Blogging for grades

I thought this blogging idea is great way to relay thoughts and opinions on the selected topic. The feel is a touch on the informal side, which is a break from the structured setup I'm used to, and therefore, I feel I can reflect my thoughts on a broader scale. My only concern was the comments part. Since a blog is due by 6 pm on Weds, I felt that the due time for comments should have been due on Thurs by 6. This gives everyone a day to review each blog, instead of relying on the people that get there blogs done way ahead of schedule. Or have blogs completed by Tues. at 6. In addition, blogging also gives us an easy access to the web and we have the ability to back up our opinions with the most recent news, or obscure historical data. As far as my blog is concerned, I would probably rate around a B to C+ range. I know the comments killed my grade, but I enjoyed talking about issues, past and current, and felt I could put together a somewhat coherant thought.

Sorting in recent elections

Has tha rgument for sorting been strengthened or weakened in recent elections? Fiorina has claimed in his book that voters who think alike usually vote alike. I have evidence in the 2008 presidential election is not be the case, as many voters were split on important issues to them. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843704 For example, when asked if the voter was worried about another terrorist attack on US soil, 70% responded that they were at least somewhat worried. With Fiorinia's claim that voters think alike, vote alike, one candidate would be the clear cut winner on this issue. But the numbers tell us a different story. Of the people who are worried about anther terrorist attack, 50% voted for McCain and 48% voted for Obama. Voters who held terrorism as important could not agree upon who could prevent this from happening again. To further dismantle Fiorinia's argument, voters, when asked about potential Supreme Court appointees, 74% said that the nomination power was a factor in capturing their vote. An alomst even split occurs once again, with Obama gathering 54 % of the vote compared to 48 % towards McCain. Finally, when asked if the economy was good or poor, 93% said poor and the vote was split again, 54% voted for Obama while 44 % voted for McCain.

So what does this all mean? Well, to be honest, I'm not sure yet, so we need to keep digging. The next question I have: Have polarized activists subsoquently fueled sterotpyical sentiments onto the American public, therefore subconsciously implanting trigger phrases about each party, even though most of America is unpolar? Hopefully, I can clarify what that mess of question means. Fironia brings up the notion of George W. winning in 2000, through the help of a "fatigued public towards Clinton". He also states that Bush the elder lost his reelction bid due to his failed promises and a rival candidate who brought middle America back to the forefront. I believe Fiorinia is correct, saying that most of the American public is middle of the ground. But if this were true, would issues really matter versus how a candidate is percieved or how job performance is rated? With voter ideaology being centrist, wouldnt a voter play a give and a take game, therefore canceling out most issues? For example, voter A is in favor of gun control, inheritence tax cuts, Iraq and abortion. Pretty centrist for sake of argument, but what pushes this voter to vote the way they will end up deciding? This is where candidate likability and current regime satisifaction come into play. With the numbers above, votes tilted toward Obama because the current administration was failing. If the hot issue this election was the economy, and only 4 points above majority believed Obama to turn it around, why did the American public almost turn it into a coin flip and eventually lean towards Obama? This is why I believe that the majority of the American public can go either way on most issues, but the key to gathering votes in based on current administration job perception and candidate perception.

Build a Party Project

Our party strengths: In theory, our party will appeal to the growing attitudes of the changing nation. Environmental friendly policies dominate our platform, which in the long run, will benefit both mankind and mother nature. Clean lungs and water have never hurt anyone. Second, our party will be fronted will some of the most recognizable and relatable politicains on Capitol Hill. Strong party leadership and name recognition will fuel the sentiments surronding these charasmatic leaders into the minds of the potential voting populus. Finally, our base or core supporters should establish the sound foundation needed to further develop our parties growth throughout the US. Our base is the South, which traditionally is a stronghold for the right wing. With the reeling Republican party, South voters may be looking for a new identity for their political views, and this party, already closer to the right than the left, looks to capitalize on the new found opportunity for voter identification.
Weaknesses: How big can we get a revenue stream in order to pay for all these government backed programs? New health research, new tecnological fuel research, and further tax cuts will require new avenues of funding. With some many former Republicans lined up to be initiated to our party, will these new prgrams be an easy sell? With the financial cost on green technologies higher than traditional methods, how will new companies be able to afford start up costs, and eventually expand and create new jobs? Dont get me wrong; Im all for the environment, but I just wonder how the cost will be divided up, especially in an economy teetering on the big D word. Secondly, I wonder how bailing out the American auto makers will stabilize the national economy. Wouldnt these companies just be better off filing chapter 11? or at least start jet pooling? Why should the federal governement invest billions in a failing company, when in a few months, that money will be gone anyway? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=4 is a great article by Romney. Finally, the only other weakness, in my opinion and this is strictly a viewpoint, is the stem cell research. I am not a fan of it. I believe its to close to playing God with human life and I dont trust mankind to handle such a powerful technology in a responsible and secure way.

Viewing all the groups platforms, I conclude that most, if not all, are roughly on the same viewpoint path. Most parties are centrised based, with stress on the environment, health, and ending the Irag war. Competing for the high office for all groups was in the wheel house of 8-10 years, which may be a bit too soon, but with rise of the information age, anything is possible. I also found it interesting that some groups are in favor of the turn of the 19th century politics, ie isolatioism.

If any of group 4's members read this, I apologize for my lack of input. I was really looking forward to this idea but I can down with pnumonia and, subsequently, my wife and 3 month old daughter came down with bronchitis for the past few weeks. I know how frustrating group work can be and I let the group down; I take responsibility for this and I'm sure my grade will reflect this. Working in groups over the net, I found, is challenging. Coordination efforts must be met on everyone's side in order to be effective. Messages can be left and viwed at any time, but I prefer the more efficient method of face to face interaction to fully gather all the input of everyone involved. Finally, over the net is also very faceless and almost soulless. Instead of matching a face to the words and get that personal image in your head, you have to conjure up what this person is really all about.