Caucus Chaos

Regime Parties and Realignments- The topic of party realignment was one that was brought up during lecture. Critical realignment theory has stated that some Presidents have played a larger role in the realignment of their parties. The definition of a critical realignment is when the parties and the issues that are at the forefront of the American attention change. Realignments have often been the result of a pressing issue coming to the forefront of Americas attention and allowing for third parties to arise and challenge the two major parties of that era. They often cause huge strains on the ideology and strength of the party because these issues cause rifts within the party weakening its structure. Richard Hofstadter recognized that a new issues arose around the elections of 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, and 1932 and that the Presidents who won those elections all benefited by taking a stance on that issue.

For example, the author states that many of the versions misrepresent what really happened. Hamilton and Burr fought because of many critical statements exchanged between them. This helps prove the authors’ early statement that the events were all mostly political. On page 45 first paragraph it mentions how Hamilton’s comments were not so much from personal dislike of Burr but out of fear for the nation. Also states how Hamilton referred to Burr as Catiline (known as destroyer of the republic).On page 32, the author tell us his point of view and what he really believes happened. He states the many critical remarks said and explains that Hamilton knew he might die, so he had a dinner to make a statement. Therefore this is the authors’ point of view on the

Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz on Friday crisscrossed Iowa on a five-stop campaign event swing through the state as he continues to built a strong support amongst Republican voters with just 100 days left into the Iowa caucus. The latest Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register poll released on Friday has Cruz in third place with 10% in Iowa. Ben Carson is in first place in Iowa with 28% while Donald Trump is now in second with 19%. Even though Cruz is positioned to earn one of the ‘three tickets out of Iowa,’ he still needs to snatch up more voters from the other Republican candidates who are vying for the same fraction of evangelicals conservative that are taking away votes from Cruz.

There is a lot of pressure forced on the candidates because of the knowledge that, “for the last ten Iowa Caucuses, Iowa has identified the nation’s two primary picks for the top runner from both the Democratic and Republican Party five times and from just the Democratic Party six times” (Iowa Caucus). Additionally, “in the past, the Iowa Caucuses have become more of a clearing field in determining which candidates will stay in the race and which candidates will throw in the towel” (2016 Iowa Caucus). These statistics illustrate how important the Iowa Caucus is. History has shown that the Iowa Caucus at times seems to predict the future candidates that will succeed in the presidential election by eliminating the candidates and narrowing the parties

There is three different types of electing judges. Partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, and Missouri plan. In the following paragraphs I am going to tell you these processes work and why they are like this. I am also going to tell you we have three different types of processes.

Last Wednesday, Cruz tried to get the media 's attention away from Trump 's foreign policy address by announcing his Vice Presidential pick, his former rival Carly Fiorina. The move was seen as "a sign of desperate" according to many media pundit who questioned why would Cruz who was mathematically eliminated from becoming the nominee pick a running mate just three months before the convention. Cruz hoped the move of picking Fiorina, who became his strongest surrogate after endorsing the Senator before the Florida primary in mid-March would help with the moderate Republicans and woman voters. After announcing Cruz-Fiorina 2016, Fiorina campaigned alongside the Cruz, a mistake the Cruz 's campaign employed. Previous approaches in Iowa and Wisconsin used by the Cruz 's campaign would deploy their top surrogates in key suburbs as a divide and conquer approach. It wasn 't until Monday that Cruz 's campaign changed their approach but it was already to late when he failed to use

This article was written for the Omaha World Herald by Paula Dwyer of the Bloomberg View. This article was published in the tuesday edition of the paper on January 12, 2016. As the title suggests the article points out how Ted Cruz has flip-flopped on an issue conveniently before a major part of the campaign season.

Although elections are suppose to provide citizens with a way to shape policymaking by changing who the policymakers are citizens can change what policies are made, the citizens still have little impact. Elections do not serve as a vehicle for citizens to change policy. The way that congress is set up makes it extremely difficult to create change in congress. Typically miniorties groups are in groups that need to most help and have the most problems, and it’s difficult for their problems to get solved if they don’t have members of congress of their ethnic group that can relate to their problems and understand what they’re going through more than a member of congress that has a different rationality. As my The Struggle

There are a variety of factors that made the 2016 election path and conventions sui generis. The most salient thread for both sides was the deep rooted and incessant unpopularity of both

There is a commonly held belief among the political savvy that the ideologies of the major parties seemed to have flip throughout the mid 20th century, more specifically between 1932 and 1968. These shifts are attributed to mainly to the New Deal Democrats, as well as the demise of the solid south of the Democratic party. It is entirely correct that geographically, the parties have done a 180 degree flip since they were established as the prominent parties in the early 1800’s. However, John Gerring makes the argument in, “Party Ideologies 1828-1996”, that the ideologies of the two major parties have been consistent over that period of time. Furthermore, the perceived shifts in these ideologies are due to the changing political climate in

It was a cool autumn day as the sun set on the horizon of Las Vegas, Nevada. That night the Democratic National Committee and CNN would host the first of a series of Democratic debates in the race for 2016 Presidential Race. Congress being out of session for the next few days, Senator Jay Whitman had just arrived at the airport and planned on heading straight to the debate to see what the future of the Democratic Party would bring to America. Being already, obviously, thoroughly versed in politics himself he was exhilarated to heard the candidates debate the issues that mattered to him and the people of Nevada her represented. Once he had arrived at the event, he found his way though security and into the auditorium. The debate started roughly

Introduction: the whole thing is about peace in the world because without peace, we would have war everyday. A few months ago polices were getting injured or killed because the police would do things that was not supposed to do. And also there was a lot of action that made people mad and that would do crazy things and people couldn't control themselves threw out these few months. What would the world become with a president that will only want war in the country? I think the world with a president that only wants war in our community will only allow people that are his skin color do what they want and the other people with a different skin

Ever since 1896, Utah has predominantly voted red, with only eight elections that were in favor of the blue. Since 1968 to the present day, Utah has let its electoral votes go only to republican candidates however, in 2016, Utah was at a tipping point, no candidate had a clear lead and people didn’t know whether Utah would be blue or red. This is when the candidates took action. Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, even McMullin, and Gary Johnson each stepped in and wrote an opinion editorial to the residents of Utah. Their decisions to write opinion editorials was easily the best option and the best way for them to express their whole purpose, which was to persuade Utahans into seeing that one of them were the

During the US presidential election of 2016, the world has witnessed an abundance of unprecedented phenomena. From the nomination of the first woman candidate from a major political party to the nomination of first billionaire reality TV star, the election cycle has produced moments that would have been unimaginable a year or two ago. While the media is gleeful to cover the horserace aspect of the election, the question that political scientists are interested is what factors motivates American voters to prefer one candidate over another. Political pundits from both sides have cited identity politics, the personal characters of the candidates and the national and personal economic conditions to support or oppose Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. The personal qualities of Trump and Clinton made them most unpopular presidential nominees of the modern era. Both candidates have alienated different groups of voters while attracting others. Both of them have proposed two distinct paths for America 's future with different fiscal, domestic and international policies. When making their decision, the voters are evaluating all of these factors to choose the best match candidate for them. Like any other political phenomenon, voting intentions in this election have multiple agents, but I will argue that while group identities, the economics and the qualities of the candidates all influences voters’ intentions, the economic interest of a person has the best correlation with

The power of the president as commander of the national military and the state national guard units (when