Suchergebnisse

Many changes, both internally & externally, have been felt during the 20 yrs that a Democratic majority governed the US. Since Eisenhower's election in 1952 & re-election in 1956, it would be interesting to know to what extent the Republican majority can be considered to be stable. In 1956, the Democrats won the elections, the presidential party having failed, for the 1st time since 1848, to carry a majority to Congress in a Presidential election yr. PO polls show that there are 3 Democrats for every 2 Republicans. Stevenson was defeated because the Republicans were better organized than the Democrats, many of whom voted for Eisenhower or did not vote at all. Finally, the Republicans control almost all of the press & the media of propaganda & information, & the SS of Republicanism is more a matter of prestige than one of soc pressure. The Wc, while still almost exclusively Democratic in 1948, is becoming more & more Republican, while the moderates are gradually drifting from the Democratic party. Cath's, Ru voters, & individuals living in small towns are tending toward Republicanism, while the younger age groups of the New Deal generation are remaining faithful to the Democratic Party. The qualities of the candidates in 1952 & 1956 certainly played a role in the division of the votes, but if the prestige of the General was a factor, Stevenson also had traits in his favor. Domestic issues, especially the Negro question, had their influence, but foreign affairs is the area in which the diff's in the parties is most apparent. Tr by J. A. Broussard from IPSA.

The author examines the power of superdelegates to exert disproportionate influence on the selection of the Democratic nominee for president. It is asserted that superdelegates consist dominantly of the party elite or party machine and are primarily white males, which it is further argued goes to the heart of the elitist concept of American exceptionalism. The history of American exceptionalism is examined. The introduction of superdelegates into the Democratic Party nomination process and front-loading of state elections to influence the nomination process are discussed as examples of exceptionalist politics. Campaign financing and spending is discussed, including the issue of campaign finance reform. One perspective presented on superdelegates is that they are intended to balance out the liberal tendencies of the average democrat voter in the primary election to promote the nomination of a moderate candidate. References. E. Sundby

The United States Electoral College system is explained. Written six months prior to the 2008 US Presidential election, a multiple state analysis is presented to predict which states will be crucial to the Presidential election. The geographical analysis is based on opinion polls. Other issues considered important to the outcome in each state are the state of economy, the unpopularity of the current President, the war in Iraq, and the status of fundraising efforts. Historical shifts in individual states are discussed, with a focus on those that do not have a consistent history of voting consistent democrat or republican during the past four elections. The states are divided into segments of those Obama is likely to win, those McCain is likely to win, and those that are undecided. The undecided states are discussed according to geographic region; North, South, East, and West. It is concluded that the outcome of the election is unpredictable and various Electoral College votes scenarios are presented. Tables, Figures, Charts, References. E. Sundby

The article compares the Norwegian & the German political debate on changes to the respective countries' citizenship laws. The Norwegian law will come into force in September 2006, while the German law was introduced in 2000. In citizenship laws we can find a contrast between an ethnic & cultural understanding of political community & a rights-based understanding. This contrast was hardly touched upon in the Norwegian debate. Among the Norwegian political parties there was broad agreement to carry on with the principle of ethnic decent. Moreover, all parties, with an exception of the Socialist Left Party (SV), wanted to introduce more restrictions on the established Norwegian practice to accept dual citizenship. The German debate dealt with the contrasting principles, & the conflict followed the left/right cleavages. The main difference found between the two countries refers to the left parties. Both with regard to the principle of ethnic decent/territorial principle & the acceptance of dual citizenship, the Social Democrats in Norway & Germany presented opposite standpoints. References. Adapted from the source document.