Generally there are several key positions voters focus on when selecting a presidential candidate. Whether they release it or not, macroeconomics take a key in their thoughts by defining candidates based on positions of unemployment, income, and inflation. Many believe that voter support is based on differentiating viewpoints of past, present, and future economic conditions. For the most part, voters position themselves on one side or the other of the same coin. There is one side of the coin that is largely concerned with what the incumbent will personally do for them; the other side focuses on what the future president will do for the country. Donald R. Kinder and D. Roderick Kiewiet refer to the first group as pocketbook voters (Kinder & Kiewiet, 1981, p. 130). In the British Journal of Political Science, they further state that these citizens “support candidates and parties that have advanced their economic interest and oppose candidates and parties that appear to threaten them.” The other side of the coin represents what Kinder & Kiewiet refer to as sociotropic voters. These citizens are “influenced most of all by the country’s pocketbook, not their own” (Kinder & Kiewiet, 1981, p. 132). In Sociotropic Politics: The American Case, Kinder and Kiewiet further explain sociotropic judgments to be: “assessments of recent trends in general business conditions; evaluations of how well the government was management economic problems; and which party was more competent
History informs us about the first method the parties developed in order to pick their presidential candidates. This method was the congressional caucus. The framer’s method in 1787 was that each elector would cast two electoral votes, each for a different person for president. The person who received the majority of the electoral votes would win the presidential election and the person who received the second most amount of electoral votes won the vice presidential election. However, the rise of political parties and the election of 1800 made a great change to the system. During this time the electors cast their two votes for two different
To begin with, the structuring ambition of the selection presidency did indeed shift through each of the benchmarks. Originally, the Founders wanted a selection system that would prevent the use of popular arts (Ceaser, pg 29), meaning that they wanted to avoid someone being selected just because they talked about topics in which stirred interests rather than be selected for being the best qualified. This is why they desired a president who was selected on public service, forcing candidates to do things for the public in order to be selected, in order to be elected by the Electoral College. Jefferson actually took a step away from this, by bringing in issue formation into the selection process, causing a shift in electoral alignment.
During the Roosevelt and Kennedy administrations, political science and policymaking had a close relationship. However, this has changed in recent years. However, Samuel Popkin argues that they can still be one in the same. Popkin makes the case that qualities such as character or even a voting record do not actually affect whether the candidate or not will win the Presidency election. In fact, the team surrounding the candidate is a much larger, if not the most import variable in determining his fate in the election. Popkin also speaks of the candidate himself as well as his team saying, “Anyone audacious enough to run must also be agile and resilient, and it is that candidate’s assembled team that determines the level of the candidate’s agility and resilience.”
The 2016 Presidential election is coming up and candidates are fighting to get votes to be their party’s candidate. Ted Cruz is a Republican Protestant running for President with very conservative values hoping to bring America the change it needs. The Republicans have many people running for office that excite voters’ interest because they are not politicians. Although, Ted Cruz is a politician and stands behind it using his background in politics to gain ground. His political ad “Blessing” shows him as a man grounded in religious values and will use those values to be the best candidate for President of the United States. Ted Cruz successfully appeals to religious Republicans using different rhetorical strategies to persuade them to vote for him to be the Republican candidate for the 2016 Presidential election.
President-elect Donald Trump shocked the nation in October when a video from 2005 surfaced in which he repeatedly made vulgar comments about women. The presidential hopeful can be heard sexualizing women, using a host of four-letter words, and perhaps most notably, bragging about sexual assault. Indeed, the portion of the video gaining the most traction in the media included Trump saying “when you’re a star … you can do anything” including “[g]rab ‘em by the pussy.”
If President Donald Trump’s actions and intents represent the opposite of economic logic, then what would lead 62,979,879 people to vote for him. Trump’s plan for winning has many parts, but for starters, he largely focused on reviving the lower and middle class’ hopes, spirits, and incomes. The first part of this plan regards the specific language that he utilizes when speaking to the non-wealthy Americans. He is notable for repeating statements such as, “America doesn’t have victories anymore” or “they’re laughing at us”. By utilizing statements such as these, Trump is appealing to his audience’s emotions and implementing scare tactics that will place the listener in a frightened state. He then paints himself as the answer to the fears that
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
The Strengths and Weaknesses of the System of Choosing Presidential Candidates It seems reasonable to conjecture that the Achilles' heel of the modern presidency is one of recruitment. The long-winded delegate nomination process could in theory be replaced by a daylong direct election of presidential candidates. Instead, tradition dictates that the presidential race is drawn out quadrennially over the pre-primary, primary, Party Convention and campaign seasons. All four phases influence the outcome of candidate selection and much also depends on campaign finance, the role of the media and the nominees themselves.
Who would make for a good presidential candidate for the upcoming election? In my opinion, I am a very liberal and open-minded person. So when I am asked this question, I always say Bernie Sanders. I believe that everyone should have a fair and equal shot at what they are doing. Bernie Sanders is one of the only few candidates that is not taking his money from special interest lobbyist his campaign is funded by the people of the United States.
Due to the nature of globalization, rural counties have been on a downward spiral for about several decades. Counties that have once relied on a single monoculture, such as farming and mining, have steadily seen those jobs lost due to foreign competition, automation, and agricultural consolidation (Greenblat). With each passing decade, job opportunities become scarcer, forcing people to either to leave their communities or to accept poverty. This can result in feeling of resentment towards to the in comparison prosperity of urban centers. During the campaign season, Donald Trump would directly appeal to these communities by addressing the fact the blue-collar employment has declined and spoke repeatedly of restoring jobs in the coal and steel industries and promising to renegotiate trade deals and change tax laws to discourage the outsourcing of jobs (Greenblatt). Just like Obama promised change during his presidential run, Donald Trump employed his own complain promises during his speeches. But the difference between the rhetoric of Obama and Trump, is that Donald Trump is specifically targeting a specific demographic with a specific purpose. When a presidential candidate e is specifically addressing your socio-economic status and actions to remedy it, it would be a wise decision to vote for your interests. In contrast, Barrack Obama’s rhetoric during the 2008 presidential election was geared more towards the broader issue of the great recession, an issue that negatively impacted the American electorate across the broader
In the article “The Brutal Economic Truth Behind the Rise of Trump” Anthony Mirhaydari sides with Donald Trump and discusses how he is a good candidate. He argues that although he may be loud, obnoxious, and have very radical foreign policy ideals he still is not an awful choice. He brings up the quotes, “It's the economy stupid” which was coined by James Carville during Bill Clinton's political campaign while he was running for president. He states how people will gravitate and make their main decisions on the economic policies of each candidate. He understands the self interest in human nature and how people want to secure their own personal economic situation before they deal with foreign affairs such as the immigration problem. People will almost always vote for who will help out their economic situation the best and the author feels that Trump has a solid plan and a good grasp of what the problem is.
This election, many people see a solution to this problem through Donald Trump’s political campaign on a platform of “Make America Great Again”. Trump is running, creating new jobs and improving the economy, which appeals to many people who are in the lower and middle classes who have been left behind by economic inequality. Trump’s largest base of support comes from white Americans who do not have a high school degree. This group usually has a very small income, if any at all, because they are less educated. In contrast, those with a college degree have a much easier experience finding work out of college. This means that those without a high school diploma are looking for economic change in order to gain an advantage and proceed with their economic pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Other groups with large support for Trump are people with mobile homes and “old economy jobs” which are, similarly, groups with lower incomes. Trump appeals to these groups such as the “old economy jobs” because they are losing their jobs as new technology emerges. As “old economy jobs” decline, the demand for new jobs increase; the creation of which Donald Trump endorses. Donald Trump is definitely not a traditional conservative, but he has the ability to attract these groups with his platform through his populist appeal. Thus, a person who is lower in the economic gap would lean towards a candidate such as
In the movie “The Candidate” I thought that the film was very interesting to me, being a person that has never been interested in politics. I found it interesting even though I am not for sure if this is the way that campaigns are run now. I thought it was nice to see how some candidates may be chosen, especially in this film because he was not expected to win the election. He was not even interested in politics although his father was once governor. The film showed how the campaign was ran and managed by his advisors. Although not expected to win the election, he somehow
Justice is something that cannot be defined, but does serve as a means to define a healthy and successful society. Every four years, the United States of America, one of the most powerful and democratic nations has an election for the leader of the nation, this year the United States has voted that the two candidates that are facing off for the position of Commander in Chief are businessman Donald Trump and American Politician Hillary Clinton. Both candidates for the presidency offer the American public a sense of change, many Americans see Donald Trump as different because he does not have a history with the Political Establishment and does not depend on money from corporations; Clinton on the other hand, would be the first female President of the United States of America that in itself is a big change. Although both candidates appeal to different types of voters, it is difficult to think about which one of the two is more cogent than the other. Who is the right person for the Oval Office? Using Michael J. Sandel 's book Justice, and the theories explained in the book we can prove that Hillary Clinton is the most cogent candidate when it comes to issues such as refugees, immigration and taxes. Her ideas seem to follow through with the already established ideals of the American public.
The era of volatility has created a shift from America being the middle-class society to simply rich or poor (Sachs, 2011). A gap this large has not been experienced since the 1920’s (Sachs). “The top 1% of households takes almost a quarter of all household income” but an economy this top heavy will not be able to succeed (Sachs, 2011, p. 30). The working classes are struggling with housing, wage, and employment issues. Rich individuals are ignoring these troubles, shipping their business operations out of the country, thus furthering the downward spiral of the economy (Sachs). To make matters worse, this has become in a large part a political issue, because the rich can influence candidates with funding, where the poor and working