Reflection On Presidential Candidates

I sided with Jill Stein on most 2016 Presidential Election issues. Two specific issues from the survey that are the most important to me are education, and science. I agree with Jill Stein on labeling GMOs, and put a temporary prohibition on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe. I also agree with her about cancel all student dept. Dept can be cancel for Wall Street criminals whose waste, fraud and abuse that leads to the crash of our economy. Why not eliminate it for the general public. These positions are both liberal, because they emphasize the need for the government to step in and help. Without government intervention nothing will be done, and these problems will still persist.

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.”

Presidential elections determine who will lead the country for the next fours years. There will always be a winner and a loser but some candidate were remotely bad choices from the start. This has occurred with both Democratic and Republican nominees who will only be recognized for their great defeat. Some of the candidates who were clearly bad choices were George McGovern and Barry Goldwater.

“It is a natural evolution of our mass consciousness to begin to see third parties as a viable option; it is reflected in the corrupt and broken two-party system.” Michelle Augello-Page, an author and writer, uses this quote to speak to the frustration Americans feel about the two-party political system. Since the 1850’s, the Democrats and Republicans have received the majority of the popular vote, while third party candidates struggle election after election (Schechter). The two major party candidates don’t always speak to the issues many Americans want to be addressed. Therefore, Americans must consider voting for third party candidates to ensure democracy works for everyone.

Article two, section one of the United States Constitution discusses the procedures to be followed when electing the president of the United States, but it does not provide guidance for how to nominate a presidential candidate. Currently, candidates go through a series of state primaries and caucuses where, based on the number of votes they receive from the electorate, they are assigned a certain number of delegates who will vote for them at their party’s

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.”

Hilary Clinton 90%. I'm not really surprised by my results because I've voted for democrats for most of my life.

The five candidates for the Democratic nomination for president (Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee) had over two hours to compare their proposals to address the problems of America. The first Democratic debate showed the benefit of having five Candidates’ underside of a dozen candidates, was better in relation to time and especially to don’t have someone like Donald Trump. The debate was not a tournament of personalities, full of insults and grand statements. It was a much filled with information and very civilized.

TAKE THE ISIDEWITH.COM QUIZ TO SEE WHICH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE YOU AGREE MOST WITH BASED ON HIS/HER STANCE ON MAJOR POLICIES. (23)

Every four years, the esteemed presidential position is opened. Through this occasion, American citizens have the power to exercise their right to vote and form their opinions of candidates that they feel will make a better difference for the nation. The Republican GOP Candidacy is consisted of a whopping large number of candidates ready to fight for the competitive one Republican nominee position. Most of these candidates consist of active and former political figures, esteemed businessmen, and an unknown director of pediatric neuroscience. Though these Republican candidates possess popularity and conservative values, former Florida governor John Ellis Bush or Jeb Bush will be the next presidential nominee of the United States because of his successful political experience, extensive

Social location, or the status in life that people have because of their place in a society, have a huge impact on everyone. The impact that social location created could be neutral, but most of the time it will have a positive or negative impact on people. For example, an African American could be discriminated because of his ethnicity, or a patient will choose an older doctor when he needs a treatment. Different social location that we have will affect our decisions in everyday life, and most of the time it happened subconsciously, which means we don’t realize that the decisions we make are based on our social location. Like everyone else, I was affected by my own social location, both positively and negatively.

Another four years another presidential debate. Before I go on to the current debates let me state a few facts about past ones. The Lincoln and Douglas debate was in important because it started Lincoln presidential career. The Debates lasted from August 21 -- October 15. There where seven of them, with two days to two weeks in between. Each debate lasted three hours; first candidate spoke for one hour; the second for one and a half hours; the first replying for a half hour. Candidates alternated going first. The topics involved where primarily slavery and the Union. Other important debates were the '48 and '57. They were the only debates before 1960; there were no presidential debates between 1960 and 1976. In

didn’t have that characteristic. He realizes that the people come first, that is the whole purpose of becoming the president. Serving the citizen would be his number one priority. When he was working for a

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

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