DOCSLIB.ORG

Catalyst of Change? President Obama's Impact on Public

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Catalyst of Change? President Obama's Impact on Public CATALYST OF CHANGE? PRESIDENT OBAMA’S IMPACT ON PUBLIC OPINION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE A thesis submitted to the Kent State University Honors College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Departmental Honors By James M. King December, 2013 Thesis written by James Murat King Approved by ________________________________________________________________, Advisor ________________________________________, Chair, Department of Political Science Accepted by _____________________________________________________, Dean, Honors College ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………….v CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..………...1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………..……………6 III. CONTEXT…….…………………………………………………………….10 The History of Marriage Equality Movement……………………………….10 The History of Polling on Marriage Equality………………………………..26 The History of President Barack Obama and Marriage Equality……………20 IV. ACTIONS…...................................................................................................25 The First Actions: Hate Crimes, Memorandums, and Repealing DADT…...25 Breakthrough: President Obama’s Endorsement of Same-Sex Marriage…...29 President Obama’s Second Term and Marriage Equality…………………...34 V. IMPACT………………………………………….………………..………...39 President Obama’s Impact on Political Parties……………………………...39 President Obama’s Impact on Minority Opinions of Same-Sex Marriage….45 President Obama’s Impact of Overall Public Opinion………………………49 VI. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………...55 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..62 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis is one of the most challenging undertakings of my undergraduate career, and would have been impossible without a lot of helpful people. I would first like to thank Jim and Celeste King for their unconditional support. I would like to thank the Mrs. Karen Clement, the College of Arts & Sciences Learning Community and Kent State College Democrats for everything. Thank you Bryan Staul, Schad Dalton, Molly Knight, Matthew Rinear, Matthew Chernesky, and Emiko Waight for your help and encouragement throughout this process. I could not ask for better friends. I appreciate the staffs on both FreedomOhio and Organizing for America who have taught me so much about both politics and life. Special thanks go to Lora Rae Anderson; it was a pleasure working for you. In addition, thanks go to Generation Progress and the Washington Program in National Issues class of 2013. Thank you, Dr. Gabriella Paar-Jakli, Dr. Sara Newman, and Professor Matthew Shank. I appreciate all of you serving on my thesis committee, and your willingness to work with me. My greatest appreciation goes out to Dr. Richard Robyn. Without him, I never would have begun or completed this project. Learning from him in Washington affirmed my passion for politics and helped me narrow down my career choices. Dr. Robyn, I can never thank you enough for all you have done for me. iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Throughout the short history of the United States, campaigns and struggles toward greater equality are present. Since the dawn of the country, the abolition movement was a force until President Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves in 1863. The women’s rights movement was legitimized by the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, and after achieving suffrage in 1920, transformed into the modern feminist movement still intact today. In the 1950s, a civil rights movement was born which struggled to achieve the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Throughout these campaigns, various presidents were entangled, their role ranging from either ardent supporter to immovable obstacles. When looking at the ongoing campaign for marriage equality, it’s easy to draw comparisons from historical movements. Like the other movements, the LGBT rights movement had a launching point, although marriage equality was never really the main objective, making this campaign distinctly unique. Instead of focusing on passing a constitutional amendment or even a federal law, the campaign has waged a national effort to turn the tide of public opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage. While less ambitious than a fully-fledged nationwide legalization campaign, this approach has drawn the issue into electoral races throughout the country, including the presidential races. 1 Though same-sex marriage was not a major political issue until the presidential campaign of 2004;the Democratic base would largely come to embrace the issue, making 2008 much more dynamic. The Republican Party, whom remained staunchly opposed to marriage equality, contrasted this. While Barack Obama won the election, supporting civil unions was far from the political norm, and most Democrats were unhappy, perceiving Obama as tiptoeing around marriage equality, while Republicans were angry he gave even tepid support of the issue at all. The most pressing issues during Obama’s first term happened to be economic, but something strange happened during his first term: support for same-sex marriage doubled each year under his presidency to four percent a year (“Gallup”). It seemed clear to many analysts that support for marriage equality had been steadily rising for the past two decades, but nothing explained the rapid leap during Obama’s first term. Many reporters immediately made assumptions about Obama’s role in the rising support. Some have even claimed President Obama’s support for marriage equality helped France legalize same-sex marriages, due to Obama’s high popularity there (Edaburn). This thinking was extremely convenient as well; a pro-LGBT president who passed several important laws for the LGBT community would have an immediate effect on public opinion. However, this political calculus is muddled by other variables. As president, Barack Obama has been an unwavering advocate for the LGBT community, though other activists were already in this arena long before he entered the White House. The various LGBT organizations had been thrust into the marriage equality fight during the 1990s, and this equality became the main goal after the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized marriage equality in the Northeastern state in 2004. In addition, 2 equality for LGBT individuals was the main focus of some Democratic lawmakers, who had advanced equality bills in various legislatures across the country. However, the most important factor of the marriage equality movement is the LGBT population themselves. During the coming out phenomenon, which started in the 1990s. Americans who were apathetic or opposed to this issue were confronted with the knowledge that a close friend or family member was LGBT; and after soul-searching, many would change their positions on the issue (Wade). Despite the changes of policy the president pushed for and signed into law, could other groups have affected more change than President Obama? This is the key question this composition seeks to answer, and viewing historical comparisons, it’s unlikely Obama made much of an impact (DiClerico). After Obama’s first term, however, the political landscape around marriage equality is hardly recognizable. While still a moderately risky issue in 2008, it became a centerpiece of the Democrat’s platform (Peters). In addition, a dozen states that encompass one-third of Americans have legalized same-sex marriage (LGBT). In 2012, history was made when three states approved of marriage equality at the ballot in Maine, Washington, and Maryland. Less noted, but still important, a ban of same-sex marriage was defeated in Minnesota; quite remarkable, as the previous 31 had passed by significant margins (Minnesota would come to legalize same-sex marriage in 2013). In 2014, many Americans could see a same-sex marriage issue again on the ballot again, but to legalize it, rather than ban it (Chauncey A). The Supreme Court, while not ruling officially on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, has still shown some support by striking down a major section of The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Congress passed a comprehensive hate crimes bill to include LGBT Americans and repeal the 3 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy of the military. However, one of the most important victories for LGBT organizations was President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage during the summer of the 2012 election. Anticipation had been building around the president since his first inauguration, as LGBT organizations craved a marriage equality endorsement from the president. Of course, this created a complicated political calculus, as the administration had to factor in the public’s reaction, the impact on the election, and more importantly: how would the president’s base would react and how would the Republican Party use the endorsement for their own political gain. All of these factors, and more, made the decision extremely risky, yet Obama did endorse marriage equality. At first glance, the president’s endorsement seemed not to have any effect on the political field; yet several smaller demographic groups showed shifts in support: African-Americans and Democrats (Frumin). Did the president bolster support for marriage equality from these two groups? One must also factor in the other political parties and Latinos, one of the fastest growing demographic groups in the nation. While embarking upon the research of the effect President Obama has made in the public opinion of same-sex marriage, one must specify certain questions necessary to explore. In an effort to establish a comprehensive understanding of the current political
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analysis of Talk Shows Between Obama and Trump Administrations by Jack Norcross — 69
    Analysis of Talk Shows Between Obama and Trump Administrations by Jack Norcross — 69 An Analysis of the Political Affiliations and Professions of Sunday Talk Show Guests Between the Obama and Trump Administrations Jack Norcross Journalism Elon University Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements in an undergraduate senior capstone course in communications Abstract The Sunday morning talk shows have long been a platform for high-quality journalism and analysis of the week’s top political headlines. This research will compare guests between the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency and the first two years of Donald Trump’s presidency. A quantitative content analysis of television transcripts was used to identify changes in both the political affiliations and profession of the guests who appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” CBS’s “Face the Nation,” ABC’s “This Week” and “Fox News Sunday” between the two administrations. Findings indicated that the dominant political viewpoint of guests differed by show during the Obama administration, while all shows hosted more Republicans than Democrats during the Trump administration. Furthermore, U.S. Senators and TV/Radio journalists were cumulatively the most frequent guests on the programs. I. Introduction Sunday morning political talk shows have been around since 1947, when NBC’s “Meet the Press” brought on politicians and newsmakers to be questioned by members of the press. The show’s format would evolve over the next 70 years, and give rise to fellow Sunday morning competitors including ABC’s “This Week,” CBS’s “Face the Nation” and “Fox News Sunday.” Since the mid-twentieth century, the overall media landscape significantly changed with the rise of cable news, social media and the consumption of online content.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Democratic Party at a Crossroads MATT BROWNE / JOHN HALPIN / RUY TEIXEIRA
    The American Democratic Party at a Crossroads MATT BROWNE / JOHN HALPIN / RUY TEIXEIRA AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY* * It is neither a parliamentary party nor a membership organization, but rather coordinated by a series of committees. Official website: The Democratic National Committee (DNC): www.democrats.org; The Democratic Governors’ Association (DGA): www.democraticgovernors.org; The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC): www.dscc.org; The Democratic Congressional Campaign Commit- tee (DCCC): www.dccc.org; The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC): www.dlcc.org; The Association of State Democratic Chairs (ASDC): www.democrats.org/asdc Party leader: Governor Tim Kaine is the Chairman of the DNC. Founded: 1828 Electoral resonance 2008: Senate: 57; House: 257 parliamentary elections: 2006: Senate: 49; House: 233 2004: Senate: 44; House: 202 Government President Barack Obama was elected 44th President participation: of the United States on November 4, 2008, beating his Republican rival by 365 electoral votes to 173. He assumed office on January 20, 2009, returning the Democrats to the executive branch for the first time in eight years. 144 Browne/Halpin/Teixeira, USA ipg 4 /2010 Foundations of the Democratic Party The Democratic Party of the United States was founded in 1828 and traces its philosophy back to Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, both of whom styled themselves as advocates of the »common man.« Despite these origins, the Democratic Party has not always been the most pro- gressive party in the us. For example, the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, not the Democrats, took the lead in ending slavery in the coun- try. And in the Progressive Era (roughly 1890–1920), the Republicans, with figures such as Teddy Roosevelt and Bob La Follette, again took the lead in fighting corruption, reforming the electoral process, curbing the power of big capital, and developing social welfare programs.
    [Show full text]
  • WAMM Newsletter (That He Imposed) Was Great Leverage RUSSIA International Editor Who Also Disputes the for the U.S
    A publication of Volume 37 Number 5 Fall II 2019 Women Against Military Madness INSIDE: The Great-Power Competition: When the Enemy You Kill Is Yourself Can We Hear What Our by Doug Olson p5 Competitors Say? by Newsletter Staff Hong Kong: Are These Really Protests We Want FOCUS ON The bombing of suspect- to Support? RUSSIA ed ISIS continued even by Mary Beaudoin p7 & CHINA after the first announce- Calendar p11 ment that the Islamic caliphate had been defeated with the 2017 obliteration Actions p5, 6, 10, 11 of Mosul in Iraq, and Raqqa in Syria. War on the Middle East is not over WAMM Co-Founder even when it’s been announced that it’s Polly Mann is 100 over. On October 12, 2019, former U.S. and you are invited to Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” her birthday party! Mattis, revered by pundits as the “adult see back page in the room,” joined the retired general Sunday-morning talk show circuit.1 His purpose? To warn that there could be a resurgence of ISIS with Trump’s deci- sion to pull U.S. troops out of Syria.2 Not long ago, the War on Terror had been relegated to a series of sideshows. In January of 2018, as Secretary of Defense, Mattis released the official “Thor’s Fight with the Giants” by Mårten national defense strategy described as: Eskil Winge (1872, Sweden) depicts the “sharpening the American military’s Norse god wearing his belt of power, 3 competitive edge.” Foreign policy swinging his hammer of thunder and riding planners began emphasizing “the a chariot pulled by his loyal goats.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Findings from Sunday Talk Show Study
    Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy September 2017 Report on Network Sunday Morning Talk Show Content and Ratings, Comparing 1983, 1999, and 2015 By Matthew A. Baum Kalb Professor of Global Communication Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 3 2. Program Content 5 3. Guests 7 4. Topics 9 5. Gender Preferences 13 6. Guest Demographics 19 7. Agenda Setting 20 a. Agenda Setting by Members of Congress (1980-2003) 20 b. Agenda Setting Overall (1983, 1999, 2015) 22 8. Conclusion 28 9. Acknowledgments 29 10. Appendix 1: Codebook 30 11. Appendix 2: Examples of Guest Categories 34 12. Appendix 3: Examples of Substance-Process and Politics-Policy Variables 36 2 Executive Summary We studied the content and Nielsen ratings for interviews on the three network Sunday morning talk shows—Meet the Press (henceforth MTP), Face the Nation (FTN), and This Week (TW). We compared three time periods—1983 (MTP, FTN), 1999 (all three shows), and 2015 (all three shows). In order to insure apples-to-apples comparisons, for over time comparisons, we either restricted our analyses to MTP and FTN or analyzed the data with and without TW. For “overall” snapshots we included all three shows (MTP, FTN, TW). Our goals were fourfold: (1) identify any discernable trends in the topics and types of guests featured on the Sunday talk shows, (2) identify any trends in audience ratings, (3) assess whether and to what extent trends in topics and guests correlate with audience ratings, and (4) assess whether, to what extent, and under what circumstances, the Sunday talk shows influence the subsequent news agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Collective Action for Social Change
    Collective Action for Social Change March 1, 2011 21:14 MAC-US/ACTION Page-i 9780230105379_01_prex March 1, 2011 21:14 MAC-US/ACTION Page-ii 9780230105379_01_prex Collective Action for Social Change An Introduction to Community Organizing Aaron Schutz and Marie G. Sandy March 1, 2011 21:14 MAC-US/ACTION Page-iii 9780230105379_01_prex collective action for social change Copyright © Aaron Schutz and Marie G. Sandy, 2011. All rights reserved. First published in 2011 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United States—a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the World, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN: 978–0–230–10537–9 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Schutz, Aaron. Collective action for social change : an introduction to community organizing / Aaron Schutz and Marie G. Sandy. p. cm. ISBN–13: 978–0–230–10537–9 (hardback) ISBN–10: 0–230–10537–8 1. Community organization—United States. 2. Social change— United States. 3. Community organization—United States— Case studies. 4. Social change—United States—Case studies. I. Sandy, Marie G., 1968– II. Title. HN65.S4294 2011 361.8—dc22 2010041384 A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • “War on Christmas” Has Been a Talking Point for Both Liberals And
    For immediate release, Monday, December 23, 2013 7 pp. Contact: Dan Cassino 973.896.7072 (cell) [email protected] @dancassino POLITICS AND MEDIA SHAPE VIEWS OF ‘WAR ON CHRISTMAS’ Over the past few years, the existence of a “War on Christmas” has been a talking point for both liberals and conservatives, with some conservative commentators claiming that there has been a concerted effort to remove religious elements from the holidays, and liberal commentators disputing these claims. Results from the most recent national survey from Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind show that the American people generally think religion should be part of the holiday, though there’s disagreement about whether politicians are trying to remove religion from Christmas. Political views play a big role in how Americans see these issues, as do media sources, with Fox News viewers being more concerned about the role of religion in the holidays, and MSNBC and ‘Daily Show’ viewers tending to favor religion-neutral celebrations. Two-thirds of Americans (67%) say that they prefer people to say “Merry Christmas,” with only 18 percent saying that they’d rather hear “Happy Holidays.” Another 15 percent say that they’re indifferent, or would rather people not say anything. Like many of the issues around the holidays, though, Christmas greetings have become politicized -- 82 percent of Republicans prefer “Merry Christmas,” compared with only 55 percent of Democrats. Support for “Happy Holidays” is greatest among young people: 30 percent of Americans under the age of 30 say that they’d rather hear the more neutral greeting compared with only about 15 percent of Americans in older age categories.
    [Show full text]
  • Organizing for America
    Organizing for America Barbara Trish Grinnell College Prepared for delivery at The State of the Parties Conference, October 15‐16, 2009 Akron OH Organizing for America As president, Barack Obama has the potential to refashion his party, as do all who hold that position. In his case, to the extent that he can marshal the power of the organization which was seen as key to his electoral success into the realm of governing, he can alter the basic framework of Democratic party organizational politics, including the fundamental relationship between the president and the party. The task, however, seems fundamentally difficult, perhaps hopeless. Indeed, some might even argue that it is undesirable. At a minimum the difficult challenge of sustaining a movement over time and the underlying logic of activism, both compounded by qualities of the current political climate, recommend caution in predicting success, especially as borne out in a monumental reshaping of party politics. This paper explores Organizing for America (OFA), the current iteration of Obama for America, the president’s much‐touted campaign organization. When OFA took shape in early 2009, its entrance into the political world was newsworthy and cast in both positive and negative light. On one hand, it was heralded as a brilliant and transformative move by Obama insiders David Plouffe and Mitch Stewart, seeking to enlist the people who had fueled the election campaign – namely, those on the famed e‐mail list – in the business of governing. On the other hand, OFA was described as a potentially nefarious organization, with unthinking members pledged to support their leader, and an organizational 1 precedent no‐less‐threatening than Chairman Mao’s Red Guards.1 The political science community weighed in with decidedly less hyperbole.
    [Show full text]
  • What Happened to Post-Partisanship? Barack Obama and the New American Party System
    | | ⅜ Articles What Happened to Post-Partisanship? Barack Obama and the New American Party System Sidney M. Milkis, Jesse H. Rhodes, and Emily J. Charnock Ascending to the presidency in the midst of a severe economic crisis and an ongoing war on terrorism, Barack Obama faced numer- ous political and policy challenges. We examine the responsibilities he faced in assuming the received tasks of modern presidential leadership amid a polarized political system. To a point, Obama has embraced partisan leadership, indeed, even further articulating developments in the relationship between the president and parties that Ronald Reagan had first initiated, and George W.Bush built upon. Thus Obama has advanced an executive-centered party system that relies on presidential candidates and presidents to pro- nounce party doctrine, raise campaign funds, mobilize grassroots support, and campaign on behalf of their partisan brethren. Just as Reagan and Bush used their powers in ways that bolstered their parties, so Obama’s exertions have strengthened the Democratic Party’s capacity to mobilize voters and to advance programmatic objectives. At the same time, presidential partisanship threatens to relegate collective responsibility to executive aggrandizement. Seeking to avoid the pitfalls that undermined the Bush presidency, Obama has been more ambivalent about uniting partisanship and executive power. Only time will tell whether this ambiguity proves to be effective statecraft—enshrining his charisma in an enduring record of achievement and a new Democratic majority—or whether it marks a new stage in the development of executive dominion that subordinates party building to the cult of personality. ⅜ uring the 2008 presidential campaign, Democratic conformed to long-standing Democratic commitments.
    [Show full text]
  • March 2016 Sunday Morning Talk Show Data
    March 2016 Sunday Morning Talk Show Data March 6, 2016 28 men and 8 women NBC's Meet the Press with Chuck Todd: 5 men and 2 women Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (M) Sen. Lindsey Graham (M) Kevin Spacey (M) David Brooks (M) Stephen Henderson (M) Mary Matalin (F) Kelly O’Donnell (F) CBS's Face the Nation with John Dickerson: 6 men and 2 women Sen. Ted Cruz (M) Donald Trump (M) Fmr. Sec. Hillary Clinton (F) Reince Priebus (M) Molly Ball (F) Michael Gerson (M) Ezra Klein (M) Ed O’Keefe (M) ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos: 6 men and 2 women Gov. John Kasich (M) Sen. Bernie Sanders (M) Reince Priebus (M) Glenn Beck (M) Matthew Dowd (M) Van Jones (M) Ana Navarro (F) Cokie Roberts (F) CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper: 6 men and 1 woman Sen. Marco Rubio (M) Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (M) Sen. Bernie Sanders (M) Rep. Joaquin Castro (M) Sally Kohn (F) Hogan Gidley (M) Hugh Hewitt (M) Fox News' Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace: 5 men and 1 woman Rush Limbaugh (M) Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (M) George Will (M) Julie Pace (F) Mike DuHaime (M) Charles Lane (M) March 13, 2016 26 men and 9 women NBC's Meet the Press with Chuck Todd: 5 men and 2 women Donald Trump (M) Sen. Ted Cruz (M) Gov. John Kasich (M) Alex Castellanos (M) Anne Gearan (F) Doris Kearns Goodwin (F) Hugh Hewitt (M) CBS's Face the Nation with John Dickerson: 5 men and 2 women Donald Trump (M) Gov.
    [Show full text]
  • Obama's Transition As Legitimation Ritual
    Grand Valley State University ScholarWorks@GVSU Peer Reviewed Articles School of Communications 2010 From Electioneering to Governing: Obama’s Transition as Legitimation Ritual Danielle Wiese Leek Grand Valley State University, [email protected] Bruce E. Gronbeck University of Iowa Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/com_articles ScholarWorks Citation Wiese Leek, Danielle and Gronbeck, Bruce E., "From Electioneering to Governing: Obama’s Transition as Legitimation Ritual" (2010). Peer Reviewed Articles. 8. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/com_articles/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Communications at ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Peer Reviewed Articles by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 6ABS38171ABS Article American Behavioral Scientist 54(4) 436 –462 From Electioneering to © 2010 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. Governing: Obama’s sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0002764210381716 Transition as http://abs.sagepub.com Legitimation Ritual Danielle Wiese Leek1 and Bruce E. Gronbeck2 Abstract This essay reviews Barack Obama’s 2008-2009 transition from president-elect to president. Not only must the new and old presidents coordinate practical, bureaucratic matters, but in the United States, the president-elect is put through an 11-week legitimation ritual. As his status is transformed from campaigner to president, his words and actions in various situations are viewed as tests of strengths, weaknesses, vision, prudence, negotiative skill, humanity, fiber, and resolve. Not only is he tested but his words and actions are read by the press, commentators, and bloggers as signs of good or bad fortune for the country, just as the augurs of old read natural signs before momentous events.
    [Show full text]
  • SSN Basic Facts Milkis on Obama and the Progressive Movement
    ARE “ORGANIZING FOR OBAMA” AND SUCCESSOR MOBILIZATION EFFORTS BUILDING A ROBUST PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT? by Sidney M. Milkis, University of Virginia Barack Obama’s experience as a community organizer did not disappear when he entered presidential politics. He and his allies built an information-age grassroots organization that proved central not only to his two presidential campaigns but also to the enactment and implementation of Obama’s signature legislative achievement, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Born during the 2008 campaign as “Organizing for Obama,” this mass mobilization effort was inserted into the Democratic National Committee as “Organizing for America” during Obama’s first term in the White House; and after 2012 it was spun off as a nonprofit social-welfare entity called “Organizing for Action.” Through all these phases, “OFA” as we will call it for simplicity has played a critical part in revitalizing progressive grassroots efforts and preparing the ground for a new progressive governing coalition. At its best, OFA mobilizes constituencies that represent the maturing of the Great Society – minorities, youth, and educated white voters, especially women – and at the same time uses sophisticated targeting data to extend its reach to moderate suburbanites who can be persuaded to view Obama’s pragmatic version of progressivism as preferable to the current stridency of Republican politics. Most scholars and activists presume that grassroots mobilization is diametrically opposed to centralized action through an institution like the U.S. presidency. But in fact, reform-oriented presidents have repeatedly acted in synergy with social movements to push major political transformations.
    [Show full text]
  • November 2015 Sunday Morning Talk Show Data
    November 2015 Sunday Morning Talk Show Data November 1, 2015 26 men and 9 women NBC's Meet the Press with Chuck Todd: 4 men and 2 women Jeb Bush (M) Rep. Paul Ryan (M) Matt Bai (M) David Brooks (M) Helene Cooper (F) Anne Gearan (F) CBS's Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer: 6 men and 1 woman Sen. Marco Rubio (M) Rep. Paul Ryan (M) Rep. Steny Hoyer (M) Peggy Noonan (F) Jamelle Bouie (M) Jonathan Martin (M) Jeffrey Goldberg (M) ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos: 5 men and 2 women Ben Carson (M) Carly Fiorina (F) Rep. Paul Ryan (M) Sara Fagen (F) Van Jones (M) Hugh Hewitt (M) Joe Klien (M) CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley: 5 men and 2 women Gov. John Kasich (M) Fmr. Speaker John Boehner (M) Sen. Paul Ryan (M) Rep. Marsha Blackman (F) Rep. Keith Ellison (M) Ben Ginsberg (M) Neera Tanden (F) Fox News' Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace: 6 men and 2 women Carly Fiorina (F) Sen. Lindsey Graham (M) Sen. Paul Ryan (M) Fmr. Gov. George Pataki (M) George Will (M) Ron Fournier (M) Liz Cheney (F) Fmr. Sen. Evan Bayh (M) November 8, 2015 34 men and 10 women NBC's Meet the Press with Chuck Todd: 5 men and 4 women Carly Fiorina (F) Senator Bernie Sanders (M) Donald Trump (M) Sen. Dianne Feinstein (F) Michael Leiter (M) Marc Caputo (M) Hugh Hewitt (M) Gwen Ifill (F) Rachel Maddow (F) CBS's Face the Nation with John Dickerson: 6 men and 2 women Ben Carson (M) Donald Trump (M) Sen.
    [Show full text]