2012 Presidential Elections

Beginning with a contextualization of America surrounding the 2004 presidential election. This was the first election since the 9-11 attacks and the beginning of the war on terror. Many Americans uneasy, and the state of the nation was unstable. With this fear and instability,

When George Washington was elected President in 1789 by members of the fledgling United States of America, he was setting into motion a tradition that has stood the test of over 225 years - the presidential election. Even as the United States has seen dozens of wars, made hundreds of scientific advances, and selected thousands of politicians to seats everywhere from small town councils to Congress, the principles of the election have remained the same; the people band together to determine who will best protect their interests at home and assure that the US will always remain on top in foreign policy. Oftentimes, this is found to be a difficult decision, as public opinion is constantly wavering. One sees this in action particularly during the 1992 election - a battle of wills between Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ross Perot; complete with lead changes, major vote swings, and Perot’s unprecedented initial success - ultimately a false alarm to the bipartisan establishment.

The 1980 presidential election of the United States featured three primary candidates, Republican Ronald Reagan, Democrat Jimmy Carter and liberal Republican John Anderson. Ronald Reagan was the governor of California before he decided to run for the presidency. John Anderson was a representative in Illinois and Carter was the incumbent. The lengthy Iran hostage crisis sharpened public opinions by the beginning of the election season. In the 1970s, the United States were experiencing a straining episode of low economic growth, high price increases and interest rates and an irregular energy crisis. The sense of discomfort in both domestic and foreign affairs in the nation were heading downward, this added to the downward spiral that was already going on. Between Carter, Anderson and Reagan, the general election campaign of the 1980s seemed more concerned with shadowboxing around political issues rather than a serious discussion of the issues that concerned voters.

Assess the extent to which incumbents have an adage over challengers in congressional elections. (25marks)

In the 2012 presidential election, the incumbent Barack Obama campaigned against Mitt Romney (Document E). Both candidates used glittering generalities to appeal to voter’s emotions. Obama used “Hope” and “Forward” and Romney used “Believe in America.” Neither of these catch phrases were informative as they did not provide any real information to the voters.

Presidential election cycles are always three-ring circuses, and the 2000 election has become one of the biggest circuses ever. With a two-term president unable to seek re-election, the House of Representatives clearly up for grabs, and Democrats counting on major Senate gains -- even hoping to win control -- there is a lot at stake in this year's elections. Republicans' optimism is based on their view that they will take back the White House after an eight-year hiatus. GOP insiders believe that Americans are tired of Bill Clinton, have doubts about Vice President Al Gore and are ready for change. Republican turnout was down in 1998, which helps account for the party's poor showing in the off-year

Throughout American History, people expect those who run for president to fully understand the occupation and its role as president and the importance of soliciting their votes. During each election, America assumes that each candidate will thoroughly explain their positions and their values so that the people can become familiar with the candidate and begin to trust them. Over time, the way presidential candidates promote themselves to America continued to evolve in many different ways that connect more with people on a nation wide level. Also, each president has a role they must follow. They are expected to understand the qualifications of a president and its powers in position so they can truly be in running as the Chief Executive of the United States of America. Moreover, new ways of publicizing the campaigns, have become a major role in understanding each candidate. With that being said, strategizing and campaigning have changed dramatically as new technology was introduced. In early America, the presidents were limited to its abilities as laws were new and not concrete. Once the U.S. developed into its truest form, the government realized its strengths and weakness. While overcoming many obstacles in the colonies in the early times of America, then later being a whole nation as one, the government created a unique governmental system that included regulations for the president in order to keep America united and tranquil. In the early times of this nation, voting

Compare and contrast the presidential elections of 2004 and 2012 on the following factors: 1) Election results; So as I talk about the comparisons of two presidential elections, I look at the differences between the year 2004 and 2012. During the year 2004, the candidates that were running for office was George W. Bush (Republican), John Kerry (Democratic) and Ralph Nader (Independent). The race for winning the seat of office in 2004 was a slight close one, with the results of Bush getting 286 electoral votes (62,040,606 votes 51%), Kerry getting 252 electoral votes (59,028,109 votes 48%) and Nader getting zero electoral votes (411,304 votes 1%).

The 2004 and 2012 Presidential Elections demonstrated the voter’s commitment to incumbent Presidents during tough times and major crises. In 2004, voters were interested in foreign policy, terrorism and the current wars. In 2012 the national focus was the economy, following the financial crisis that began in 2008. Consequently, the challenging nominees had backgrounds appropriate for the issues, but had the inability to stand out as a better option. Perhaps because, typically incumbents have the advantage of better name recognition, experience and their agenda has had longer time to be defined.

In a 1980 debate against Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan touched upon a core concern of the American electorate by asking one question: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” (Healey and Lenz 2014). Political scientists have long debated what sways voters in presidential elections, and whether a candidate’s campaign and personality can transcend the economic fundamentals that face the nation. Although a slew of statistical studies and literature argue on both sides of this debate, a historical analysis demonstrates that economic fundamentals drive general election results. A range of studies show that the electorate responds to economic performance, although voters’ measures of economic well-being tend not to be simple summary figures like GDP growth over four years. The economy impacts the election in a more nuanced fashion. Firstly, voters tend to place a notable amount of weight upon the election year, with other periods playing less of a role in their decision making. Secondly, the metric used to evaluate economic prosperity should be a broad sweep of the voter’s perceptions, rather than a particular macroeconomic statistic. In order to match these theories with examples, we see historical incidences of incumbent parties with the odds

Incumbent Barack Obama battled it out against Republican Mitt Romney. Their campaign styles, reputation, and platforms were the ultimatum of the outcome of the general election. The economic conditions both in 2012 and leading up to that year were at devastatingly low points, where unemployment rate was a boggling 10%, highest it had been since the 1982 recession. Although, Romney came from a political family it unfortunately wasn’t enough to sway the voters’ opinions causing him to lose the presidential election. Our nation was dealing with a plethora of significant issues during this time and the citizens wanted a president who could promise to resolve those conflicts. Obama, being a returning president allowed voters to put their trust in

In the years leading up to the 2012 presidential elections, there seemed to be a lot of people that were moving away from their traditional party lines and changing sides. It would seem that Mitt Romney's career as a wealthy businessman would become harmful in the same ways that the "swift boat" attacks on Kerry were harmful in 2004. During John Kerry's running for the presidency in 2004, his Vietnam "record" came under scrutiny in so much as to discredit his wartime service. In 2012, the Obama campaign used the same type of strategy to show a disconnect between Romney and the American people. The number of eligible voters that actually voted dropped between the 2008 and 2012 elections by nearly 3.5%. Some believe this to be typical in a second term presidential election. ushistory.org states "Since many Americans are pleased with economic progress, they may feel reluctant to make a change, so they stay at home on Election Day". However, I do not believe that to be completely the

Based on the table above, we can see that 45.6 percent of Americans who vote for democrats in 2012 presidential election said that they have being contacted by democrats about 2012 campaign, compared to 10.9 percent of Americans who vote for republican in 2012 presidential election and 22.8 Americans who vote for ‘others’ in 2012 presidential election. We also can see that only 12.2 percent of Americans who vote for democrats in 2012 presidential election said that they have being contacted by republicans about 2012 presidential campaign, compared to 45.2 percent of Americans who vote for ‘others’ in 2012 presidential election and 12.8 percent Americans who vote for democrats in 2012 presidential election. While, just 41.9 percent of Americans who vote for democrats in 2012 presidential election said that they have being contacted by both about 2012 campaign, compared to 43.9 percent of Americans who vote for republicans in 2012 presidential election and 64.3 percent of Americans who vote for ‘others’ in 2012 presidential election.

Yup, that’s right, only about 10% of the entire nation voted for Donald Trump OR Hilary Clinton, yet they are still the Presidential Candidates from the Republican and Democratic Parties. How? In the presidential primaries Donald Trump won the state of Alabama with roughly 43% of all the voters. However, only .3% of registered voters voted for him at all. In a state of 4.8 million, only 14000 voted. In Tennessee, Hillary won with 66% of 3.7% of the total registered. While substantially higher than Trump’s Alabama win, it is still an unacceptably low turnout for the voting of the possible President of the

The 2012 presidential election finally reached its conclusion late Tuesday night on November 6th, as the incumbent Barack Obama won a second term in the White House over the challenger Mitt Romney. The election, with its reputation as the most expensive presidential race in history, attracted wide attentions not only from the United States but also from many other countries around the globe (Confessore & McGinty, 2012). The election was also noted with a numerous number of debates and discussions in both online and offline about the two candidates’ policies and pledges on every level. However, while a lot of attention was paid to the candidates’ verbally expressed speeches and pledges, the candidates’