Monday, October 8, 2007
Reponse to Post 3 - Due 10/16
You can respond to post 3 on the post 3 strand or here. Either is fine. Your response post is due 10/16. Remember the goal is for everyone to get a response. Please do not respond to someone's post if they already have more than 1 response. Please attack the ideas/argument of the person & not the person her/himself. Also, please respond in a manner which fosters rather than shuts down dialogue. Thanks. Good luck. M. Aby
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
This is in response to Alyssa Vongries' post:
I defer my entire argument to your post. I agree completely and only hope that I can convey my arguments in such a succinct and direct manner in the immediate future.
Response to whelan08:
I agree with you when you say that a candidate needs to appeal to many different groups. Support from many different types of people is definately a plus for a candidate. I do believe that candidates should have target groups. Candidates should obviously target people who vote and they should also target their communities (which ever communities those may be). so I guess I am also agreeing with you on the point of not having their communities as the only target. Another point i wanted to stste is that Idont think Obama is relying on the African American vote (or trying to rely on it). If anything Clinton would be the one more reliant on the black vote (maybe due to the support that the black community had for her husband...). And I was also wondering to what degree you think that a candidate needs to represent their community, because I noticed that you said to a degree, but I am curious as to what degree. (Do you think that by not representing their community enough will it hurt them in other areas of the campaign? Will other communities that a candidate "belongs" to also lose interest when the candidate shows a disinterest in his other communities?)
~Asia aka Toasty! :)
To Georgia
I agree with what you say about Barack Obama. It does seem true that Clinton is taking advantage of her husband's popularity to win the African-American vote, but some of that popularity is through her own policies and campaigns. What is hurting Obama in this area is that the media is making his race a major issue, which in turn is making his job (appealing to a majority of voters) that much harder. Now both the African-American and Caucasian demographics expect him to crusade for issues relating to the African-American community, most notably the Jena 6 incident mentioned in so many of the articles. Obama may be campaigning, but he also remains a member of Congress--there is only so much he can do as far as being on the scene. While he could be more involved with what voters consider his community, it is hard to see why this should be voters' main concern about his campaign. I definitely agree that American society should stop being so concerned with this. We had a Catholic president, and he was no worse than the rest of them. If Americans are afraid of having an African-American president, maybe it is because they believe that many of our white, Protestant, male presidents were mainly concerned with the welfare of their fellow white and Protestant man? When they realize that plenty of former presidents strove to represent more than their own majority demographic, perhaps they will also realize that race matters less than they think.
To Mia
You said that a candidate does not have to represent his/her own community to be successful, but that members of that community may nevertheless hold higher expectations of that candidate on certain issues. I think that this is a very valid point that I completely agree with. It only makes sense that people would think a woman would be the best representative of women and etc., but it is not always true that that is what the candidate wants to focus on. I think it is difficult to look past this, so it is often hard to see the candidate as an individual without also seeing them as a member of a certain group. For example, polls show a higher percentage of women supporting Senator Clinton than men (1). As a result, she is trying to use certain tactics to “balance it out,” and appeal to men as well, for example by emphasizing certain issues in her campaign.
It is true, as you also wrote, that when candidates try to downplay their race/gender/religion it is sometimes looked at as a bad thing. An example of this would be the whole Obama issue of him not truly “representing the African American community”(2). Candidates have to be careful to reach a balance between the two so as not to alienate certain groups. Sometimes it is not always good to be seen solely as an individual, but it is also not good to be seen only as a member of a community and not an individual in any way.
1.http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0201/p01s04-uspo.html
2.http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584736,00.html
I agree that candidates, regardless of their background, have a duty to appeal to as many demographics as possible. I have to admit that I'm disappointed in the way that the media makes it seem apolcalyptic when a candidate isn't 100% faithful to their group, or worse yet, more faithful to another demographic. In many of the articles recommended for research, more focus was put on which candidates were favored rather than why they would appeal to certain groups. This ties in to the horse race and the sensationalizing that has occurred in recent elections. Although many Americans are concerned with how the candidates will affect them, I believe a majority of Americans will look at these events and consider the candidates 'unloyal' without a second glance. Because of the media, it will be almost impossible for these candidates to run a normal campaign as you recommended. Hopefully, voters can look past the sensationalism and make desicions that will benefit the nation as a whole.
Response to Judy Ly
I completely agree with you in that a candidate should not have to be a representative of their community. I find your argument about atheist intriguing especially because of the controversy last winter, in which Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress, was reportedly going to be sworn in on the Koran (he wasn’t sworn in on any book.) Apparently people felt that if he was sworn in on the Koran, then Ellison’s allegiance would be first to Islamic Law and then to the Constitution (1). If a member of Congress caused this much controversy, how much would the president of the U.S. cause if he/she was a woman, Mormon, or an African American. In the case of Ellison, it was viewed as negative to be seen as a representative of his community.
I also agree with you that it is better to be seen as an individual. There are always certain biases that come with being seen as a representative of a certain community and the candidates have had to work hard to correct these biases. For instance, Mitt Romney has had to respond often to the criticism that he is a Mormon running for president. In a New Hampshire televised debate, Romney responded to this criticism by repeating the same message that JFK did, “I’m running for president and just happened to be a Mormon.” Romney also tried to correct the negative connotation of being a Mormon with linking himself to the rest of the Evangelicals by saying that he believed in God like them, and believed that God had created people in his image (2). In this way, he was trying to put a positive spin on his Mormonism and reassure others that this would not be a major factor when compared to the other issues. Even so, there are still people who will not vote for Romney just because of his faith. This was even televised when a man refused to shake Romney’s hand because he was a Mormon (3). I find it absolutely ridiculous that religion can scare people so much that they are afraid to even consider a candidate who is a different religion than them.
I agree with Judy in that these stereotypes undermine the issues. Whether the stereotypes were created by the media or somehow perceived by the American people does not matter. What matters is that the stereotypes are there and that they form a barrier to candidates for no good reason. Ridiculous people cannot get it into their heads that it is the issues and the candidates’ stances on those specific issues that matter.
Sources:
1.http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200612/POL20061201a.html
2.http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/06/05/sot.romney.faith.cnn?iref=videosearch
3.http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/05/29/sot.nh.romney.cricized.faith.cnn?iref=videosearch
To Elise:
I agree with what you said in your post. Your arguments are exactly what I was thinking. The candidates are put in an awkward position because they want to win the votes of the majority of Americans, but they also do not want to forget about their community. The issue of race or gender should not be considered in an election, but, as you said, this country has a history rich in discrimination and hatred against different races and genders. This makes it almost impossible for people to vote for a leader without considering these factors. These factors are given increased attention because of the media. In an effort to find every flaw in candidates they are very quick to make a candidate look bad for "betraying" their community. Your point about Hillary was very good. It shows that people are considering things other than just their community. This is what the candidates need to do in order to win this election; please their community and help out others.
(1)Clinton Edges Obama in Black Caucus
(2)Barack Obama caught between lines in race battle
To Shaun,
I really enjoyed your analysis of Barack's Obama attendance (or lack there of) at the Jena Six Rally. I think that it really gives some light into how we not only view Barack Obama as an potential candidate for presidency, but also as an African American male. The stereotype that communities stick together also reinforces the idea that African Americans will only for vote for Barack Obama and that women will only vote for Hillary Clinton. In my opinion, voters should not be limited in their voting capabilities or expected to vote a certain way. If anything, this might give some false confidence to a candidate, who would then be "banking" on the votes of his or her community.
Just as women cannot expect Hillary Clinton to attend every women's rights rally, America cannot expect that Obama will undoubtedly support anything that happens within the African American community, just because he's African American. Candidates work hard to appeal to the mass majority of constituents, and it's incidents like this that are harmful to their appearance.
Response to Silas:
I agree that a candidate's worth shouldn't be determined by what "group" they belong to, but I think people probably vote that way more than they admit. (By the way, Clinton has been criticized as not advocating for women's rights as much as some people think she should.) It's usually more of a subconscious bias: ie, a female candidate will be perceived as an advocate for women's rights, an African American candidate will be perceived as an advocate for affirmative action, etc. When you ask people whether they specifically would vote for a female or African American president, most say that they would. However, when asked if the country as a whole would vote for such candidates, the responses tend more towards the negative side. (I read this in a Newsweek article, but I don't remember the issue.)
This could either mean that people are exaggerating their own willingness to vote for these candidates, or they have an overly cynical view of other people.
I think it's pretty ridiculous in this day and age that religion is still an issue, but that's politics for you.
And by the way (from Judy's post)...45%? Thanks a lot, America. So much for my presidential aspirations... ^-^
~This is Kendra.
To: Meghan Brown
I think that you bring up interesting points about women’s views on voting for Hillary Clinton president. While many of today’s voters are unaware of how candidates stand on important issues, I disagree that many women would vote for Clinton simply because of their common gender. Even uninformed women who might claim to support her because she is a woman are probably thinking of factors other than her gender. Even if they know virtually nothing about her platform, based on the rational-choice theory, they will vote in their own best interest, meaning that they would feel best represented by Clinton if they voted for her. Without reading her platform, they probably make assumptions that she will represent the issues that women stereotypically see as important (healthcare, equal rights, etc.) and their assumptions would be correct as Clinton has tried harder than any other candidate to appeal to female voters (1).
I do think that you have a valid point, however, that given the choice, many women would choose a female candidate over a male candidate with similar views. Many of the democratic candidates have very similar views on most issues, so for some people Clinton’s gender could ultimately be the deciding factor (2). Although it is not ideal for characteristics like gender to be factors in choosing a presidential candidate, in reality it is hard to ignore when there has not yet been a female president.
1)http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-07-22-clinton-women_N.htm
2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/issues/
To: Chelsey Jernberg
I agree with you on all counts. In an ideal world, people would vote for candidates based on their stands on the issues. You are right in saying that candidates shouldn’t just be working to get the votes of their own representative group. If a candidate just focused on that particular group of voters, they wouldn’t win the election. They probably wouldn’t even get half of their own representative group.
Barack Obama is doing it right. He isn’t trying to get just the black vote. At the Democratic National Convention in 2004, he said in a speech that there is no black America or white America, there is just the United States of America. He understands that there is too much diversity in the nation to just try to get by just on the black vote, which he might not even get.
There is a slight double standard, however. Hillary Clinton is using her representative group to her advantage. By advocating women’s rights and being pro-choice, she is attracting more female voters. At the same time, she is sticking strongly to her own views and just using the women’s vote as a backup.
Both senators are using their representative groups wisely. Obama is rebuffing the idea of a representative group, while Clinton is embracing her group, just not only her group.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7402914
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0201/p01s04-uspo.html
I am responding to Alex Z’s post. I agree with your point of when a candidate is going to be the “first” of any group (Clinton the first woman, Obama the first African American or Romney the first Mormon) the American public will never see them as an individual alone. I think that because the candidate would be making history as a member of a certain community, Americans will always associate the candidate with their community. I also agree with your idea that if the candidates find a balance between representing their community and being individuals, the issues will be the major part of the election instead of the candidate’s association with a certain community.
I agree with the points you made about candidates who represent a community trying to be individuals, but also trying to represent their community to get more votes. Since candidates are trying to receive as many votes as possible, they can use the fact that they identify with a community to help them. However, I think candidates will not immediately get the vote of the community they represent. Instead, the candidate must try to prove to be a good representative of their community to get their community’s votes. We can see this with Obama, because even though he is an African American, he is having some trouble proving to the whole African American community that he would be a good representative for them. This is shown by the fact that Clinton has more support than Obama in the Congressional Black Caucus so far (1).
The candidate must also make sure that they are seen as an individual. One point I would add to your argument is that a main reason candidates need to be seen as individuals is to ensure that they do not appear to be a candidate for only one group of people. The candidate must not alienate other groups by only attempting to connect with one group. The president has to be a representative of America, and that includes many groups of people. The example of Reverend Jesse Jackson comes to mind, because in his presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988, he was seen by some Americans as being more of a civil rights activist, and too connected to the interests of one group in America (2).
I thought your example of Hillary Clinton was very good. She has tried to be an individual while also capitalizing on her connection with women. On her website there is a page that describes Clinton as a “Mother and Advocate [for women]”, which is a clear example of her using her gender to connect with women (3).
You also made another important point when you noted that within each community there are differences on the issues. Not many people talked about that, but I think it is important for another reason than the one you mentioned. I think the differences within communities are a reason most people will not just vote for a candidate because they belong to a specific community. If a woman differed greatly from Clinton on the issues, the chance of that woman voting for Clinton just because Clinton is a woman is small.
1) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOj-hz5ahyzXOAIRsfaUOyr1Ns8gD8RUNE780
2) http://www.answers.com/topic/jesse-jackson-sr
3) http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/mom/
To: Mr. Good
I agree when you say that a candidate must be both a representative of their community and an individual. I liked best the part where you emphasized the fact that the beliefs of an individual should be considered first. That if a candidate is good, their issues will reflect that of their voters. I do want to add onto this though.
I have to admit I think the Jenna Six fiasco is not a good reason for Hilary to pull farther ahead. I don’t think a community should avoid a candidate because they aren’t as (fill in the blank) as the rest of the community. I want to take Barack Obama as an example of this. He is being punished for his “lack of commitment” to his community (African Americans). Jesse Jackson complains of his actions when he himself was defeated partially due to his reputation as a single-issue candidate. (1)
Obama is required to do a balancing act. He is required to be, as Gary Young put it “a black man who does not scare white people” (2) while also representing African Americans. There are concerns in the African American community and echoes of: is Obama “black enough” (1) where Caucasians are cited to hope “if you have to be black, just don’t be too black.”
I’m again going to state that this whole race issue is stupid. It always has been. Unfortunately I think the Jenna Six issue has made it clear that some people just haven’t gotten the picture yet. Gary Young and I are both concerned that if race is still an issue in 2007, what can be said for how for our society has come? Still Obama has to overcome not only the high discriminations of the left and right wing communities, but the racial communities as well. (2)
(1) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
(2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
To: Michelle Howard
I agree that candidates that have a personal connection to a community can make a difference in that community-- I'm thinking of Obama in particular. The issue of small minorities isn't really an issue at all in most cases-- in my original post, I cited a Gallup poll mentioning how unlikely people were to elect an atheist; the flip side of that is the willingness of people to vote for a Jewish president (92%). In addition, Mitt Romney is considered one of Republican frontrunners, despite his status as a Mormon. Both of these groups are relatively small, with Jews and Mormons each comprising 1.3% of the population as of 2001.
I think you have an interesting point in regards to being able to relate to candidates that belong to the same community that you are part of. However, there's a lot being said about how Obama and Richardson *aren't* black enough or Hispanic enough to relate to their respective communities. None of the candidates so far that belong to communities that have traditionally lacked power have been able to gain a monopoly in support from their respective groups, indicating that people aren't necessarily selecting candidates based on similarities in background.
I think the majority of voters are seeing the candidates as individuals, rather than as representatives of a community. That can only be a good thing, in my opinion.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26611
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-chude-sokei18feb18,0,7298828.story?coll=la-opinion-center
This is a response to Annie
I agree that a candidate is not “required” to represent his or her community but I do think it would be beneficial to the campaign of the candidate to at least acknowledge the issues facing their respective community. It is no secret that it is easy to identify with someone you feel has come from a similar background. For example African-Americans are more likely to identify with Obama seeing as he has grown up as an African-American in America. And, in America we like to identify at least slightly with our president. That being said it is also easy for culturally diverse candidates to lose the votes of those who identify with them by ignoring the issues facing these groups. These candidates obviously must step lightly around culturally charged issues to avoid being seen as primarily a “equal rights” candidate or a “women’s rights” candidate. But, they also must realize that by not addressing these issues they may receive heavy criticism from those who may most readily identify with them thus losing what would be an easily won demographic. In conclusion for culturally diverse candidates this will obviously be a balancing act but it is extremely important for these candidates to not completely ignore their personal cultural background
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_obama_blacks
It seems that most of us agree that a candidate must, for the most part, represent a broader group of people than just their specific community. The candidates obviously are in the same page. At first glance it appears that race, religion, etc. matter a whole lot. It feels as if only women will really support Hillary and African Americans support Obama, but this is not the case. All of the candidates have worked to establish a broader base of support and successfully have or else they wouldn’t be top contenders for the nominations.
However, I think that Americans will always bases their choice to some extent on the candidate who seems most like them, which normally leads to some contemplation over race, religion, or gender. For instance Mitt Romney, who is a practicing Mormon, is seen as much more unfavorable among the Republican candidates by churchgoing Protestants (galluppolls.com). This proves that religious community is on the minds of Americans when they vote. However there is also evidence to suggest that the specific community that a candidate is part of only slightly effects the vote. Only 54% of women view Hillary Clinton as a favorable candidate. While the male percentage is lower, the female votes of confidence are only 6 points ahead of the national average (galluppolls.com). When you take into consideration the fact that women are more likely to be liberal than men, this margin is very low. It shows that women, instead of siding directly with a community representative, are making political decisions independent of their gender. As the population gets more informed about the real issues of the campaign, I feel that voters will chose based on the issues not the race, gender, or religion. However, a candidate must remember that people will always want a candidate that is representative of them
To: Michelle R
I agree with your main point that untraditional candidates must try to balance representing their community with appealing to a broad range of voters within their party. By alienating the rest of the vote, candidates such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney would jeopardize their campaign since none of them have secured votes from these minority groups. I also agree that this balancing act will be the hardest for Obama considering the traditional loyalty of African Americans to their race and the growing pressure he is facing to represent a broad range of people.
At the same time, I also feel that Hillary Clinton will have the hardest time securing votes in any one group of people, particularly based on gender. For some men (sometimes subconsciously) voting for a woman is a matter of pride and they might view her as weak or simply not president material. Also, some women think the same thing and don’t want to be viewed as someone voting for her “just because she is a woman”.
I also thought it was interesting that you mentioned the media’s role in portraying the candidates rather then there stances on issues. It is hard enough to get media coverage that is based on issues for a traditional candidate but with all the new representation this year, the 2008 race will be even more candidate centered. Overall I agree with you that a candidate must focus first and foremost on being an individual in order to get elected and then try to balance their community.
In response to Alyssa Vongries:
After reading Alyssa’s post, I felt I needed to step back and reexamine the whole question. Representation does not need to be in terms of ethnicity, gender, or religious base, as she said. I completely agree with that. The factor of economic status was sparked in my head while reading her argument, and I wondered: How representative can a wealthy politician really be to an entire nation? The vast majority of candidates running for any political office position do not share the same financial status as most of the nation; they obviously wouldn’t be running for office if they didn’t have the finances to support a campaign. So in terms of being representative of one’s community, none of the presidential candidates are able to fulfill that need when it comes to finances. Political parties do somewhat represent economic status, I guess. Republicans are known to support tax cuts for the wealthy, where Democrats encourage a salary-based income tax, which tends to be more in favor of the middle or lower classes (2). So in a sense, these larger groups are representing financial status indirectly, but that is a different type of representation. Political parties do not represent a McDonald’s fry cook or a receptionist at Great Clips; political parties only represent an idea. The politicians preaching these ideas have never actually experienced some of the economic challenges that many voters face, but they are still able to address the issues concerning their support group.
People just seem to overlook the financial differences in candidates and focus on the physical differences more, only strengthening the idea that Americans are still judgmental of differences after all of the history arguing that. The UN Ambassador for the United States Adlai Stevenson once said, “The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process.” (1) Factors like economic status are not easily manipulated into a news story. For that reason, and the fact that all politicians running for office have money, economic status seems slightly irrelevant in their campaigns. But when other factors like race and gender are found, people are forced to argue whether or not a black man would be capable of representing a white woman in our government. If we are so worried about representation in our government, maybe we should rethink the entire political process that we’ve adopted.
(1)http://media.www.inpoliticallycorrect.org/media/storage/paper1026/news/2007/01/17/ProfileOfAPolitician/Profile.Of.A.Politician-2734647.shtml
(2)http://wise.fau.edu/~rpwatson/Just_Vote/just_vote_005.htm
From Liana
In response to Mr. Good
To say that if one represents his or herself as an individual, that candidate should match the issues of his or her particular community is a very broad, ill-supported statement. Political scientists such as Richard Zweigenhaft have analyzed the trend of minorities holding political office and one common conclusion is that although the candidate may be a racial minority, the ideology of the candidate is the same as the typical white male elitist politicians who have been running the country for over two centuries. In short, their views and therefore their policies are not of their minority community. This speaks to the Jena Six, Obama is not an activist; he is a politician (1). I agree with you, however, that a minority candidate does need the majority of his/her community’s support in order to win with the exception of Hilary Clinton. Hilary, with the help from her husband’s presidency, already has incredible support from the African American community (2). She does not have the majority of women but this is of course inevitable considering that women actually make up a greater portion of the population than men. For this reason, Clinton really shouldn’t be considered a minority candidate. In conclusion, being a minority candidate does not necessarily mean that the candidate will represent the community from which he/she came from, but with this said it is important for minority candidates to have support from their community to win a national presidential election.
(1)http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obamaweb29,1,5304044.story
(2)http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
Molly,
I agree with your last post’s premise. You are right in the fact that candidates such as Clinton risk alienating the other side of the demographics when reaching out to one side, such as women or a minority group. According to Paul Waldman of The American Prospect (1), the Republican party has alienated Latino voters by taking a strong anti-immigration stand. Also, I agree with many of my classmates when they mentioned the fact that these people are career politicians. Politicians have moved away from being representatives of the American public and moved towards being representatives of corruption and self-interest. We must keep in mind that although they may promise to represent a specific group of people, we must be wary if this promise does not directly benefit the politician. While this may sound cynical, it is now a sad truth of American politics. Talk is cheap, and many campaign promises are full of hot air.
-Silas
1) http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=gop_candidates_alienate_latino_voters
To Patrick Good:
You note that in elections people will often for a candidate because they see as their cue to what they believe. However, will a candidate be able to get as many votes like this if he does not act like part of his community? While I believe what you said is true, I also feel that some of these type of voters will not vote for a candidate if the feel that the candidate does not truly represent his or her community. This is what some people feel could happen to Obama (1). There may be some African-Americans who vote for Obama just because of the color of his skin, but there may also be some African-Americans who choose not to vote for Obama because they do not feel that he portrays their community. So, do you think a candidate will be able to reach out to all kinds of voters while still maintaining the votes of his or her community? While ideally a candidate would be able to do both like you suggest, in reality it is a lot harder to maintain the balancing act (2). If you were to choose, do you think being an individual or representing a community is more important? While ideally candidates will be able to strike a perfect balancing act between the two, eventually a candidate might have to pick slightly between one.
1. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
2. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=ho
Dear Dear Aki Black-
I agree with your idea that it’s silly that we expect people to think a certain way because they are a member of a certain community, but you have to admit… there seems to be a general consensus among specific groups around certain topics. Yes, it’s true that everyone has differing opinions and ideals that transform. But the fact of the matter is that your opinions and ideals are influenced by your community. It ties in perfectly to your family values and surroundings growing up. Whether candidates like it or not, they are representing their original public. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are representing ONLY those people- they’re trying to win the representation of millions of communities… but if a candidate can’t well-represent their own community, how can we assume they would represent anyone else’s? That’s why I don’t think it’s flawed that candidates should speak and promote within their own groups. Of course, they don’t want to be seen as solely part of that community because then they would be neglecting others. Overall, candidates need to appeal to multiple groups and ideals. I just don’t think that communities are irrelevant to the candidates’ popularity, or that it’s inaccurate to assume that many of these groups can be seen as having the same general values and voting standards.
To Amanda:
I agree with your post in many ways. I agree that it is likely that many people will not see the candidates as individuals, yet, being the optimist that I am, I still hope that the community a candidate supposedly represents will no be a large factor in voting. You make a very good point in saying that those who would most likely vote for a candidate based solely off their religion, gender, or race are less likely to vote. In contrast, those who are going to vote are more likely, to some extent, be informed on the issues, and because of this, we can’t expect them to have all of the same views. Even just judging by the conversations we’ve had in class, clearly all females do not share the same political views and will not vote for the same candidate. To some extent, to hold a candidate to certain standards above the others, like expecting Obama to show up to the rally at Jena 6, is not fair. If a candidate is to be elected, they need to be a representative of the views of at the very least, a majority of the country. Indeed, as you wrote, our media does seem determined to make the candidate’s differences of gender, religion, and race into a big deal, and therefore, we can’t completely expect the voters to disregard these differences, which is very unfortunate.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obamaweb29,1,5304044.story
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas
To: Alyssa Graham
I agree completely with what your saying about how a president should be and probably will be remembered for what they did rather then their race, gender, religion, etc. For example, tying into what Caitlin used in her post, when I think of John F. Kennedy, the first thing that I think of isn’t “wow, he was the first catholic president,” but rather my focus is on what he did during his presidential term and what made him someone to be remembered. The American president needs to be someone that can do what’s best for the majority of the country, which may not always be what is perfect for their community.
I thought it was really interesting the last part that you put in about the media emphasizing what makes these candidates so interesting right now such as the fact that Hilary Clinton is a women, because I totally agree. Maybe if the media did actually spend more time focusing on the stances of the candidates and the issues they are concerned with, rather then with talking about whether or not America is ready for a black president, people wouldn’t make such a big deal out of it. I like your thoughts on that, because it’s something I don’t think I would maybe have realized on my own.
To: Melissa Nemcek
You make a very good point in your post on whether a candidate needs to represent a community in order to win an election. I agree with the point you make, but not quite extremely as you do. I still think that if a candidate is going to be the first woman, African American, Mormon, etc. to win an election for president they need to capture the majority of a communities vote. I will change me stance slightly and say that it does not need to be the same community that they should technically best represent. For example, Obama in many people’s minds should technically represent the African American community because he is black.
You said that Clinton is more liked by the African American community despite being white. I’m sure that some of this is because Bill Clinton, her husband, was extremely well liked by the African American community when he was president (1). Also, she will have an easier time capturing the African American community without alienating any other voters. This is because she won’t seem like she’s catering only to black voters because she is white (2).
Finally, I like the point you made about a candidates gender or race only having historical significance in an election. Also, I like that you say that their stances on issues and leadership qualities will help them win the election in the end, not their race or gender.
(1) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOj-
z5ahyzXOAIRsfaUOyr1Ns8gD8RUNE780
(2) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=
20601087&sid=aZeD5OiaQqdU&refer=home
To john perkins
You propose many good issues that political candidates face, and I agree, for the most part, with them. I agree that candidates will have to focus on the votes of the people that most closely resemble them (African-Americans for Obama, Mormons for Romney) if they want to win the election. Despite this inevitable fact, I see this process as a fault in our system and how people in the US think. Just because Obama is African-American does not mean that he will act in the best interests of all African-American voters. Instead of voters basing their choices on community loyalty, they should base it solely on the issues at hand. This would ensure that a true representative body of government was established.
I also like your example of the candidates focusing on college students. This really shows how important it is to be well-liked by a community. Candidates try to manipulate their images day in and day out. On campus they might be completely pro-youth, but the next day at the Medicare meeting they will have to cater to the elderly. This two-facedness does not let the voters really know the candidate as an individual. Rather, it shows us how important it is for them to be identified with as many groups as possible. This, like you said, locks in many votes for them.
I think that it would be better to be an individual in the campaign, because this would mean that you don’t cater to special interests; instead special interests would cater to the candidate that reflects their views the best. However, this is often impractical, and it is easy to see why candidates try to establish the most ambiguous, broadly lovable stance that they can.
Response to: Michelle Ludwig
I agree with many aspects of your post. I agree that candidates should represent their own community but they also should not neglect the rest of the nation. In an ideal world, only the issues and ideas of a candidate would drive the campaign. However, we do not live in an ideal world. Too often people will get bogged down by a candidate’s race, gender, or religion (especially if a candidate will be the first female, African American, Mormon, etc. to become president). As you wrote, many stereotypes of a candidate will emerge. I believe that this provides the American people with a biased view of each candidate. Many people may associate the candidate with the views that their community typically holds however, this may not always hold true. However, a candidate may sometimes use the support of their community to their advantage. It is very possible that a candidate is more likely to secure the vote of their own community if they relate well to them. Furthermore, in regards to the criticism of Barack Obama for not attending the rally of the Jena-6, I feel that he did have a responsibility to attend the rally however no more than any other candidate. The rally provided an opportunity for any candidate, regardless of race, to prove that they were capable of uniting people and championing for civil rights. The candidates could have visited Jena, Louisiana and spoken about how we need to stay united as a society in order to maintain peace. The only criticism I hold of Obama in regards to the Jena incident is that he has often been labeled as “the next great unifier.” He had the opportunity to prove he deserved this title however he chose not to attend. Overall, I think if a candidate wants to gain the support of their community they have to be representative however candidates should maintain their own viewpoints and represent the entire nation of voters.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama_senate_recordjun12,1,5172091.story?track=rss&ctrack=2&cset=true
In response to Christina R,
Aristotle once said, “Man is by nature a political animal.” Certain people are cut out for politics, plain and simple. Whether they are cut from the same exact mold or remembered solely for the uniqueness of their mold is to be determined. It is my contrasting opinion that all presidents, past, present, and future, are going to be the first something-or-other, there is no such thing as a “special” candidate. These differences do no classify a president or presidency. For example, James Buchanan was the first bachelor president. Did he appeal strictly to unmarried men? Did he alienate married people in the country? Certainly not. Andrew Johnson was the first home-schooled president. This trait did not characterize his presidency. Jimmy Carter was the first president to be born in a hospital, and most Americans were probably oblivious to this fact. Though the issues of religion, race, and gender are arguably more compelling, they are bound to be encountered sooner or later. In the case of religion and the questions raised about a Mormon president, this is an issue that has already been smoothly triumphed in the US. Where Christina argued that Kennedy’s Catholicism lost him votes, I believe the opposite. Not only did JFK win an election in that produced the highest voter turnout in any election since then, he also won nearly 80% of the Catholic vote overall. He worked to downplay the role of religion in the election, remaining focused on the issues at hand, and his presidency illustrated this focus and his determination to separate the two.
Regarding the effects of race in the upcoming election, I do not feel that Senator Obama is alienating any side in the matter. In contrast to the argument that people might feel that Barack is over-representing the African American community and this may hurt him, public opinion polls continue to place him second, only to Hillary Clinton, as the current democratic favorite. The statement that Hillary may be better able to represent the black community as a non-African American, raises the question in my mind, well then why is Barack better suited to represent the white population as a non-white person? Is an unbiased and generic candidate, who belongs to no group or classification, the person to best represent the interest of all people? Obviously, this is not a realistic or desirable solution and it is therefore our job, as the voting public of America, to determine which candidate will best represent the interests and ideals of the nation as a whole. I don’t believe that Obama has distanced himself from the African American community, nor do I believe he needs to. The Washington Post criticized the Senator for being “insufficiently outspoken” in the Jena matter, but according to some logic, being further outspoken would have alienated white voters from this strictly black-rights candidate. Jesse Jackson further criticized Obama for categorizing the matter as one of “right and wrong,” instead of one of “black and white,” but isn’t that what we’re striving for? The ability to categorize issues not based on their underpinnings, but on their moral and ethical principles. The ability to categorize candidates not based on their skin color, gender, or religious practices, but rather, on their character, proposals, and performance.
• http://www.pocanticohills.org/presidents/firsts.htm
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=Soj0606&article=060610
• http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
• http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary
•
• http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/19/post_81.html
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/28/385651.aspx
Reply to Silas
I agree, to be elected the candidates need to be seen as strong individuals and leaders in this election. One example of a candidate positioning himself as a strong leader is Rudy Giuliani. Rudy Giuliani has gained support for his candidacy after being perceived as a strong leader in New York City after the events of September 11th. That was a defining point for our country and he is defining his career by the moment in time. As for representation, he does not represent the whole diverse culture of New York City, nor does he represent the typical Republican conservative. Recently the GOP candidates have been arguing among themselves about who is the most Republican and can represent their party (1). "When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses," he (Romney) said. "It's time for Republicans to act like Republicans again."
Asked later whether he thought Giuliani was a Democrat in Republican clothes, Romney declined to answer.” Giuliani’s being a viable Republican candidate supports your arguments that perceived leadership capabilities is an important factor in getting the nomination and being elected in the general election.
(1) http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7N3zbPtA9KeByDfHYZ92-fqF5NAD8S80IK00
To: Alyssa G.
I agree with Alyssa’s comments about Senator Obama. I believe he is not reaching out just to the African American communities, but to all races and ethnicities. If Senator Clinton receives the majority of the African American support or votes, should that matter? I think the reasons behind Obama’s lower polling results are not a race or community issue, but a campaign issue. In an article in Time Magazine, Obama’s campaigning is described. It states that Obama’s speeches are too low-key and not at all like his “roof-raising” keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention of 2004. (1) He is also described as making an error in mentioning a high-end grocery store to rural Iowa farmers that did not exist in Iowa. (1) In my opinion, the ability of Senator Obama to appeal to the African American community is not a vital issue to his slowing presidential pursuit. It’s merely an issue of campaign strategy.
(1) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666262,00.html
In response to whelan08:
While I whole-heartedly agree with you that a candidate has the responsibility to represent a large group of many communities, I don’t feel like you give enough reason that candidates or political parties won’t take advantage of a candidate’s community vote. Of course Obama can’t rely on voting coming from only one community, just like Clinton can’t. The problem is, as I feel like Molly articulates very well in her original post, that a candidate’s membership in a certain political “community” has a great potential to drive away voters. I feel like there is also some sort of potential danger for a loss in true individual thinking when voting in the name of a candidates community representation. I also feel like to make the argument that a voter will or should vote for a certain political candidate over-simplifies the debate (1). As a public, I feel like we need to realize that each individual voter is so much more complex than simply following one candidate based merely on their representation of them as a community more than representing them as an individual. While you do provide the argument that a candidate can’t rely solely on their community for votes, I think it’s critical that we, as an american public, begin addressing the diversity of voters, and not just merely that a candidate’s community will vote for them, there’s got to be more to it than that.
1. http://jerseygoddess.blogspot.com/2007/03/should-women-vote-for-hillary-because.html
To: Rachel Brummer!
Okay, this may not be the best post I have done seeing that it is 11:31 and I still have not even began packing for my trip, but that's beside the point. Rachel, I agree with your argument. I also think that a candidate should present themselves as an individual to a higher degree rather than a member of a specific community. I agree because a candidate needs to distinguish him or herself in order to actually be a strong candidate. These individuals cannot simply represent one specific group; they have to represent everyone.What ultimately counts in the grand scheme of things is who wins the electoral college. I also agree that it was not fair how Obama was criticized for not attending the rally for jena 6. Obviously, he is a busy candidate running a powerful campaign and people have to understand that he cannot be everwhere at one time. Although candidates should appeal to their community, it is simply not feasible for a candidate to attend every rally and convention that their specific community has.
I agree with Christina in that candidates need to try to find a balance between representing their group and maintaining individuality. The candidates accomplish this by attacking their opponents’ strengths, thereby strengthening their weaknesses. For example, John Edwards uses his “Two Americas”, the people who make money and the people who do not, to reach out to the poorer working class. It is ironic, then, that Edwards owns a huge estate and is personally the richest Democratic candidate, worth about $30 million (1). Obama has an advantage for the African-American vote because he is half-black. Hillary Clinton is trying to attack this strength of Obama’s by reaching out to the African-American group, attempting to steal some votes for herself. Obama is trying to appeal to whites and women by writing a book about himself as a person. Women read more than men, so a book is good method of communication with this group. Hillary Clinton has also been identified with intellectuals, who are also readers. According to a book review of The Audacity of Hope by Publishers Weekly on Amazon.com, Obama’s policy proposals closely resemble those of Clinton(2).
(1) http://www.nypost.com/seven/12272006/news/nationalnews/estate_of_denial_nationalnews_ian_bishop.htm
(2) http://www.amazon.com/Audacity-Hope-Thoughts-Reclaiming-American/dp/0307237702/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-7136192-5062351?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192509276&sr=8-1
To: Amanda
I disagree with your theory that presidential candidates in the 2008 election are “distancing themselves from what is considered their community” (1). Hillary Clinton is an exemplary illustration of a candidate appealing to and gaining the support of a community with which he or she is identified.
Obviously asserted by the media and public as the first viable female presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has continued to focus her campaign upon the women community of the nation. Her speeches are increasingly catered to the women audience. She has instituted a campaign theme and strategy titled, “Women Changing America” and continues to speak with women groups such as the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee (2). Clinton is experiencing success with her campaign tactics with results including her rally audiences being composed of sixty-five percent women. It is believed by political strategists that “many women have a strong connection to Hillary's campaign” (3).
The following is in response to the claim that members of a community, such as women, would vote simply because they “want to see someone ‘like them’ in office” and that said members would not vote anyways (1). It is feasible to assume that women will vote based upon their identification with a female candidate since women “cite her [Clinton’s] gender as a major source of their enthusiasm” (4). However, it is inaccurate to believe that these supporters will not substantiate their “enthusiasm” on Election Day. Political strategist Mark Penn claims almost ninety-four percent of women under thirty-five responded they will be more likely to vote in the event of a women presidential candidate on the ballot (3).
Women contributed to an influential fifty-four percent of the electorate in the 2004 election. The turnout of women voters in 2004 and Clinton’s current lead in women polls indicate that “women will be the deciding force in the 2008 elections.... predicting that women will carry her [Clinton] to victory” (4).
By associating with her gender community, Hillary Clinton is closer to winning the presidential primary nomination and general election for the office of United States presidency. Presidential candidates in the 2008 election are not distancing themselves from their respective communities in an effort to appeal to the general public during an election campaign but rather embracing the communities that identify with them.
(1) Amanda [her original post]
(2) http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/15/412415.aspx
(3) http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/womens_week_for_clinton.php
(4) http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/15/clintons_team_says_women_will_carry_win/
To Tony:
I like how you say a candidate doesn't have to respresent their community "unless that community is America". A cadidate shouldn't feel obligated to support their certain community, that candidate should ain at representing the entire country as a whole. If a candidate does that, he or she will gain the most support. I also agree with you when you say that voters should vote for the candidate they feel best represents their personal views, not if that candidate is, for example, a woman, or an African American.
However, when you say that you don't see any strengths of a candidate representing a community, I disagree. Strength can be added to one's campaign if a candidate decides to represent his or her community because the candidate will for sure gain the support of their specific community. If Hilary Clinton appeals specifically to women in some of her stances or attends to issues involving gender inequalities (ect.), she will most likely gain a majority of the female vote. Barack Obama has currently made the news for not attending a protest march in Jena, LA, in support of the Jena 6 (1). Personally, I think it's ridiculous that Obama is gettting such negative press (ex: "acting like he's white") because, even if he didn't attend the rally, he is still a huge advocate for civil rights and an inspiration to African Americans everywhere because of his potential to win the presidential office (1). But, for the purpose of this response, I am using it as an example to prove my point that there is a strength to appealing to a candidate's community in their campaign. Since Obama didn't attend, some blacks are feeling angry that he is not representing them or fighting for them enough. The number of African American support he had may have decreased. If Obama had attended, blacks would feel that he is doing all he can for them and fighting for their rights, so African American approval rating for Obama may have increased (2).
When I say that candidates should represent their community, I mean to a certain degree. They can't spend all of their time on their race or gender. If a candidate just represents their community, the rest of the country and therefore the majority of people will be left out, which will result in a loss of majority support. If a candidate doesn't spend any time on their certain community, that certain group of people will be left out resulting in the loss of support from the specific community. In a presidential campaign, even a small amount of support (through a specific group of people, ect.) is important. There has to be a balance between the two for a candidate to gain the most support and votes.
1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2511582.ece
2. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obamaweb29,1,5304044.story
I agree with Meghan that by representing a specific community a candidate is provided with a strong foundation to build upon. By representing a community group the candidate can garner the expertise and time of those involved and use it to further their own campaign. Though I agree that the classifications of individuals ( such as woman, Mormon etc.) are sometimes the characteristics of a candidate that are remembered, I personally hope that one day the issues and platforms of an individual will be more important than the gender or race one is born with.
I also agree with “prisbabys” comment that one must still be relatable to the community that they belong to. According to the U.S. Census in the November election of 04, Caucasians had 5% more of their population vote than that of the African American community. With 65.4% whites and 60% blacks voting, Obama has to be careful to cater to both communities. If he attempts to detach himself from the African American community he could lose vital votes from that community. As seen by the numbers a balance must be established with anyone’s campaiging stategy if they hope to capture the nomination. www.census.gov
To- Katie W
I agree with you in that Barack Obama should not be chastised in not being present at the Jena rally. I too believe the president needs to represent the country as a whole, rather than certain factions. As you said, "it is their role to create equality and peace in the country." By continually referring to each candidates race, religious beliefs, or gender, we are advocating looking at such differences. If our America stands by believing in not judging someone by these standards, than I beleive they shouldn't even be something we are discussing in the 2008 election. Who cares that Barack Obama is black or that Hilary Clinton is a woman? Let's focus on who they are as a person, focus on their character.
In response to Jazmyn's post, I agree for the most part with what she thought and explained. The issue of representing the people in which a candidate identifies with; such as gender, race or religion; is not a straight forward issue. Many people would chose to believe that this issue does not play a significant role in elections, but I believe that it does. Representation through identity can both be a positive attribute or a hindrance in a candidates campaign. For example, Mike Huckabee's greatest support group would be the strong christian republicans. This directly coincides with his political beliefs of the value of strong two parent families, pro-life attitude on abortion, and passing of the amendment that describes marriage between a man and a woman. Because he is a family oriented Christian white male, he has drawn people like him to his campaign. This identity of his is is a positive one for him because it gives him the ability to draw in traditionally conservative people like himself, not to mention this group also has the biggest voter turnout at the polls.
A negative aspect of identity representation is the fact that if a candidate decides not to directly represent a certain group of people,s/he is then attacked and accused of not being 'true' to themselves. This negative aspect is shown, as Jazmyn also said, through Barack Obama's lack of action in response to the Jena 6 issue. Jesse Jackson, a leader in the African American community, has continued to condemn Obama for his lack of leadership on this issue and making a bolder stance on fairness and equality. Many, like Jackson believe that the Jena 6 debate would have been a great opportunity for Obama to reach out to the African American community and show his support for a greater racial equality in Jena, Louisiana as well as around the Country. Because of his lack of action, Jackson believes that this will hurt Obama at the polls during the primaries in the African American communities.
So in conclusion, it is ultimately the candidates choice of whether or not they will represent their own identities and have that play a big role in their platform or not. I think that all candidates should try to equally represent all people, but at the same time not ignore where they came from, who they are and who looks to them for representation. The 2008 presidential election will be one for history no matter who ends up on top, and all of the candidates will have to work hard to appeal to all groups of people in order to win the race.
Michelle Howard
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/19/jackson.
jena6/index.html?iref=newssearch
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?
FuseAction=About.Home
I forgot to write that my response was to Eric Mortensen.
In Response to Molly:
I think that you make a really great point that a candidate does not need to represent their community to be elected, but it is a good way to gain votes. I really like the point that, if a candidate represents a certain group that they might turn away a different group/community. The statistics between men and women who believe that Hillary Clinton would be electable is a great way to show this. I agree that if a candidate tries to be more individual that they are less likely to be able to receive the amount of votes needed to win the election.
Wow! I was really impressed with molly's post. I really agree with her points. When i looked over the article from the Times i must have missed that quote from Dickerson. I thought it was informative and made an interesting point about Clinton having more support from the african american community than Obama. Again, nice job molly.
This is in response to what Amanda responded to Georgia. I agree that the media paying so much attention to Obama's race is making it diffucult for him to prove himself as a qualified politician because people think of him as the "black" candidate, not the qualified one. This gives his opponents an advantage because the media actually spends time talking about their stances on issues because it's not unusual to have a male, white, protestant candidate.
My response is to Mr. Good
I agree with you that it is a good idea for a candidate to represent themselves and their community.
What I dissagree with you on is the argument you gave that when a candidate represents themselves, it can also be seen as representing the community he/she is from. This is not exactly true because, what a candidate might believe in and stand for might not neccesarily be what the community also believes and stand for. An example again will be Barack Obama. He choose not to say or do anything about the Jena 6 and thats not what the black community wanted him to do. They wanted him to choose a stance on the issue
Also I feel you did not give enough arguments to really convey what you were trying to say.
To Caitlin Mitchell
I agree with your view (and quote by Obama) in that the candidates need to campaign for the United States of America, and not just an African America America, Asian America, female America or whatever else. Much too often is the media emphasis on whether or not the candidate fits the mold as past presidents have. I liked your exemplification of JFK and his presidential race that was many times focused on the fact that he was Catholic. This applies today in that none of these candidates should feel they must only campaign for their community or that by not having the exact views of their party will hurt them. We’ve seen this today through Rudy Giuliani’s campaign. Many see Giuliani as a pretty moderate candidate, and often this is one of his biggest criticisms. Even though he may be less conservative than the other Republican candidates he is still currently in the lead for the Republican nomination. The fact that Giuliani has campaigned to so many, and not stuck to one group or another demonstrates that this is seeming to be one of the best policies. If one of the candidates was to only campaign for their community there would be no way for them to be elected. I agree with you in that these candidates must campaign to all Americans and not just a specific group.
From Macall:
I think Silas made an excellent point in saying that the public looks for a candidate who can stand up against our current mistakes/failures and brush off the criticism. Someone who is independent and has their own ideas on how to change policies will be most successful. Society is not looking nor wanting a member of a specific community to represent our country as a whole. They want an individual who can represent everyone.
Silas makes another great observation when he says candidates cannot be compartmentalized. Candidates need to be seen in a full panoramic, how they will work once in the White House.
To further elaborate on this point, I must say that communities play a larger role in politic. For instance they are the ones who create candidates and get them into office on any or the three levels of government. But candidates should not focus on them. The goal of the presidency is to represent society as a whole and to make them happy.
Candidates such as Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney face the pressure to represent a specific community. But that does not mean they choose to represent that community. In a way, because they are of a specific community, it gives inspiration to the members of that society and makes the candidate look powerful. Candidates like John McCain and John Edwards are your more ‘typical’ presidential candidates. I think what makes this election so intriguing is the strong differences between each candidate and their approach to the presidency. The candidates of a certain community attract a lot of attention because of the individual that they are. Whether or not that is a good thing, I am unsure. I think maybe the general public is striving for a big change. A big change in policy needs a change of a leader.
http://www.wnbc.com/politics.html
From Lianna:
In response to Christina R.
I agree with almost all of your arguments as to why you believe the Democrats will win the Latino vote. You provided strong evidence and attacked the issue from a variety of angles. I do, however, challenge you on one issue—the current level of importance immigration is to the Latino voter. You cite that Democrats offer more lenient laws on illegal immigrants and border patrol and thus receive many Latino votes. I too originally believed there to be a strong correlation with the Democratic Party’s stance on immigration and it appealing to the Hispanic community, but I read articles that greatly de-emphasized the importance of the immigration issue in the minds’ of the Latino community. The Washington Post found that in 2004 Latinos named education as the number one issue followed closely by the economy and healthcare. This data was echoed by other news sources around the country. The fundamental message: Latinos support government programs and thus are more willing to vote a Democrat into office (1). I also found that 62 percent of Latinos disapproved of the way Bush is handling the war in Iraq (1).
I see a lot of merit with what you cited as reasons, but I believe the two issues I mentioned also have a large bearing on the reasons the Latino community will most likely vote Democratic in the next election. Not only does much of the Latino community support federally funded social programs, over a majority of the community does not approve of President Bush’s policies with Iraq.
(1) http://www.alternet.org/election04/19485
From Anne McNeil:
I think that Latino voters are more likely to vote democratic in the
upcoming election. The reason i think that is because typically people vote on what somebody (or group) has done for them in the past. I think that a Latino voter would remember at the polls how social programs created by the democrats benefitted them.
I think that in order for the Democrats to attract the Latino vote they need to focus on issues that are typical of their agenda such as fighting for decent wages.
If the Republicans wish to gain more of the Latino vote they should try to down play or not talk as much about immigration because that issue has proved to affect many Latinos today.
Post a Comment