Minority Candidates Advantages And Disadvantages

Throughout all levels of American politics incumbents running for reelection have a huge and systematic advantage over their challengers. In this paper, the incumbency advantage will be examined through the lens of James “Jim” McDermott’s continual reelection in Washington’s 7th Congressional District and Sharpe James, the longtime mayor of Newark. James’ incumbency advantage is especially interesting in the context of 2002 mayoral campaign, where he was nearly unseated by Cory Booker. Both McDermott and James served their constituents for over 30 years and developed sizable incumbency advantages, though in some cases they were used in different ways. Looking at the differences demographically between Newark and Washington’s 7th Congressional District can be striking, but if instead the incumbency advantage is considered, the similarities are wide reaching and fascinating. In this paper, six major elements of incumbency advantage will be looked at: name recognition, party advantage, redistricting, constituency service, focus on candidates and special incumbent privileges.

26. This document demonstrates the amount of money raised by both political parties, the democrats and republicans, in 2010 to pay for their election campaign. It reveals that campaigning is very expensive in our system. This document relates to the topic interest groups in which we covered in class. Based on the document the Democratic Party made the most money for campaigning, which can allocate for them winning the election that year.

In a system of governance, if a hung parliament occurs, that is, when a parliament has no single party and thus no legitimate way to form a government, the government can actually gain advantages. Instead of a single party majority, minority governments allow multiple parties to govern. A minority government does not hinder a governing party because it promotes accountability to the legislature, which allows a more flexible decision-making process, that ultimately provides a Prime Minister different powers to maintain control which allows an efficient government.

Fundraising success correlates strongly with electoral success. In 2002, 95 percent of House winners raised more than their opponents. In 2004, more than 95 percent of House winners outspent their opponents. (4 “Money Is the Victor in 2002 Midterm Elections,” Center for Responsive Politics, Nov. 6, 2002. 5 “2004 Election Outcome: Money Wins,” Center for Responsive Politics, Nov. 3,

This made whites worried that other groups have too much power; Abramowitz points out that white flight of “racially resentful” voters from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party has increased racial polarization down party lines (p. 35). Now Democrats rely more and more on the votes of any group of nonwhite voters. Nonwhite voters are generally more accepting of activist government, so Democrats are as well, so fiscal conservatives flee the Democratic party, so economics are polarized as well (p.33).

The names of the authors that wrote an article titled Candidates and Policy in the United States Senate Elections are Gerald C. Wright and Michael B. Berkman. Although the previous literature on the subject suggests, that policy is not a major factor in the decision-making process, the article argued otherwise.

A representative’s constituents are not only voters of the district, but of the state as well. Scholars have evaluated the influences of polarization in the Congress over time (Jones, 2010; Theriault, 2008; Jessee and Theriault, 2012) rarely take into account the dynamics of state and local politics together in a multilevel analysis. Nor even take into account strategic spending decisions by outside groups to spend money in the district based on state-level political environment factors. This combined with presidential politics leads to possible state influences on districts, and coupled with the strategic nature of spending resources in uncompetitive elections, and presidential vote share determines whether a state or district is competitive (Abramowitz and Saunders, 2008; Dowling and Miller, 2012). Therefore, the following hypothesis is

During the 2012 presidential elections, many of the vote turnout rates revealed that the minority vote was the most decisive and important vote for the election. In fact, the minority vote, in 2012, was accredited for Barrack Obama’s presidential incumbency. An example analysis of the aforementioned statement was shown in the Minority Turnout Determined the 2012 Election article by William H. Frey. In his article Frey reports that “[the] increased minority turnout was indeed responsible for Obama’s win in the 2012 election… during this period, the (typically Democratic leaning) combined Black and Hispanic electorate rose to approach nearly quarter of eligible voters” (The Brookings Institution). Frey’s research helps illustrate how crucial,

The clearest and most precise way to comprehend and analyze the data is by constructing tables and graphs in which the data can be systematically grouped in order of clearest relevance. Once the total number of in house lobbyist, outside lobbyist and money spent on lobbyist are compiled into graphs viewers will have a much simpler time dissecting and discerning the value of the data. By observing the amount of lobbyist present for these organizations and the amount of money spent on lobbyist by each organization, onlookers will began to see the expansive role lobbyist play in American politics.

Forty six years later the NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund released Defending Democracy: Confronting the Modern Barriers to Voting Rights in America; a report revealing that there is a connection “between the trend of increasing, unprecedented African American and Latino voter turnout and an onslaught of restrictive measures across the country designed to stem electoral strength

I now realize that this type of organizational arrangement only dilutes the potential of fruitful academic research and the multiplicity of potential literature that addresses issues of race in public administration. This annotated bibliography is a great example of this argument. The available literature on race while limited in some areas is quite vast encompassing various facets of race and diversity in political science. Here the readings cover race and diversity as they relate to political partisanship, political participation, and political representation. These veins of literature date back to the early twentieth century, but the democratic underpinnings of this literature pre-date modern

People within higher economic status are more likely to be politically active due to their work experience, social position, occupation, and education. All of these reasons are intertwined into the voter’s economic status. The voter’s political position within their community makes them more likely to be involved within politics. Work experience reflects a person's education; the better educated a person is the higher a person’s income is. In addition, a person's occupation establishes the voter within their economic category. A person social position is reflected by a person's income and position within their community.

How the republican party gain black-american votes, is more or less the same as the democratic party gained votes using their own strategies. As both parties have been influencing minorities, ethnic groups have been sought after as voting blocs and attracted by one or another political party based on agendas designed specifically for them (Zake and Gormly, 469–490). This offers insight on how strategies were used not just by the republican but also by the democratic party, this insight offers an opposing viewpoint of Brown that the Republican party was not the only party to use political strategies that were constructed to create diversity. There are many ways that ethnic groups and minorities have been part of political content, during the 1930s the Democratic Nationalities Division found itself engaged in political work even in the periods between the election campaigns and its task was to generate a long-term strategy for appealing to ethnic voters. It consisted of a person or two looking after foreign language affairs (Zake and Gormly, 469–490). The Democrats’ strategy was to put senators or congressmen as the leaders of these foreign languages sections and thus avoid conflicts and power competition among different leaders within the ethnic group. Doing this gives other minorities a sense of accomplishment. Going back to the republicans

While the 2012 election was a close race, it ultimately came down to the presence of minorities to determine the outcome of the vote. The change came down to a few factors, first a shift in the turnout of different groups of eligible voters, a change in preferences for the candidates they vote for and the eligible voter population had changed significantly demographically. They stated how the black turnout rose nearly two percent and has been the highest since 1968 when they first began conducting the census surveys. After Barack Obama was elected president, many Americans believed that we would transition into a post racial society, but as we see the numerous instances of racial conflicts keep happening we see that this is far from true. I

Early voting statistics in presidential elections provide us with demographic data that helps us understand the characteristics and situations of the citizens who are most likely to take advantage of early voting. After watching the video “Rachel Maddow – GOP targets Democratic turnout with war on early voting,” one can become very interested in the concept that African Americans, minorities, and Democrats makeup the majority of voters who take advantage of this system of early voting.