|
Showing 1 - 5 of
5 matches in All Departments
The 2008 presidential nominations were unprecedented in many ways.
Marking another step in the democratization of the selection
process and a surprising loss of control by party elites, the
contests in both parties were unusually competitive and the
outcomes belied the predictions of experts. This book offers a
fresh look at the role of parties, the constraints of campaign
finance, the status of front-runners, and the significance of
rules, race, and gender in the post-reform era. In this volume,
leading scholars assess the state of the process with original
research about money, scheduling, superdelegates, and the role of
race and gender in voting. Original analyses show how changes in
campaign finance and the scheduling of primaries and caucuses
helped determined the outcomes in both parties. Race, once thought
of as a handicap, proved an asset for the Obama campaign. 2008
marked another milestone in the democratization of the nominations
process with expanded participation by rank and file voters in
donating money, voting, and using the Internet. This timely book
provides a glimpse into the future of party nominations and
elections.
Throughout the contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential
nomination, politicians and voters alike worried that the outcome
might depend on the preferences of unelected superdelegates. This
concern threw into relief the prevailing notion that--such
unusually competitive cases notwithstanding--people, rather than
parties, should and do control presidential nominations. But for
the past several decades, "The Party Decides" shows, unelected
insiders in both major parties have effectively selected candidates
long before citizens reached the ballot box.
Tracing the evolution of presidential nominations since the 1790s,
this volume demonstrates how party insiders have sought since
America's founding to control nominations as a means of getting
what they want from government. Contrary to the common view that
the party reforms of the 1970s gave voters more power, the authors
contend that the most consequential contests remain the candidates'
fights for prominent endorsements and the support of various
interest groups and state party leaders. These invisible primaries
produce frontrunners long before most voters start paying
attention, profoundly influencing final election outcomes and
investing parties with far more nominating power than is generally
recognized.
America's two party system is highly stable, but its parties' issue
positions are not. Democrats and Republicans have changed sides on
many subjects, including trade, civil rights, defense spending, and
fiscal policy, and polarized on newer issues like abortion and gun
control. Yet party position change remains poorly understood. In
this book David Karol views parties as coalitions of groups with
intense preferences on particular issues managed by politicians. He
explains important variations in party position change: the speed
of shifts, the stability of new positions, and the extent to which
change occurs via adaptation by incumbents. Karol shows that the
key question is whether parties are reacting to changed preferences
of coalition components, incorporating new constituencies, or
experimenting on 'groupless' issues. He reveals that adaptation by
incumbents is a far greater source of change than previously
recognized. This study enhances our understanding of parties,
interest groups, and representation.
America's two party system is highly stable, but its parties' issue
positions are not. Democrats and Republicans have changed sides on
many subjects, including trade, civil rights, defense spending, and
fiscal policy, and polarized on newer issues like abortion and gun
control. Yet party position change remains poorly understood. In
this book David Karol views parties as coalitions of groups with
intense preferences on particular issues managed by politicians. He
explains important variations in party position change: the speed
of shifts, the stability of new positions, and the extent to which
change occurs via adaptation by incumbents. Karol shows that the
key question is whether parties are reacting to changed preferences
of coalition components, incorporating new constituencies, or
experimenting on 'groupless' issues. He reveals that adaptation by
incumbents is a far greater source of change than previously
recognized. This study enhances our understanding of parties,
interest groups, and representation.
This Element explores the growing party divisions on the
environment in the United States. It draws upon quantitative and
qualitative data from several decades of national and state
politics. The study contributes theory to the party position change
literature, showing that interest groups change parties, but in
turn are changed by them. In the 1970s the characteristics that
predicted voters' attitudes on the environment also predicted
legislators' votes. Yet as environmentalists and their opponents
aligned with parties, officials had incentives to set their own
views aside to represent new party constituencies. Influence flowed
in both directions, however. Environmentalists were drawn to the
Democrats as they confronted GOP-linked business lobbies.
Environmentalists' resulting need to cooperate with other groups
close to Democrats led them to change their positions. Although
environmentalists were long unwelcoming to minorities, they
embraced immigration reform, allied with unions on trade, and
worked with civil rights lobbies and labor in battles over judicial
nominations. The Element concludes with discussion of how the
current party alignment on the environment might change.
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
|