Political Parties – Revision
Explain and analyze 3 coalitions within (R) & (D). (9)
P – (R) TEA party faction.
Ex – reaction to econ downturn and bailout of US banks, avg supporter, MC, southerner, protestant.
Ev – prominent candidates, Bachmann, Senator Rand Paul, influencing voting bloc, disrupt tax rises.
An – face crisis, candidates defeat 2012, Todd Akin ‘legitimate rape’ however, whilst 49 (H) 6 (S)
P – (R) neoliberalists.
Ex – back supply-side economics, large reductions in gov spending, allied to a free trade think tank.
Ev – every candidate 2012, paid lip service, Gingrich’s contract, 1994 Midterms = fiscal cons.
An – Trump’s trade wars with China & Europe against these ideas but the group remains dominant.
P – (R) religious rights.
Ex – anti-abortion, oppose same-sex, social security in the hands of faith-based initiatives.
Ev – relevant faction picks like Mike Huckabee 2008, Bush coveted this group in 2000.
An – Christian Coalition under Reed hurt Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, influential, back Trump.
P – (D) the left.
Ex – unions and progressives, significant opposition to economic liberalism and social conservatism.
Ev – 2012, worked on ‘people’s budget.’ Many house members, most high profile was Nancy Pelosi.
An – struggle to win elections, general mistrust of ‘socialist’ politics, sig, through Sanders in 2016.
P – (D) the centrists.
Ex – spawned ‘new (D)’ label, pushed them to center, especially on free marker policies.
Ev – most influential, Democratic Leadership Council, associated w/ both Clintons, Al Gore & Obama.
An – 1995-2006, lost control of congress, still helpful to (D) election machine, dominance Biden.
P – (D) DINOs.
Ex – cons wing (D) party, based on the remnants of the southern vote, (R) in nature, (D) in name.
Ev – Nelson oppose Obamacare, Stupak introduced provisions to prevent federal funds for abortion.
An – dwindling number, as many move to natural home of (R) but some remain like Joe Manchin.
Explain and analyze 3 ways to describe/not describe US as a two-party system. (9)
P – FPTP makes it difficult for 3rd parties.
Ex – majoritarian electoral system, smaller parties struggle with lacking resources & support.
Ev – 1968, all presidential elections 2 major parties get 80%+ of the vote, all House seats (D) or (R).
An – criticized, 1990s and 2000s, parties similar, just ‘one party’, but rest of time is two-party.
P – ‘big tent’ nature of 2 main parties.
, Political Parties – Revision
Ex – attract diverse range, marginalizes smaller parties, prevent them support, home in major.
Ev – ND under FDR lab unions, WC , farm organisations, liberals, southern (D), AA, & immigrants.
An – due to 3rd party, Green Party, Nader forced (D) into more environmentally friendly policies.
P – primaries give outsiders a chance.
Ex – voters have a wide choice within the main parties, offers opportunities for outsider candidates.
Ev – Trump for the (R), Nixon as the ‘comeback’ kid, Sanders seen as an outsider.
An – notable 3rd candidate, Perot, Reform Party, 19% of popular vote, highest for any 3rd party.
Explain and analyze 3 ways minor parties can/cannot be influential. (9)
P – FPTP makes it difficult for 3rd parties.
Ex – majoritarian electoral system, smaller parties struggle with lacking resources & support.
Ev – 1968, all presidential elections 2 major parties get 80%+ of the vote, all House seats (D) or (R).
An – still important, 1968 and 2000, 5/9 elections influenced by 3rd, struggle, 2016 vote 5%.
P – Ballot Access Laws.
Ex – difficult to get on ballot, each state, different requirements for candidates, harshest Oklahoma.
Ev – Howie Hawkins from Green Party failed to get on the ballot in no fewer than 30 states.
An – some managed, Gary Johnson, Libertarian party, managed to get on the ballot in all 50 states.
P – matching funds.
Ex – qualify for funds if gain 5% of the vote in previous elections, many parties do not achieve this.
Ev – George Wallace 1968, least known, and tried but struggle due to lack of funding.
An – some do, but then, major clothes steal, Perot’s ‘balanced budgets’ taken by both.
Explain and analyse 3 ways structural theory could be used to study party finance. (9)
P – state funding.
Ex – UK, registration by state, candidates 1 free mailshot, US, registration by parties.
Ev – UK charities, Nat. Voter Registration Drive by Bite the Ballot, (D) party ran ’50-state strategy’.
An – in US ‘matched funding’ is not taken by candidates as they will be outspent, McCain in 2008.
P – campaign expenditure.
Ex – UK parties less expenditure v US, based around different laws and landmark cases.
Ev – UK, max £30,000, total party £19 mill, 2020 US where total spending estimated over $14 bill.
An – rules in US, like BCRA & Citizens Utd, to govern ‘hard’ money but few regulate ‘soft money’.
P – party funding.
Ex – UK limitations of large contributions, pre-elections, US, less so and donors can get around it.
Explain and analyze 3 coalitions within (R) & (D). (9)
P – (R) TEA party faction.
Ex – reaction to econ downturn and bailout of US banks, avg supporter, MC, southerner, protestant.
Ev – prominent candidates, Bachmann, Senator Rand Paul, influencing voting bloc, disrupt tax rises.
An – face crisis, candidates defeat 2012, Todd Akin ‘legitimate rape’ however, whilst 49 (H) 6 (S)
P – (R) neoliberalists.
Ex – back supply-side economics, large reductions in gov spending, allied to a free trade think tank.
Ev – every candidate 2012, paid lip service, Gingrich’s contract, 1994 Midterms = fiscal cons.
An – Trump’s trade wars with China & Europe against these ideas but the group remains dominant.
P – (R) religious rights.
Ex – anti-abortion, oppose same-sex, social security in the hands of faith-based initiatives.
Ev – relevant faction picks like Mike Huckabee 2008, Bush coveted this group in 2000.
An – Christian Coalition under Reed hurt Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, influential, back Trump.
P – (D) the left.
Ex – unions and progressives, significant opposition to economic liberalism and social conservatism.
Ev – 2012, worked on ‘people’s budget.’ Many house members, most high profile was Nancy Pelosi.
An – struggle to win elections, general mistrust of ‘socialist’ politics, sig, through Sanders in 2016.
P – (D) the centrists.
Ex – spawned ‘new (D)’ label, pushed them to center, especially on free marker policies.
Ev – most influential, Democratic Leadership Council, associated w/ both Clintons, Al Gore & Obama.
An – 1995-2006, lost control of congress, still helpful to (D) election machine, dominance Biden.
P – (D) DINOs.
Ex – cons wing (D) party, based on the remnants of the southern vote, (R) in nature, (D) in name.
Ev – Nelson oppose Obamacare, Stupak introduced provisions to prevent federal funds for abortion.
An – dwindling number, as many move to natural home of (R) but some remain like Joe Manchin.
Explain and analyze 3 ways to describe/not describe US as a two-party system. (9)
P – FPTP makes it difficult for 3rd parties.
Ex – majoritarian electoral system, smaller parties struggle with lacking resources & support.
Ev – 1968, all presidential elections 2 major parties get 80%+ of the vote, all House seats (D) or (R).
An – criticized, 1990s and 2000s, parties similar, just ‘one party’, but rest of time is two-party.
P – ‘big tent’ nature of 2 main parties.
, Political Parties – Revision
Ex – attract diverse range, marginalizes smaller parties, prevent them support, home in major.
Ev – ND under FDR lab unions, WC , farm organisations, liberals, southern (D), AA, & immigrants.
An – due to 3rd party, Green Party, Nader forced (D) into more environmentally friendly policies.
P – primaries give outsiders a chance.
Ex – voters have a wide choice within the main parties, offers opportunities for outsider candidates.
Ev – Trump for the (R), Nixon as the ‘comeback’ kid, Sanders seen as an outsider.
An – notable 3rd candidate, Perot, Reform Party, 19% of popular vote, highest for any 3rd party.
Explain and analyze 3 ways minor parties can/cannot be influential. (9)
P – FPTP makes it difficult for 3rd parties.
Ex – majoritarian electoral system, smaller parties struggle with lacking resources & support.
Ev – 1968, all presidential elections 2 major parties get 80%+ of the vote, all House seats (D) or (R).
An – still important, 1968 and 2000, 5/9 elections influenced by 3rd, struggle, 2016 vote 5%.
P – Ballot Access Laws.
Ex – difficult to get on ballot, each state, different requirements for candidates, harshest Oklahoma.
Ev – Howie Hawkins from Green Party failed to get on the ballot in no fewer than 30 states.
An – some managed, Gary Johnson, Libertarian party, managed to get on the ballot in all 50 states.
P – matching funds.
Ex – qualify for funds if gain 5% of the vote in previous elections, many parties do not achieve this.
Ev – George Wallace 1968, least known, and tried but struggle due to lack of funding.
An – some do, but then, major clothes steal, Perot’s ‘balanced budgets’ taken by both.
Explain and analyse 3 ways structural theory could be used to study party finance. (9)
P – state funding.
Ex – UK, registration by state, candidates 1 free mailshot, US, registration by parties.
Ev – UK charities, Nat. Voter Registration Drive by Bite the Ballot, (D) party ran ’50-state strategy’.
An – in US ‘matched funding’ is not taken by candidates as they will be outspent, McCain in 2008.
P – campaign expenditure.
Ex – UK parties less expenditure v US, based around different laws and landmark cases.
Ev – UK, max £30,000, total party £19 mill, 2020 US where total spending estimated over $14 bill.
An – rules in US, like BCRA & Citizens Utd, to govern ‘hard’ money but few regulate ‘soft money’.
P – party funding.
Ex – UK limitations of large contributions, pre-elections, US, less so and donors can get around it.
