American presidential elections are changing time by time. Voters are changing how they view parties based on the party’s affiliation with the candidate. I don’t believe that elections are being won over political stances like they have in the past. I find it based off personal experience and what I hear from friends and the media that voters aren’t concerned with any one issue but the status of the economy. In the past voters would vote for the candidates that shared the same views on certain important issues. For example, if a voter was pro-life then they would tend to vote for the candidate that took the stance of anti-abortion and promoted human life. Voters would base their vote on the candidate that shared majority of the same beliefs on different issues.
I find it difficult to agree with Fiorina when he says that voters who think alike vote alike. This may have been an okay assumption in the past. However, I feel today that statement isn’t always or necessarily true. The greed of Americans and the American dream of having lots of money and living in a big house with a great paying job are starting to bite America in the butt. Voters are not voting for candidates that best suits their views on issues, but they are voting for the candidate that they feel can revive the economy. So, I don’t feel that voters are categorizing themselves into certain political parties but to whoever can fix the economy.
I feel that it’s hard to agree with Fiorina during this time of our country facing such a crisis because this election shows that isn’t true. By Obama winning the election and by the margin and the states that he won shows that Fiorina’s statement isn’t always true. If it were then Obama wouldn’t have defeated McCain in some of the traditionally dominated Republican states. This just shows that people who think alike don’t always vote alike.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I thought your statement that voters who think alike don't necessarily vote alike was very interesting, and held much truth. I think the importance of the economy and the plan to get from job loss to surplus was what posed the greatest deciding factor for most.
I disagree with your conclusion, I thought the 2008 results upheld Fiorina et al.'s partisan sorting hypothesis rather well. Overall people still voted in very polarized ways and did not respond to single issues on a large scale. Red states flipping to blue is much less significant then it appears and the polarized sorting model proves this out as well as the conclusion that the country is not as deeply divided as the media would like you to believe. This is also supported by looking at weighted maps which shade counties between red and blue--the country comes out looking very purple.
Post a Comment