I think the 2008 election was an interesting year for political observers, and though both parties had difficulties, the Democrats ended up unifying and creating a stronger coalition than the Republican party. At the beginning of the campaign, or during the so-called “invisible primaries”, the elites of both major parties were not very successful in unifying behind one candidate. There was intense inter-party competition between both camps, and it was not clear who the eventual nominees were going to be until fairly late in the race. Hillary seemed to be the front runner at the beginning of the campaign, and it seemed that she was endorsed by a good deal of Democrats, possibly different smaller factions, and even supported by the African American community. However, I just don’t think people had enough confidence/lost confidence in her ability to lead as the campaign went on. Obama was a better speaker with more charisma, and after he earned more confidence from the Democratic party as well as the American public, he was able to take control of the nomination. The Democrats definitely showed much more unity as a party during the 2008 election. And even though Obama was candidate-centered at the beginning of the race (he lacked a strong backing from his party), the Democrats managed to unite and rally around him, and put all of their political resources toward the campaign.

For the Republicans, 2008 seems to have been an “abnormal” election year. Although the party elites seemed to have a favorite in Fred Thompson during the invisible primary, he just wasn’t effective on the campaign trail. The rest of the Republican prospects had more candidate-centered campaigns than party centered, as they represented different factions of the party. At one point it even looked like Huckabee might have had a chance of winning the ticket, even though he did not get along with important factions in the party. Even after McCain won the Republican endorsement and chose Palin to balance out the ticket for conservatives, the Republican party was not unified in it’s support, as some prominent Republicans even endorsed Obama as their choice for President.

Technological advances have affected candidate-party relations as it’s given voters access to much more information. They are not only bombarded with ads that are approved and designed by the party or candidate, but they can also seek out more information to attempt to figure out what’s really true, and who they want to vote for. Even if the party elites have a preferred candidate, they are not guaranteed to be approved by the public. However, technology gives us instant information, and in the 2008 campaign we saw every minute detail discussed on TV and online, played over and over. Small incidents can break a campaign, so there will be some level of candidate-centeredness in every campaign. This is the same for Congressional elections, although they don’t get the same amount of attention as Presidential elections, I think technology could change their importance to many people if they are really motivated to vote and participate. This is where the party and technology can really work together, as the whole party network can branch out, and create “hubs” as the Teachout article talked about. Party members can use their individual resources to promote the favored candidate, and technology makes this quicker and easier than ever. On Obama’s website, there is a large link right at the top of the page where you can find local events in your area to get involved with. This is one of the tactics recommended by Teachout.

2/25 Link

I thought this link about Representative Eric Cantor went well with the readings for this week. It is about how Rep. Cantor of the Republican party is working to fire up the GOP, as he has already worked to get some opposition to Obama's stimulus plan. The article basically said he is willing to work with the Dems, but won't simply roll over on Republican issues.

A second link I found was more news about the stimulus, but I found it interesting that although many Americans dislike the economic decisions made so far in Obama's presidency, he still has the confidence of 76% of Americans that he will make the right decisions economically.

Link for 2/18

I found an article from Time about a Democrat-proposed "Truth Commission" to look further into the Bush administration. The idea is almost universally opposed by Republicans, and the commission would try investigate who from Bush's inner circle drove such things as the harsh interrogations of detainees and warrantless surveillance of citizens. Although Obama has not turned down the commission yet, he has said he wants to "look forward" and doesn't seem overly excited about it.

Primaries and Campaign Finance

As the U.S. political system has evolved into it’s current form, there has been a variety of procedures for the nomination of elected officials. As a nation, we have experimented with various nomination procedures in order to find a “balance” between the rights of the parties and the individual voters. The early nomination methods used, the caucus and party convention, gave the parties themselves most of the power to choose their candidates. This gives power to the politicians to choose the candidate they feel would be “best”, which may not be the same candidate that the voters truly want.

Since Wisconsin started using the direct primary to nominate officials in 1903, the procedure or at least similar variations have really caught on. The direct primary is seen to place control of the political process under the population and not the party organizations. This places control under the states, and is not ideal in the eyes of the party, as the general public may nominate candidates who are not in line with a majority of the party. When the parties themselves are allowed to choose, they are more likely to choose a neutral candidate who can work with the entire party. The different types of primaries basically differ on their ticket-splitting rules, as primaries can be used as a weapon among opposing parties. It’s possible for a voter to vote in a primary for a “weak” candidate of the opposing party, hoping to create little competition so their own party wins the election. Nonparty members can therefore influence the nomination of other parties through the different primary systems.

No matter the method of choosing candidates, running an election is expensive, especially at the national level. Parties alone do not have the resources to run huge campaigns, so as individuals and organizations have unique desires from government, they try to influence the elections to help their desired candidate win. This is easily done through campaign donations, more money=more advertising and media= more exposure in today’s political world. Enter campaign finance regulation, which is aimed at removing some of the importance of money in the political system. The idea is that a good candidate may not even attempt to run if they have little resources, and eliminate someone’s “buying of influence” by contribution to a campaign. To cut back on this, regulations have been placed on a candidate’s contribution and expenditure limits. However, there are many loopholes to these regulations. Candidates can get funding indirectly from their own parties, and can gather “soft money” and funds from 527 groups.

These efforts do seem to work at cross-purposes, and seem very unrealistic to me. Even though campaign finance has been regulated for some time, there are so many loopholes and blurry lines that companies/wealthy individuals can still put lots of money into elections. Ideally, money shouldn’t influence a democracy as it does, but to compete in today’s campaigns, large amounts of funds are necessary. There is no way all factions could be removed from politics, people need to join together for common causes, and they will gather funding to advance their cause.

2/11 Link

Here's a short article titled "What's Ron Paul Up To?" According to the story, Paul is urging his supporters to contact Congress and tell them they oppose the growth of government with the economic bailout and stimulus package. Interesting to see other parties opposed to the package while the two major parties are attempting to work together and compromise to get this thing passed.

Here is another link to an article written by Ron Paul regarding the bailout, and what he predicts will happen.

Heterogeneity and Decentralization

In my view the decentralization of political parties is a response to the heterogeneity of the American political system. “Big Tent” parties need to be large and diverse, as they are active at federal, state, and local levels. This leads to decentralization, as there is not a centralized Democratic or Republican party for the entire country. Instead, there are factions within these major parties that share similar goals, but not all are exactly the same. As stated in the lecture video, party members can be very different and have different wants from government, depending on their location, race, religious preference or any other interest they may have.

The structure of the U.S. political system is dependent on a system of two large parties, and the homogeneity of the population creates a need for the “Big Tent” parties’ philosophy to adapt to regional differences. Both parties need strong support to win positions in the federal government, but as lecture also pointed out, the goal of a politician is first to win power, second to create policy. It is in the interest of the voter that his desires from politics are met, and this can often de helped by voting for the party closest in line with his/her ideological preferences. However, since parties are not centralized and can vary among regions, a politician can use a party label to attract voters, particularly at local levels where party status isn’t as important. The fact that the major parties are adaptable and lack a strict set of rules or guidelines results in disagreements or differences among members of the same party. This can be seen very clearly when looking at the 2008 Presidential elections, or even the debate over the economic stimulus package going on right now.

In the 2008 election, we saw divisions and differences among both major parties. In the Democratic party, the main candidates going for the ticket during the primaries were Hillary and Obama, each attracting different sectors of the Democratic voting force. During the Republican primaries we saw a similar situation, as Romney, McCain and Huckabee each represented and attracted different aspects of the Republican party. Then Sarah Palin was brought in to help McCain’s campaign attract the more right-wing Republicans. With the economic stimulus package, we now see differing opinions on the bill from members of the Democratic party, Obama and House Speaker Pelosi in particular. With all of the hype around Obama recently, he seems to me to be the most “in control” of the Democratic party, although there is a visible opposition of fellow Democrats who are not quite as moderate. The Republican party on the other hand, seems to lack a controller at the moment. The party seems sort of split up on the federal level without a clear direction, and I think this could result in a loss of confidence in the party from voters.

All in all, I believe these divisions and differences among the large parties do hinder partisan action. Most politicians’ first goal is reelection, so pleasing their constituents is a must. Because of this, you cannot rely on a member of your own party to vote in line on all issues. If the large parties had a strict set of rules/platform, they may be able to more effectively vote as a bloc, but they would not be able to gain as widespread support as they can under the “big tents.” For this reason, the major parties in our system need to stay large and diverse, in order to appeal to as many different types of voters as possible.

Source: Time Politics, "Obama vs. Pelosi: Can Obama Work with the Democrats?" 2/4/09, http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1876912,00.html

Links for 2/04

The first article I found that caught my attention asks, "Can the President work with the Democrats?" and shows how Obama has been butting heads with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a fellow Democrat, over several of the key issues he has already faced in office.

And I thought it was interesting to see "Joe the Plumber" still around after the election, as it seems he will doing political strategy with Republicans regarding the economic stimulus package.

What is a Political Party?

I defined a political party as a group of citizens with similar ideals or wants from their government, who organize under a single group in order to gain and hold power in their government through participating in elections. I think political parties can also be used as labels for the self-identification of one’s political views. If you call yourself a Republican, your political views are most likely close to the platform of the Republican party.


Political parties create additional checks and balances in our system by creating sort of an organized opposition, so that if you are unhappy with the way the government is being run or the decisions that are being made by elected officials, you can participate in the next election held and vote for a candidate with platform more in line with your ideals. This keeps any one party from straying too far from the desires of the public, because they can be simply voted out of office in the next election.


At the time of Washington’s farewell address, the U.S. governmental system was brand new and much smaller than it is today, so I think the fear of a faction seizing power leading was much greater. Since Washington feared tyranny, he was weary of political parties, which he felt creates divisions among society and can ultimately lead to the destruction of government. However, the United States has shown to be a fairly moderate and politically centered country, probably as a result of our stable democracy since the beginning. Our two party system has shown to be well established over time, so the fear of an extreme political group coming to power is not very great in the current day U.S. Thus, Tom Delay advocates participation in government through political parties, a view very different from Washington’s.

Hopes, Dreams and Fears

Alright here goes for the first blog post. A little about myself, my name is Bart Bettiga and I am a fourth year Poli Sci major.  I'm from Green Bay originally but this is my second year at UWM.  I just hope to gain more in depth knowledge of the party system in the U.S., particularly regarding the two-party dominance that doesn't seem to be going anywhere.  I'm particularly interested in independent parties, and the role they play in our system.  I've taken online courses through UWM before, although this is my only one this semester.  The only thing that bothers me about online courses is that you don't always know what to expect regarding tests and quizzes, or what the instructor is looking for.  I've also never had a blog before, but I look forward to the experience from this course.