend nowadays. Sen. McCain was constantly portrayed as a "maverick" who did what was best for the country, even if it meant going against his party. President Obama also tried to distance himself from the culture of Washington politics in general, pledging "change" and his plan to clean up Washington. While the Democrats embraced this idea, the Republicans couldn't and it cost them the election. Most true GOP voters weren't anywhere near 100% happy w/ their candidate, while most Obama voters were overly happy w/ their candidate. This in turn amounted in his camp being better organized, funded, etc.

Probably the biggest turning point in the election was the fallout of the market in October. Up until the market tanked, the McCain-Palin team had a slim lead in most polls and was still riding the Gov. Sarah Palin hype. However, similar to the Iran Hosta crisis in 1979, the market turned the election to the Democrats.

Similar to the ideas of Teachout, the Obama voters were very enthusiastic, confident, and just simply excited for the election, so they organized and made the nomination and election happen. Obama used this to his advantage to form mailing lists, blogs, etc. -- most notably the text messaging system that notified those who signed up of important events such as who the VP would be and when he would name him. This helped him win the election, and he has brought this idea of reaching out via the web to the White House -- revamping the White House website, producing a Recovery site to deal w/ the bailout, etc. In terms of their actual campaign websites; Obama's simply gives thanks and has a T-Shirt sale, McCain's says thanks, & Clinton's is asking for help to pay off her debt (apparently the Clinton Machine is longer so well off financially!).


In terms of Congressional candidates, the web effect hasn't hit them in full force yet. While they can be vulnerable to Youtube "gotcha" moments, because their actual constituencies are much smaller, some of which have large segments that don't even use the internet I'm sure, they are more likely to be going door to door, having town hall meetings, attending local breakfasts, etc. However, just because they havent been hit by the web yet, it doenst mean they are any less vulnerable. In fact, congressional candidates are usually always more vulnerable than presidentail candidages; with Richard Nixon being the outlier here, feeling he was so vulnerable when in actuality he was fine, causing his resignation. The fact that these congressional candidates are always in an election year or pre-election year takes up a lot of their resources. And because they have an unlimited number of terms, the only time they can really "kick back, relax" and not worry about reelection is when they have determined not to run anymore or have extremely thick skin.

Jindal: Obama's Economic Plan Irresponsible

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal gave tonight's Republican response to President Obama's unofficial "State of the Union" and as one of the frontrunners for the 2012 GOP nomination, he sure looked far from it. In text, the speech was at best good, but delivered, the speech was at best average. Of course, can ANYONE really follow up President Obama in terms of giving a speech?!?!