13241134
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von Emily Bevis, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von Emily Bevis
vor mehr als 6 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| Organisation and role of political parties | - organisation, fundraising, communication, policy formulation - National Committees importance - DNC and RNC - "one size fits all" = meaningless due to size/diversity of America? - Party role/ideology differ between states - State-level = issue/candidate activists |
| What is the role of party national committees? | - DNC and RNC - Organize conference for party nomination - set out 'ground rules' for primaries/caucuses timetabling - Formalise Pres and VP nomination - Delegates - BUT little control over state level party organisation - timetabled previously ignored by states e.g. 2008 Florida+Michigan punished for ignoring DNC rules = delegates vote halfed |
| Parties relationship with states | - Traditionally parties more evident at state/local levels - result of varied ideology across country - 'bottom-up' organisation - BUT modern parties have very powerful national image - TV/media/internet = broad campaign to target variation of voters - New finance laws = more money to candidates rather than locally raised - Party policies = more partisan creating a clearer division - 'top-down' organisation |
| Define ideology | - the set of beliefs held by group or an individual - a party direction/mandate - the explanation of how society works or how society ought to work - Conservative = restrict Gov intervention, oppose changes to society - Liberal = higher concern for social policy/treatment of others, high responsibility of the Gov - Crossover between two US parties - Democrat/Republican = not exclusive label - Geography = ideology division - not all agree on ideology |
| Typical Democrat policies | - Mandatory healthcare - Same sex marriage - Pro-choice - Affirmative action to help minorities - Gun restrictions - Federal Gov involvement - Typically MORE LIBERAL |
| Typical Republican policies | - Tough on immigration - Cut taxes - Pro-life - Limited federal involvement - Pro-guns - Capitol punishment protectors - Typically MORE CONSERVATIVE |
| Does ideology define party alliance? | - Liberal ideology more likely to support Democrat policies - Conservative ideology = Rep - 2012 election = 85% of electorate with liberal ideology = OBAMA - HOWEVER geographical crossover = a Southern Democrat have similar ideology to a Northern Republican |
| Define Liberalism | - an ideology on centre left of spectrum in US politics - Term first used in 1930s after New Deal - more politically progressive, support change, gov intervention and greater social/economic equality - Associated with Democrats - 2008 Obama = most 'liberal' member of Senate - Typically attract support of minorities, intellectuals, females, Blue-collar workers |
| The New Democrats | - Liberal on social issues - BUT more fiscally conservative - Move away from decisive policies of tax and Gov intervention - Bill Clinton 1992 - "the era of Big Government is over" - wanted to win more conservative blue-collar/southern voters - Success of Southern candidates Clinton and Al Gore (1996 - BUT didn't win) - Faction emerged after failure of Carter in 1976 = liberal Demo = too socialist? - LINK New Labour = gain centre ground |
| The Liberal Democrats | - socially/fiscally liberal - tax, welfare, LGBTQ rights - 2008 Obama = "most liberal" Senator - 2004 Kerry = Northern Liberal - 2016 Sanders = Northern Liberal - BUT exit polls showed 53% liberal support for Clinton - Nancy Pelosi - Congressional progressive caucus |
| Blue Dog Democrats | - fiscally and socially conservative - DINOs = Democrats in name only - Found in south/north-west - ideological crossover with Republicans - against Obamacare - Ben Nelson, Nebraska = far right Demo - struggle to agree with Liberal Democrats |
| Define Conservatism | - ideology on the far right of US spectrum - accept social status quo, against changes to society, against gov. intervention - alliance with the Republican party - 1980 Reagan = Conservative Republican - won 2 terms, large win, popular - Extremes of conservatism = encourage divisions within Demo party - attract support of white, high income, business voters |
| The Moderate Republicans | - the "Wall Street" wing - mostly from N. Eastern States - fiscally conservative = low tax, public spending and gov. intervention - Socially liberal - Represent business/corporate interests - RINOs = Demo ideology crossover - 2000 Bush = compassionate conservatism |
| Conservative Republican | - the "Main Street" wing - mostly rural/small town supporters - Fiscally conservative = support traditionally family values - 2004 campaign slogan "Faith, Flag, Family" - 1988 Bush Senior = moderate, only 1 term 1976 Ford = lost election |
| Religious/New Right Republican | - "Neo-conservatism" - White southerns + Northern blue-collar - Fiscal conservatism = pro-defence $$ - Socially conservative = pro-life, pro-guns - 1980 Reagan = "Gov is the problem, not the solution" - Religious right grown since the 1973 RvW - Considered to be core of party - Growth of the Tea Party - Palin as McCains 2008 running mate |
| Explain parties as "Internal Coalitions" | - Within Demo/Rep = ideology factions - DINOs, New Demo, Liberal Demo - RINOs, Conservative Rep, Moderate Rep - Difficult for factions to agree within own party - Geographical differences - Views of Southern Rep = different to Northern Rep. - South form the far right Rep caucus and Tea Party - BUT growing partisanship ideology becomes more decisive - 2013 Tax Payer Act = rejected by Rep - 2017 Trump attempt at repealing Obamacare = rejected by Democrats - Tea Party forced Republican party to move further right wing - 2011 Congress = no ideological crossover |
| Party divisions in UK | - divisions amongst parties over issues - BREXIT caused significant divisions - 2016 referendum initially called to stop the growing Eurosceptic Conservative faction - Blue/Red/Purple Labour |
| What are the 6 big party issues? | 1) Form of Government = Federalists want more centralised form of Gov 2) Federal Gov (1970s) = Nixon and Reagan 3) Economy = 1920s Great Depression benefit Democrat policies 4) Civil Rights = clear split between R/D, emergence of 1960s Dixiecrats, 2008 election racial undertones 5) Slavery = 'Solid South' for Democrats 6) Democracy = move towards greater democracy with direct Senate election |
| Ideology crossover in 1993 Senate | - Most conservative Democrat was more conservative than 6 Republicans - CONTRAST 2011 + = no crossover |
| Is America a 50/50 nation? | YES = late 1990s+2000s even seat split, only few seats 'tipping the balance', a Red/Blue split, from 2000-2008 only 8 changing states, increasing polarisation, decisive issues NO = too simplistic, swing states not definitive ideology, some states = divided districts |
| The 'Solid South' | - Democrats traditionally had complete control of the South - 1960 = all 11 Governors and 22 Senators Democrat - But Johnson Civil rights = move towards Republicans - 1994 = 9-13 Republican Senators - 2012 = all 11 Senators Republican |
| Theory of Party Decline | - David Broder 1972 - "like two bottles with different labels, both empty" - political parties in decline in terms of membership, functions and importance - followed a period of criticism 1970s/1980s - a sense of dominance over the two main parties? |
| Evidence for party decline x5 | 1) Candidate selection = primaries/caucuses give power to electorate - no 'smoke filled rooms' 2) Voter Communication = TV, internet etc mean easily contact voters - no longer party organised rallies 3) Candidate/issue centered voting = use of TV/media becomes less party centered e.g. split-ticket voting 4) Electoral finance = candidates receive money from PACs, public, fed $ 5) Emergence of movements = Tea Party, Occupy movement = more popular than traditional parties? |
| Evidence for party decline in 2016 Presidential election | - Unexpected popularity of Sanders = uncertainty in Clinton's nomination? - Trump's Rep takeover - Clinton largely modernized self and campaign with use of social media - Trump practically ran his campaign through twitter - Ted Cruz high profile Tea Party supporter = movement domination - Trump spoke of his campaign as a movement to avoid politicians -'drain the swamp' - Large theme of issue/candidate voting - 39% electorate = independent voters |
| Define split-ticket voting | When candidate vote for candidates of different party affiliation on the same ticket. - Decreasing partisanship? - 1972 = 30% split their ticket - 1980 = 28% " - BUT only 8% in 2008 - Link with the growing number of independent candidates/voters |
| Theory of party renewal | - parties far from being in decline -argument emerged 1970s/80s - Party involvement in funding - Congressional status - Decline theories just exaggerate any party weakness |
| Evidence for party renewal x5 | 1) Decline exaggerated =Watergate did not end the Republicans - Reagan and Bush imperial presidency 2) Nomination process = Demo 'super-delegates' make up 20% on DNC Pres nomination 3) Party modernisation = shift in appeal to center grounds, $ manipulation 4) Nationalisation of Campaign = developments of party 'manifesto' e.g. 2010 Rep 'Pledge to the US' 5) Congressional partisanship = decisive issues and party votes, gridlock. |
| Evidence for renewal in 2016 | - Only 2 seats in congress = not from either Demo/Rep - Super-delegates support for Clinton - contrast 2008 where picked Obama - Obama failure to appointed Garland to SC due to Republican Congress - Partisanship = total Demo rejection of Trump Obamacare rejection attempt - lack of bipartisanship - 36% of Rep. voters see Demo as a threat to US |
| Evidence for US two party system | - FPTP = "winner-takes-all" = difficult for 3rd party success - D/R typically win over 95% of total vote - 2012 = 99% votes for D/R - 2017 = all HOR members of D or R - Only 2 independent Senators in 2017 - Sanders caucus with Democrats and ran as Demo candidate 2016 - 2017 = 1 independent Governor = former Republican candidate (WALKER) |
| Why is there a two party system? | - FPTP = winner takes all - Third party support = wide geographical spread across states - no reward for consistent support - Too low % vote to have big impact - 'spoiler effect' as Independents/third parties just damage closest ideological party e.g. 1968 Wallace + Demo - Main parties = 'Big Tent coalitions' - Wide ideological reach = no more room - Third parties typically few issues = difficult to appeal to all |
| Evidence against a US two party system | - Actually a 50-party system as each state party organisation = different - Only national policy programme in Pres election lead up = state variation - Difference between Texan and Maine Republican party - Some states = one-party states due to their domination - local, state, federal - No-party system as focus on candidates - Third party importance in 1992, 1996, 2000 |
| Impact of third parties - examples | - until 2012 all third parties = less than 2% of popular vote - 1968, George Wallace = 13.5% vote = split Demo vote = Rep victory - 1992, Ross Perot = 19% = took Republican votes for a Demo victory - 2000, Ralph Nader = 2.7% but controversial election result - Florida = Nader 1000 votes - Gore need 537 to win - 2016, Gary Johnson = on ballot in all 50 states - Libertarian party and Green party = permanent third parties |
| Where are third parties more successful? | - State level - 2014 Bill Walker = Gov of Alaska - Number of independent representatives in Alabama, NY, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Utah ...... - Little success in Senate = Sanders 2006 Connecticut and Angus King 2012 Maine |
| What is holding back third parties? | - Electoral system (FPTP) - Finance - Ballot Laws - Media coverage - Lack of suitable candidates - Extremism? - Co-optation |
| Limitation of finance on third parties | - Matching funds - Federal Election Committee - Major parties qualify for this through raising $5000 in 20 states = easy - BUT third parties only if 5% of popular vote in previous election - e.g. Ross Perot 1996 - a 'handicap' |
| Co-optation | - 3rd party/candidates policies being used by major parties - 1992 Perot key policy = smaller federal budget BUT both Clinton and Rep congressmen adopt policy - reduce third party vote % |
| Third party extremism? | - Libertarians and Socialists - outside to the political mainstream - Many accused Sanders of socialism in 2016 due to left wing policies - easy targets - create fear around candidates? |
| What is the Tea Party? | - not a party or a PG - a GRASS-ROOTS MOVEMENT - individuals without any clear leadership - parallel Boston Tea Party = "Taxed Enough Already" - emerged due to opposition to 2008 Bank bailout scheme + 2009 Reinvestment Act - No HQ or offices = grown from the homes of activists - Limited gov, low tax and spending, originalists, 2012 Contract with America to repeal healthcare - largely opposed Obama's gov/reforms |
| Impact of Tea Party on 2016 election | - Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio = Tea Party supported candidates - Ted Cruz = previous 21 hour filibuster against Obamacare 2013 - Trump a favoured candidate? |
| Impact of Tea Party on congress | - pushed Republican party to right = fear lose of right wing voters - 2011, 2013, 2018 government shutdown over federal budget debate - Tea Party Representatives = remove Boehner as speaker despite Republican - 2010 mid-terms = TP candidates on ballots but most lost - Marco Rubio = Florida - Freedom Caucus = influential in defining Rep policy direction |
| Define Neo-Liberalism | - shaped by free-market - Business/corporation involvement in private sector - no partisan definition - left/right - Influence of money |
| Define Neo-Conservatism | - movement from left to right - Influence of Reagan administration - Hardline stance during 1980s against USSR - Belief in US foreign authority - encouraged US invasion of Iraq - alliance with DINOs and Republican party - Aggressive foreign policy approach |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.