Have “Southern Strategy” and “values” wedge politics underpinned US Republican federal electoral successes? How and Why?
By: Suheyla M Ahmed
28 April 2008
The aim of this essay is to demonstrate the outcomes of Southern strategy and values for the US Republican Party resulting in the Republican federal electoral success. It will be argued that the Southern Strategy and Values wedge politics have underpinned the successes of the Republican in the election during many elections. The main focus will be on the 2000 election where Georg W Bush unexpectedly won the election and defeated Albert Gore the Democrat’s candidate. In order to understand how the southern strategy underpinned the republican federal electoral success it is necessary to go back to the history when Richard Nixon used this strategy to insure votes for republicans in the Southern States. The Southern strategy was a tactic which the Republican president Richard Nixon employed successfully to win over the Democrat candidate. Value is an issue which is influencing Americans political behavior is culture and value to an extent where it is argued that Americans politics is becoming more value-based. Gender, race and religion play important role in Americans political life, particularly during national elections.
Different sources have set different times for the first appearance of the Southern Strategy, for instance Chapin (2001), believes that the phrase Southern strategy was first introduced by political analyst Kevin Phillips more than three decades ago, accurately described the political situation of those years. Between 1948 and 1964 the South which once was a supporter of the Democratic Party was “up for grabs” (Chapin 2001).
For the Republican party, the aim of the southern strategy was to win the white working voters in the south through peeling away white voters in the heavily Democratic South (Benedetto 2005). It began in the mid-1960s, when Republicans blamed pro-civil rights Democrats for racial conflict and other racial problems and used this to encourage isolated white voters in the Southern states to vote for Republican (Benedetto 2005). To be more precise the Republican Party took advantage from racial polarization to gain more votes (Benedetto 2005).
The aim of developing the Southern strategy was to take advantage of the upheaval in the Southern Structure and its major goal was to transform the Republicans’ reputation as the party of Licoln, Yankees and carpetbaggers into the part that protects the white interests (Aistrup 1996, p.8). Assessing the Southern strategy it is agreed that it has been successful as presidents (Aistrup 1996, p.6)
As Democrats’ main focus was on Blacks’ issues, the Republicans used the opportunity to appeal to the angry White working men class; this resulted in driving a wedge between the less wealthy whites and minorities and shattered any possibilities for class politics (Stonecash 2000, p.732).
The South has been the battleground for the Republicans and Democrats. From 1880 to 1944, the 11 Confederate states only twice did not vote as a block for the Democratic Party (Chapin 2001). Thereafter a solid South has only appeared for four times, all for the Republican candidates which were Nixon as well as Reagan in their 49-state landslides, for Bush in 2000 and his father in 1988 (Chapin 2001). The 11 Southern states have not often been required to provide the electoral margin for presidential candidates (Chapin 2001). Precisely during the entire post-Civil War period, only four candidates had required Southern electoral votes to prevail over a loss and these candidates were Grover Cleveland , Woodrow Wilson , Jimmy Carter in 1976 and George W. Bush in 2000 (Chapin 2001).
Reconstruction was the first Southern strategy of the Republican Party (Chapin 2001). In this process blacks were combined with traditional poor whites in order to create a competitive political system (Chapin 2001). It resulted in successful election for President Ulysses Grant in 1872, the first election in which all the so called disloyal states voted again, and Rutherford Hayes in 1876 (Chapin 2001). After a compromise in 1877 which in it, it was agreed to withdraw Northern troops from the South “this strategy sputtered to a halt” (Chapin 2001).
There have been times where the candidates have had no need to employ Southern strategy, for instance in 1896 the Republicans won elections without having the votes from the South (Jim Chapin 2001). From 1872 to 1896 there was a slow decline in the Southern share of the national vote (Chapin 2001). William McKinley's great victory is seen to be a new era in which the Republican majority in the North was so great in number that there was no need for the Southern blacks (Chapin 2001). The South disenfranchised its blacks and many poor whites quickly (Chapin 2001).
In 1964, the Republicans changed their Southern strategy to a new model which was providing direct support for their Southern opposition to desegregation (Chapin 2001). This strategy cost them the outer South, but it gained them the Deep South. In addition, it detached the party from blacks, and that is proved to be permanent (Chapin 2001).
African Americans have long voted for Democrats, therefore “Republicans have been working aggressively to build the party's support among African-Americans”. Despite Republicans’ effort, during the 2000 election, President Bush only received 9% of the black vote (Benedetto 2005). According to Chapin (2001) there is no need for the Republicans to employ the Southern strategy, because their strategy has worked and now the Southern States have become the base of the Republican Party.
In the 2000 election, Bush was sure of Southern support, therefore his campaign concentration was on winning the North (Chapin 2001). In the election, Republicans’ Southern strategy in Florida was to reject as many votes from minorities and Black people as they can through different methods, such as using “outdated machines, improper counts and tabulations, inadequate access to individuals with disabilities and lack of translators for immigrants” (Hines 2002, p.72). Due to the fact that the governor of Florida was Jeb Bush who had taken many conservative actions against the Blacks, the plan was successful and Georg Bush won the election (Hines 2002, p.72). Studies show that there are evidence which suggest that there were a relationship between race and rejected votes in the 2000 presidency election. It is argued that compared to affluent counties with large white population, counties with large minority groups had a much higher rate of ballot rejection (Hines 2002, p.72).
According to Allen (2005) in 2005 the Republican National Committee chairman stated that Republican’s Southern strategy which was to exploit racial conflict for votes was wrong and referred to the two parties’ racial polarization as ‘not healthy for the country’ (Allen 2005).
It is argued that in recent years the American politics have become more value-based (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.751). Election studies from 1980 to 1992 show that cultural orientations have significant influence on American’s political behaviour, particularly when these cultural orientations are defined by religious traditionalism rather than material-postmaterial value priorities (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.751). Religion and religious-based cultural differences play a powerful role in contemporary American politics (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). Unlike many other democratic industrial societies, religion still plays an important role in the US and the country continues to be very religious (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). In its policies Democratic Party is increasingly associated with cultural liberalism while Republican Party is becoming more culturally conservative (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.752).
Surprisingly, in America politics cultural issues such as abortion, women’s rights, prayer in public schools, and homosexual rights are in the forefront (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.752). To set an example, Bush’s popularity was declining until before the 2004 election, when the issue of gay marriage came out in a perfect time for Georg Bush’s re-election as “it enabled the Republicans to obtain the necessary signatures to place anti-gay marriage referenda on the ballot in eleven states including the greatest prize of all Ohio” (Landy 2005, p.100). The referenda were passed in all the eleven states and this clarified that the majority of the Americans disregard of colour and race were against gay-marriage (Landy 2005, p.100). Bush’s position was clear as he was against gay- marriage therefore the voters’ decision to vote for Bush was guaranteed (Landy 2005, p.100).
It is argued that “the Republican Party is becoming the political home of religious traditionalists while the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly attractive to religious liberals and secularists” (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). Campbell (2006, p.104) stresses the role of religion and culture in Americans political life stating that American politics is further divided along religious or cultural lines. Kemmelmeier (2004, p.218) states that most candidates from Democratic Party are more liberal while candidates from Republican Party are more conservatism. Some studies show that compared to Democrat candidate supporters, Republican candidates supporters are higher in Authoritarianism (Kemmelmeier 2004, pp.218-219). In times of election, the evangelicals vote for racially conservative candidates rather than liberal candidates as they believe that seculars undermine their values therefore the white voters feel threatened by the existence of Africa Americans in their community (Campbell 2006, p.104).
The concern of Christian religious conservatives is not with the focus of new elites on nonmaterial concerns, but rather with their systematic secularism which refers to their “rejection of traditional religiosity and its associated cultural norms and the public and private policies” (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). This secularism had some consequences such as “the Supreme Court decisions to remove prayer from the public schools, banning state restrictions on abortion rights and the threatening of traditional sex roles and sexual morality by the motion picture industry” (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). These policies and their threat to traditional religious and moral values have resulted in political mobilization of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christians into American politics (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). It is argued that religiosity and value priorities are almost independent of each other (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.754).
It is stated that Republican identification is more associated traditional religiosity, while Democrats identification is more associated with Post-materialism. However, except the year 1984, religious traditionalism has had stronger effect than value priorities in American politics (Layman 1997, p.759). From 1980 to 1992 Party identification has been the most reliable predictor of the presidential vote, which has had the largest impact on the probability of voting Republican in each year. Except for 1984 election, race has been the only one of the noncukural variables to have a significant impact on the vote. It is now more obvious that cultural orientations have impact on American political behavior, but this is argued to be true only if these cultural orientations are defined by religiosity and not by Material—Postmaterial value priorities. In 1984, 1988, and 1992 elections religious traditionalists were more likely to vote for Republican presidential nominees, while value priorities did not have any impact on vote choice in any of these years (Layman and Carmines 1997, pp.762-764).
According to Layman and Carmines (1997, p.767) “when citizens are concerned about cultural matters, it is their religious orientation and not their level of Post-materialism that plays a principal role in shaping their political behavior”. Immediately, after the 2004 election commentators explained that Bush’s victory was due to the Republicans’ emphasis upon moral traditionalism and their debt to the religious rights (Ashbee 2005, p.210). One source has stated that ‘for Bush mandate, look no further than abortion and gay-marriage’, this shows the importance place of moral values amongst the American voters (Ashbee 2005, p.210). It is stated that Bush’s election campaign was based on morals values and in particular on national discussion over abortion rights and gay-marriage (Ashbee 2005, p.212). However other sources suggest that Bush’s victory is not due to Republicans’ emphasize on values but there are other reasons such as having a stronger national security (Ashbee 2005, p.215). Fear of another terrorist attack might have been a reason for mothers to vote for Bush in order to assure the safety of their children (Ashbee 2005, p.215).
Republican Party is not popular among women, therefore in America’s politics women are more attracted to democrats rather than Republicans and this has created a gender gap because men are more and more attracted to Republicans while women have stayed with the Democrats (Norrander 1999, p.566). This is true in both the North and the South as white men have left the Democratic Party to join the Republican more than women (Norrander 1999, p.574). The only difference between the North and the South is that both men and women have become more republicans and less Democratic (Norrander 1999, p.575). Additionally, the gender gap in the South mainly began when men dramatically moved away from the Democratic Party into the Republican Party (Norrander 1999, p.575).
In conclusion, in a number of elections the Southern strategy has underpinned the Republicans’ federal electoral success. The Republican Party has employed different Southern Strategy in different times all aiming at creating race conflict in order to win the poor white working men’s vote. The Republicans’ first Southern strategy was reconstruction. In regards to value as an element which is believed to be influential on elections, it is argued that American politics is becoming more value based. In addition, religion plays a great role in Americans political life to an extent where it affects their voting preferences as well. White evangelicals believe that seculars -the Democrats -are a threat to them therefore they rather vote for the Republicans. The Republican Party is said to be conservative while the Democratic Party is more Liberal. Evidence show that women tend to support Democrats while men support Republicans and it is the case in both the South and the North. The reason is because the Democratic Party shows a secular position on cultural values as well as economic and political issues.
Different sources have set different times for the first appearance of the Southern Strategy, for instance Chapin (2001), believes that the phrase Southern strategy was first introduced by political analyst Kevin Phillips more than three decades ago, accurately described the political situation of those years. Between 1948 and 1964 the South which once was a supporter of the Democratic Party was “up for grabs” (Chapin 2001).
For the Republican party, the aim of the southern strategy was to win the white working voters in the south through peeling away white voters in the heavily Democratic South (Benedetto 2005). It began in the mid-1960s, when Republicans blamed pro-civil rights Democrats for racial conflict and other racial problems and used this to encourage isolated white voters in the Southern states to vote for Republican (Benedetto 2005). To be more precise the Republican Party took advantage from racial polarization to gain more votes (Benedetto 2005).
The aim of developing the Southern strategy was to take advantage of the upheaval in the Southern Structure and its major goal was to transform the Republicans’ reputation as the party of Licoln, Yankees and carpetbaggers into the part that protects the white interests (Aistrup 1996, p.8). Assessing the Southern strategy it is agreed that it has been successful as presidents (Aistrup 1996, p.6)
As Democrats’ main focus was on Blacks’ issues, the Republicans used the opportunity to appeal to the angry White working men class; this resulted in driving a wedge between the less wealthy whites and minorities and shattered any possibilities for class politics (Stonecash 2000, p.732).
The South has been the battleground for the Republicans and Democrats. From 1880 to 1944, the 11 Confederate states only twice did not vote as a block for the Democratic Party (Chapin 2001). Thereafter a solid South has only appeared for four times, all for the Republican candidates which were Nixon as well as Reagan in their 49-state landslides, for Bush in 2000 and his father in 1988 (Chapin 2001). The 11 Southern states have not often been required to provide the electoral margin for presidential candidates (Chapin 2001). Precisely during the entire post-Civil War period, only four candidates had required Southern electoral votes to prevail over a loss and these candidates were Grover Cleveland , Woodrow Wilson , Jimmy Carter in 1976 and George W. Bush in 2000 (Chapin 2001).
Reconstruction was the first Southern strategy of the Republican Party (Chapin 2001). In this process blacks were combined with traditional poor whites in order to create a competitive political system (Chapin 2001). It resulted in successful election for President Ulysses Grant in 1872, the first election in which all the so called disloyal states voted again, and Rutherford Hayes in 1876 (Chapin 2001). After a compromise in 1877 which in it, it was agreed to withdraw Northern troops from the South “this strategy sputtered to a halt” (Chapin 2001).
There have been times where the candidates have had no need to employ Southern strategy, for instance in 1896 the Republicans won elections without having the votes from the South (Jim Chapin 2001). From 1872 to 1896 there was a slow decline in the Southern share of the national vote (Chapin 2001). William McKinley's great victory is seen to be a new era in which the Republican majority in the North was so great in number that there was no need for the Southern blacks (Chapin 2001). The South disenfranchised its blacks and many poor whites quickly (Chapin 2001).
In 1964, the Republicans changed their Southern strategy to a new model which was providing direct support for their Southern opposition to desegregation (Chapin 2001). This strategy cost them the outer South, but it gained them the Deep South. In addition, it detached the party from blacks, and that is proved to be permanent (Chapin 2001).
African Americans have long voted for Democrats, therefore “Republicans have been working aggressively to build the party's support among African-Americans”. Despite Republicans’ effort, during the 2000 election, President Bush only received 9% of the black vote (Benedetto 2005). According to Chapin (2001) there is no need for the Republicans to employ the Southern strategy, because their strategy has worked and now the Southern States have become the base of the Republican Party.
In the 2000 election, Bush was sure of Southern support, therefore his campaign concentration was on winning the North (Chapin 2001). In the election, Republicans’ Southern strategy in Florida was to reject as many votes from minorities and Black people as they can through different methods, such as using “outdated machines, improper counts and tabulations, inadequate access to individuals with disabilities and lack of translators for immigrants” (Hines 2002, p.72). Due to the fact that the governor of Florida was Jeb Bush who had taken many conservative actions against the Blacks, the plan was successful and Georg Bush won the election (Hines 2002, p.72). Studies show that there are evidence which suggest that there were a relationship between race and rejected votes in the 2000 presidency election. It is argued that compared to affluent counties with large white population, counties with large minority groups had a much higher rate of ballot rejection (Hines 2002, p.72).
According to Allen (2005) in 2005 the Republican National Committee chairman stated that Republican’s Southern strategy which was to exploit racial conflict for votes was wrong and referred to the two parties’ racial polarization as ‘not healthy for the country’ (Allen 2005).
It is argued that in recent years the American politics have become more value-based (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.751). Election studies from 1980 to 1992 show that cultural orientations have significant influence on American’s political behaviour, particularly when these cultural orientations are defined by religious traditionalism rather than material-postmaterial value priorities (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.751). Religion and religious-based cultural differences play a powerful role in contemporary American politics (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). Unlike many other democratic industrial societies, religion still plays an important role in the US and the country continues to be very religious (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). In its policies Democratic Party is increasingly associated with cultural liberalism while Republican Party is becoming more culturally conservative (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.752).
Surprisingly, in America politics cultural issues such as abortion, women’s rights, prayer in public schools, and homosexual rights are in the forefront (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.752). To set an example, Bush’s popularity was declining until before the 2004 election, when the issue of gay marriage came out in a perfect time for Georg Bush’s re-election as “it enabled the Republicans to obtain the necessary signatures to place anti-gay marriage referenda on the ballot in eleven states including the greatest prize of all Ohio” (Landy 2005, p.100). The referenda were passed in all the eleven states and this clarified that the majority of the Americans disregard of colour and race were against gay-marriage (Landy 2005, p.100). Bush’s position was clear as he was against gay- marriage therefore the voters’ decision to vote for Bush was guaranteed (Landy 2005, p.100).
It is argued that “the Republican Party is becoming the political home of religious traditionalists while the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly attractive to religious liberals and secularists” (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). Campbell (2006, p.104) stresses the role of religion and culture in Americans political life stating that American politics is further divided along religious or cultural lines. Kemmelmeier (2004, p.218) states that most candidates from Democratic Party are more liberal while candidates from Republican Party are more conservatism. Some studies show that compared to Democrat candidate supporters, Republican candidates supporters are higher in Authoritarianism (Kemmelmeier 2004, pp.218-219). In times of election, the evangelicals vote for racially conservative candidates rather than liberal candidates as they believe that seculars undermine their values therefore the white voters feel threatened by the existence of Africa Americans in their community (Campbell 2006, p.104).
The concern of Christian religious conservatives is not with the focus of new elites on nonmaterial concerns, but rather with their systematic secularism which refers to their “rejection of traditional religiosity and its associated cultural norms and the public and private policies” (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). This secularism had some consequences such as “the Supreme Court decisions to remove prayer from the public schools, banning state restrictions on abortion rights and the threatening of traditional sex roles and sexual morality by the motion picture industry” (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). These policies and their threat to traditional religious and moral values have resulted in political mobilization of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christians into American politics (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.753). It is argued that religiosity and value priorities are almost independent of each other (Layman and Carmines 1997, p.754).
It is stated that Republican identification is more associated traditional religiosity, while Democrats identification is more associated with Post-materialism. However, except the year 1984, religious traditionalism has had stronger effect than value priorities in American politics (Layman 1997, p.759). From 1980 to 1992 Party identification has been the most reliable predictor of the presidential vote, which has had the largest impact on the probability of voting Republican in each year. Except for 1984 election, race has been the only one of the noncukural variables to have a significant impact on the vote. It is now more obvious that cultural orientations have impact on American political behavior, but this is argued to be true only if these cultural orientations are defined by religiosity and not by Material—Postmaterial value priorities. In 1984, 1988, and 1992 elections religious traditionalists were more likely to vote for Republican presidential nominees, while value priorities did not have any impact on vote choice in any of these years (Layman and Carmines 1997, pp.762-764).
According to Layman and Carmines (1997, p.767) “when citizens are concerned about cultural matters, it is their religious orientation and not their level of Post-materialism that plays a principal role in shaping their political behavior”. Immediately, after the 2004 election commentators explained that Bush’s victory was due to the Republicans’ emphasis upon moral traditionalism and their debt to the religious rights (Ashbee 2005, p.210). One source has stated that ‘for Bush mandate, look no further than abortion and gay-marriage’, this shows the importance place of moral values amongst the American voters (Ashbee 2005, p.210). It is stated that Bush’s election campaign was based on morals values and in particular on national discussion over abortion rights and gay-marriage (Ashbee 2005, p.212). However other sources suggest that Bush’s victory is not due to Republicans’ emphasize on values but there are other reasons such as having a stronger national security (Ashbee 2005, p.215). Fear of another terrorist attack might have been a reason for mothers to vote for Bush in order to assure the safety of their children (Ashbee 2005, p.215).
Republican Party is not popular among women, therefore in America’s politics women are more attracted to democrats rather than Republicans and this has created a gender gap because men are more and more attracted to Republicans while women have stayed with the Democrats (Norrander 1999, p.566). This is true in both the North and the South as white men have left the Democratic Party to join the Republican more than women (Norrander 1999, p.574). The only difference between the North and the South is that both men and women have become more republicans and less Democratic (Norrander 1999, p.575). Additionally, the gender gap in the South mainly began when men dramatically moved away from the Democratic Party into the Republican Party (Norrander 1999, p.575).
In conclusion, in a number of elections the Southern strategy has underpinned the Republicans’ federal electoral success. The Republican Party has employed different Southern Strategy in different times all aiming at creating race conflict in order to win the poor white working men’s vote. The Republicans’ first Southern strategy was reconstruction. In regards to value as an element which is believed to be influential on elections, it is argued that American politics is becoming more value based. In addition, religion plays a great role in Americans political life to an extent where it affects their voting preferences as well. White evangelicals believe that seculars -the Democrats -are a threat to them therefore they rather vote for the Republicans. The Republican Party is said to be conservative while the Democratic Party is more Liberal. Evidence show that women tend to support Democrats while men support Republicans and it is the case in both the South and the North. The reason is because the Democratic Party shows a secular position on cultural values as well as economic and political issues.
References:
Aistrup, J.A 1996, The Southern strategy Revisited: Republican Top-down Advancement in the South, University Press of Kentucky, USA.
Allen, M 2005, RNC Chief to Say It Was “Wrong to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes, viewed 10 April 2008,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html.
Ashbee, E 2005, The 2004 Presidential election, ‘Moral values’, and the Democrats’ Dilemma, Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd, 76(2), UK.
Benedetto, R 2005, GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics, USA TODAY, viewed 15 April 2008,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm.
Campbell, D.E 2006, Religious “ Threat” in Contemporary Presidential Elections, The Journal of politics, vol 68, No. 1.
Chapin, J 200, Why the GOP's Southern Strategy Ended, Part I, NewsMax.com Wires, viewed 10 April 2008,
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/23/172905.shtml.
Hines, R.I 2002, The silent voices: 2000 Presidential election and the Minority Votes in Florida, Western Journal of Black Studies, vol 26, No.2, USA.
Kemmelmeier, M 2004, Authoritarianism and Candidate Support in the U.S. Presidential Elections of 1996 and 2000, The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(2).
Landy, M 2005, Election in wartime: the president under siege, Prospective on Political Science, vol 34, No.2, USA.
Layman, G.C & Carmines, E.G 1997, Cultural conflicts in American politics: Religious Ttraditionalism, Postmaterialism, and U.S. Political Behavior, The Journal of politics, 59 (3), USPIR Reader, the University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Norrander, B 1999, The valuation of gender Gap, Public Opinion Quaterly, 63(4), USA.
Stonecash, J.M, Brewer, M.D, Peterson, R.E, Mcguire, M.P & Way, L.B 2000, Class and Party: Secular Realignment and the Survival of Democrats outside the South, Political Research Quarterly, 53(4), USA
Aistrup, J.A 1996, The Southern strategy Revisited: Republican Top-down Advancement in the South, University Press of Kentucky, USA.
Allen, M 2005, RNC Chief to Say It Was “Wrong to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes, viewed 10 April 2008,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html.
Ashbee, E 2005, The 2004 Presidential election, ‘Moral values’, and the Democrats’ Dilemma, Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd, 76(2), UK.
Benedetto, R 2005, GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics, USA TODAY, viewed 15 April 2008,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-GOP-racial-politics_x.htm.
Campbell, D.E 2006, Religious “ Threat” in Contemporary Presidential Elections, The Journal of politics, vol 68, No. 1.
Chapin, J 200, Why the GOP's Southern Strategy Ended, Part I, NewsMax.com Wires, viewed 10 April 2008,
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/23/172905.shtml.
Hines, R.I 2002, The silent voices: 2000 Presidential election and the Minority Votes in Florida, Western Journal of Black Studies, vol 26, No.2, USA.
Kemmelmeier, M 2004, Authoritarianism and Candidate Support in the U.S. Presidential Elections of 1996 and 2000, The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(2).
Landy, M 2005, Election in wartime: the president under siege, Prospective on Political Science, vol 34, No.2, USA.
Layman, G.C & Carmines, E.G 1997, Cultural conflicts in American politics: Religious Ttraditionalism, Postmaterialism, and U.S. Political Behavior, The Journal of politics, 59 (3), USPIR Reader, the University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Norrander, B 1999, The valuation of gender Gap, Public Opinion Quaterly, 63(4), USA.
Stonecash, J.M, Brewer, M.D, Peterson, R.E, Mcguire, M.P & Way, L.B 2000, Class and Party: Secular Realignment and the Survival of Democrats outside the South, Political Research Quarterly, 53(4), USA
posted by Xalid Azizi | 6:52 AM
2 Comments:
interesting read. I would love to follow you on twitter. By the way, did you guys know that some chinese hacker had busted twitter yesterday again.
Implement concealer having a light-weight contact for the greatest insurance coverage for under-vision groups or spots. Stipple concealer with the ring finger when applying it below your eyes, and faucet it around and all around pimples as an alternative to rubbing or smearing it on. This ensures that a lot of the pigment stays on your skin, and that you will not inflame fragile or vulnerable skin area. [url=http://www.ss12w12ws.info]Microecw2347[/url]
Post a Comment
<< Home