Presidential Election Outcomes From American History

The presidential election of 1860 set the stage for the American Civil war. By 1860, the nation had been divided mostly up to that point regarding questions of states’ rights and slavery in the territories. Southerners were outraged over the plan by abolitionist, John Brown, to start a slave rebellion at Harper Ferry, Virginia. This event garnered headlines all over the nation in newspapers and magazines. On the other hand, the Northern Republic seemed equally anger by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Stanford, which declared free soil unconstitutional. The Northern Democrats, however, struggled to persuade the Americans that their policy of popular sovereignty still made since.

The Election of 1800 was notably to be of the most significant elections in American history of governmental evolvement. It marked once power struggle to a astonishing transfer of power from one party to another in national government; this transfer of power was also accomplished in a non-violent and organized fashion, which marked the evolving maturity of the nation's first system of political parties . The election was a party contest for control of the national government and for determining the direction and management of national policy. This election was the first time both parties used congressional caucuses to nominate candidates for their ballots which was a never heard of occurrence in that day and age. This specific election also made second history in the first, as it was the first presidential election to be decided in the House of Representatives.

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.

The United States Presidential elections are often events that captivate and interest a number of people around the world. The 2000 U.S. presidential election was particularly notable for more than one reason. Certainly, the fact that an election year in the year 2000, the marking of the next millennium and next century, is significant in of itself. In addition, there were a number of critical issues facing the candidates in this election, as with any election. The role, presence, and influence of the United States media were additional factors that heightened the tension of the 2000 presidential election. The election itself was fraught with controversy. The Supreme Court had to be involved and render a ruling with respect to accusation of fraudulent vote counting. Overall, the 2000 United States Presidential Election is an election that is remembered for controversy, polarization of the American public, as well as issues of confusion and mistrust between the American public and the American government.

Formally documented in the constitution the Electoral College is the body that elects the president and vice president elect of the United states. Each state has as many electors in the Electoral college as its representation in the house and senate. When US citizens vote, they are actually voting for the slate of electors vowing to cast their ballots for the ticket in the Electoral College. The history of the electoral college dates back to the Constitutional convention of 1787. The Convention took place in Philadelphia to discuss the concerns of the weak central government that existed under the articles of confederation. Furthermore, at the convention many methods of electing the president was put in consideration, by congress, governors,

While Obama is campaigning for the upcoming presidential election, many citizens have voiced their opposition to re-electing him into office. The economy’s downward spiral over the last four years has affected his loss of votes and now the

How do you think the presidential election is going this year? Many people seem to think that this presidential election is a heated and controversial debate between the Republican and Democratic Party. Some seem to think that as a nation we have never had such contention in an election and that we will never be able to recover from such damage that this election will cause. But history tends to repeat itself in our nation; for example, some of our past elections have caused fear in citizens’ eyes just like this election has done. An example of this is, the presidential election of 1800 between Thomas Jefferson and James Adams, this election caused great worry during that time period. Another election that worried our country deeply was the presidential election of 1860 between Abraham Lincoln and John Breckinridge this election caused our great nation to be divided. Another similarity that both these presidential elections have had, is that at the end of each election the American people have put their political views aside, and united

The Journal Article, Fear in the Voting Booth: The 2004 Presidential Election, was chosen because it offers an analysis of the role that fear played in the first election following the 9/11 attacks. This source focuses on how the fear, anxiety and uncertainty of these attacks influenced voters’ behavior during the election between Republican nominee, George W. Bush and Democratic nominee, John Kerry. This article was chosen because of its specificity which compliments the rest of the sources. The next source comes from the Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior and is called “Issue Salience and Voting Behavior”. This encyclopedia article compliments the rest of the sources well because it allows one to understand

What factors are most accurate in predicting the outcome of a presidential election? In the book The Gamble, by John Sides and Lynn Vavreck, the factors of choice and chance answer this question through analysis of the 2012 presidential election. The term choice refers to the factors that the candidate has no control over, such as what the media chooses to cover and what the campaign chooses to make stances on. Adversely, chance is what the candidate has no control over, such as the state of the economy and partisanship. Sides and Vavreck refer to chance factors as fundamentals. I will argue that the economy plays the greatest role in deciding presidential elections. Campaigns and media are secondary to the economy and underlying voter partisanship, due to their inconsequential effect on voters. I will argue that chance is more important than choice from the evidence provided in the The Gamble, by John Sides and Lynn Vavreck, and Partisan Biases in Economic Accountability, by Larry Bartels. Political scientists evaluate and debate the role of choice versus the role of chance in predicting presidential elections. The economy and partisanship are superior at predicting presidential elections because the fleeting effects of media, the tug-of-war campaigns, strong voter partisanship, and myopic voters.

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

In The Gamble, Sides and Varveck argue that there are three fundamental factors, which play into Presidential elections. These fundamentals are the economy, approval rating, and length of time that the party has held office. According to Sides and Varveck, the bed was made for President Obama’s 2012 reelection. While all three fundamentals played a significant role in 2012, it can be argued that the economy set the groundwork for the other two to follow. (Sides & Varveck, 5)

Backstabbing, smear campaigns, schemes, and controversial polling methods seem commonplace in elections today, but these tactics have been utilized since the turn of the 19th century. During the “revolution of 1800,” two close friends squared off in a political showdown that helped shape modern American politics. This illuminating display shows how politics in America has always been rife with corruption, unwritten agreements, and favors, all of which have become a part of our political system. And by exposing this truth, Ferling shows that our immortalized Founding Fathers were just typical politicians. John Ferling’s Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 tells the narrative of the rise of the nascent union and the politics

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%).

How much does your vote really count? As a voter, does your choice really matter? How much influence does the media have on your vote? How many choices does the media actually make when it comes to our nation's leadership? These are questions pondered by both political scientists and the average American citizen each year as the second Tuesday in November approaches. Though we know that the framers founded this nation on the principles of representing it's citizens, and on the ideals of a nation for the people and by the people; it is obvious that the people feel that their vote doesn't always count. In this paper I plan to expand on these questions and the justifications behind asking them, and I plan to follow up with a specific