Every time a presidential election rolls around it seems as if America wakes up from a deep sleep. For months we are engulfed in a never ending wave of political rhetoric. We hear about it on the radio, watch it on TV, we see it on the internet, billboards, and bumper stickers. Huge amounts of money are spent during the presidential campaign by both sides in hopes of gaining an advantage. Although the campaign can be exciting, it will usually not determine the winner. The outcome is determined more heavily by other factors, many of which are out of the candidates control. The campaign must be run in a context that is structured by these factors or it will be unsuccessful.(13) The campaign, though important, does not determine the outcome of a presidential election, results are determined by other fundamental factors such as the health of the economy, possible incumbency advantage, and party ID.
The Economy is one of the biggest fundamental factors that determines the outcome of any presidential election.(12) It’s also one of the factors the president doesn't have much control over. One way we determine how well a country's economy is doing is a measurement called Gross Domestic Product(GDP). GDP is basically the money our country makes from goods and services produced over a specific period of time. Research strongly suggests that there is a correlation between GDP increase and incumbent party success. It is very difficult to win a incumbent party in a growing economy. For example President Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential election. At this time our economy was in bad shape, Obama used this to his advantage and ended up winning the election. But on the flip side, with the economy improving at the rate of a snail since his inauguration, his path to victory was much more challenging in 2012.(13)
Figure 7.1 on page 177 of The Gamble is a compelling graph that does an excellent job in illustrating the economy’s capacity to influence presidential elections. The graph compares voting results of past elections with percent change in GDP. When the results are analyzed it is apparent that a strong connection exists between the incumbents share of the majority vote and economic growth. If the economy is growing the incumbent party will most likely be re-elected.(177) This brings us to another fundamental factor, incumbency advantage.
Throughout history, the possibility of incumbency has always weighed heavily on the outcome of a presidential election.
For the most part, the connection between the Presidential election process of 1788 and the present Presidential election procedure are both determined through the Electoral College process. The Electoral College process made sure people played a crucial role in the selection of the President of the United States. As was previously stated, I have expounded on the process of how the President is elected; the vital role that people played in the election, and the responsibility of the House of Representatives in response to the
Obama’s 2008 election threw a wrench in the works when it comes to classifying Clinton’s election and future elections. “When a stable persistent voter coalition is established, the vote is non-successive elections will be highly correlated” (Pomper 544). The non-successive elections of 2000, 2004, and 2016 certainly support this. The same might be said, however, for 2008, 2012, and 2020 if a democratic candidate puts up similar numbers to Obama. If that were so, does that make 2016 a “temporary peculiarity” and 2008 a critical election? It is impossible to know until the time comes that 2008 and 2012 can really be looked back on. Pomper encourages people to look at elections and candidates not as isolated events, but to “focus on the similarities between different elections, … classify them … abstract some patterns” (Pomper 535), but can this always hold true? Obama’s substantial victory in 2008 could be coughed up to Campbell’s fundamentals. The Republicans are in their second term, the economy is at its lowest since the Great Depression, and Bush’s approval rating is at 25% by the end of October (Gallup). In that case, the Democratic voter base may not have really changed, but more people voted Democrat because they were unhappy with Bush. “Either the ‘Obama coalition’ is very much Obama’s rather than his party’s, or that his victories are due to circumstances”
Rick Santorum’s departure heralded the beginning of the general election. Mitt Romney, with the backing of the Republican establishment, and the growing support of the base, can now devote his resources for a one on one showdown against President Barack Obama. Recent polls indicate that he is behind by only a few points in a head to head match-up against the President. High employment rate, skyrocketing gas prices, ballooning national debt, and an exhausting war in Afghanistan created animosity against the President’s administration. Therefore, the President must decisively address these issues in the months ahead to ensure reelection. He must pull the jobless rate below 8%, and lower the price of fuel. The President must not prolong the war in Afghanistan and must not escalate tension with Iran. In essence, a President seeking reelection will need to embody Niccolo Machiavelli’s acumen and Desiderius Erasmus’ deferential image. Now, I will outline what the President must do to handily beat Romney.
Back in 1980, Republican president nominee Ronald Reagan pledged throughout his campaign that it was his goal to “restore the great, confident roar of American progress, growth and optimism”. Restoration, reinvigoration, and reclamation of values believed to be lost by the presidential treachery he was succeeding. Fast forward to 2008, Democratic president nominee Barack Obama did not see a need for restoration, he saw a need for new waves with his slogan “change we can believe in” after the economic destruction by W. Bush. Being such dramatic foils, the two men represent different eras of American politics. The unprecedented election of Obama severed Reagan’s seemingly everlasting legacy, signaling real changes coming to the presidency. The “Reagan Revolution” is remembered as an era of conservatism and economic peace, while Obama’s terms are viewed with mixed emotions. Obama’s impact can definitely be argued, as political information was more readily accessible in his presidency than any other in history; thanks to new technology and social communications, but since time has passed, so can Reagan’s. The use of their presidential powers is what a president is remembered for. Assessing the ranges in their backgrounds, motivations, policy creation and execution, and overall achievements, one can determine
The Electoral College allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the majority of popular votes. Additionally, the unequal representation created by the number of electors each state has leads to a differential worth depending upon a voter’s state of residency. Moreover, the winner-take-all rule of the results in votes which are essentially rendered worthless if they are contrary the state majority. Finally, the system places much of the focus and power to effect elections in the hands of so called swing states that are not historically aligned with only one party. (Dahl, 80-83) These aspects of the U.S. political system are utterly counterintuitive and stand in stark contrast to many of the cardinal ideals of
In theory, political campaigns are the most important culmination of the democratic debate in American politics. In practice, however, the media shrouds society’s ability to engage in a democratic debate with unenlightening campaign coverage. Because of this, it is difficult—if not impossible—to have educated political discourse in which the whole, factual truth is on display. After years of only seeing the drama of presidential campaigns, the American public has become a misinformed people.
One important reason Americans want to limit terms of their elected representatives is because they are likely to blame what they observe as professional and almost permanent ruling elect of career politicians for a majority of the country’s ill. Supporters of term limits claim the advantages of incumbency are so overpowering that they instead decrease representative democracy and diminish the effectiveness of the government. “Since 1950, about 90% of all incumbents in the House have won the reelection. The 10% who do not return includes both retiring members and those defeated in reelection attempts.” (Term Limits) “Proponents term limits argue that elected officials in Washington eventually become estrang...
Julie Pace, in her article, Can Ted Cruz beat Donald Trump?, poses obstacles to Donald Trump’s path to the White House. Through analogous imagery, Pace describes the widespread disagreement with the Republican front-runner’s ability to hold office, and evaluates various methods for halting his progress. By adopting a critical tone, the author wishes to refine the American voter’s opinion of Donald Trump, and ultimately downplays the Republican Party as a whole. Pace partially satirises these plans to bring down Trump, by illustrating the idea that none of these options would be as beneficial for the United States as electing a democratic president. Pace utilizes process analysis to evaluate current political issues concerning the Republican primary, with the ultimate goal of influencing the reader to side with her political philosophies.
Every four years, the century-old debate over the Electoral College rekindles. Currently, as the contest between the Republican candidates intensifies and the remaining four rush toward the finish line for nomination, speculators are turning their attention toward the Presidential Election that is right around the corner. Predictably, the legitimacy of the Electoral College is once again under scrutiny. Although the Electoral College was an ingenious compromise establish by Framers of the Constitution, the development of the two party politics and the “winner-take-all” system has led it to the fail its original purpose.
In 1992 the incumbent president George Bush was seeking reelection. It was the general consensus that he would be the 'hands down, no contest winner'. When the smoke had cleared and the votes were tallied, many were shocked at the results. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton had defeated the incumbent by a landslide! How could this be? How did the commander and chief of what could be considered the greatest victory in modern American history defeat the Iraqi army and one year later lose the election for the presidency? The answers to these questions as well as explanations for the outcome lie within the campaign strategies and tactics used by each candidate. There were various major political events and public opinion data that occurred throughout the general election stage of the campaign. This paper will analyze both the political events and the public opinion data, in hopes of developing a better understanding as to what helped shape the overall outcome. There were three candidates in the race for the presidency, President Bush (R), Bill Clinton (D), and Ross Perot (I). Each of the three, to a greater or lesser extent, focused their campaign on the economy. President Bush focused more of his campaign on criticizing his opponents primarily Bill Clinton. He would often compare the economy to that of other nations, claiming it wasn't all that bad and resumed attacking his opponents. Bill Clinton on the other hand focused his campaign strategy on implementing the need for 'change.' At that time the national debt and unemployment was rising. Clinton vowed to improve the economy and the quality of life for the American people by bringing about change. Ross Perot was more of a crusader against Washin...
Shugart, Matthew. "Elections: The American Process of Selecting a President: A Comparative Perspective." Presidential Studies, 34, 3 (September 2004): 632-656.
You may be called a drunken dog by some of the clean-shirt and silk-stocking gentry, but the real roughnecks will style you a jovial fellow, (Crockett, 1837) but little do they know that their voting will influence the way elections are held and candidates run. Between the years of 1815 and 1840 campaigning and elections will become strongly influenced by the voting participation of the common man. A sudden peak of interest in voting and increase of voters from the general public, a rise in media coverage, methods used for campaigning and the influence of the common man were all significant factors relating to the change of campaigns and elections in the United States between 1815 and 1840.
The Electoral College while very controversial, should be kept in place for several reasons that will be covered in this paper. Our countries founders put the Electoral College in place for a reason. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each state to select the president and represent the entire state. These ideas can be dated all the way back into Rome, where the same type of system was utilized. While the Electoral College has certainly developed over the years it’s the same basic idea. Each state is represented by its chosen leaders. The number of Electoral votes that a state receives depends on the number of US Representatives plus 2 senators. Politicians generally base their campaigns around so called “swing states” that could go either way. The controversy arises with the fact that it’s possible for a candidate to win the popular vote, however lose in the Electoral College, and therefor lose the election.
Campaigns are a significant part of the democratic process in American politics. Individuals who make decisions individually and interdependently characterize the democratic process. It aids decision making for the citizens and enables them come up with a summary political judgment based on how they view the different candidates. Campaigns are the primary strategy used by candidates and parties to make political communication to the citizens. US political campaigns are informative and provide a chance for candidates to notify their electorate about their ideologies and policies. Through political campaigns, the citizens are able to assess the policies that the...
... Trent, J. D., Mongeau, P. A., & Short-Thompson, C. (1997). The Ideal Candidate Revisited: A Study of the Desired Attributes of the Public and the Media Across Three Presidential Campaigns. American Behavioural Scientist, 40, 8, 1001-1019.