The American General Election Cycle

The 1920 presidential election proved to be memorable as well as historically significant for a number of reasons. This time period is surrounded by important events in American history. It falls directly after World War I, starts the roaring twenties, and leads the United States into the Great Depression. Warren G. Harding was elected president over all other candidates, with promises of life going back to normal conditions. At this point in time, American citizens were desperate for one thing: their old “normal” life. The election of 1920 was important because our nation had just gotten out of World War I, the vote ended in a landslide, and Harding changed the United States for the worse.

The year 1912 brought one of the most important presidential elections in United States history. Four nominees confronted one another during this election: Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson, Progressive leader Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt, Republican William Howard Taft, and Socialist Eugene Debs. This election also proved to be crucial as it brought forth new considerable and “substantive” discussions concerning the Union and its future. These issues included, whether government should expand democracy, apply more control over businesses, and how solve the labor conflict, among others. Each of the four major presidential candidates took a position on these issues, either choosing to support or oppose such changes. The presidential

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.

Assess the extent to which incumbents have an adage over challengers in congressional elections. (25marks)

When the words “swing state” are mentioned, Florida is perhaps one of the first states a person may think of. In this year’s election cycle, the story is no different. Florida has a single senate seat up for election, and Marco Rubio (R), and Patrick Murphy (D) are hoping to claim it on November 8th. Marco Rubio has held that seat since the last senate election in 2010, giving him an edge as the incumbent. Patrick Murphy is the challenger and has been a member of the House of Representatives since 2012. A glance at any polling numbers shows Rubio ahead, and most have shown him ahead since the beginning of the race. The polls do not show a commanding lead, as one may expect from an incumbent. While polling margins are slimmer than many average incumbents, money has not stopped flowing to Rubio. His finances are typical of an incumbent particularly that of a closely contested race. It may be impossible to tell which has the greater effect of Rubio’s fundraising. In states that are typically swing states and have close political races, simple analyses such as incumbency advantage may not fully explain the results and polls in the race.

In the book A Magnificent Catastrophe, the author, Edward J. Larson, depicts a story or stories of the unimaginably eccentric elections that have occurred in the United States of America. The author goes on to write and explain the details that happened in the First Presidential Campaign in the 1800’s. Larson builds a strong case to explain the ideas that the John Adams/Thomas Jefferson “battle” of 1800 brought to the table in accordance to each of their beliefs and how the newly free country should be governed. There were the Federalists, who were led by John Adams, who viewed their America as having a strong government and led by the guiding principles of power to the president and society’s elite. On the other hand, there were the Republicans who were led by Vice-President, Thomas Jefferson; he believed that the government should be egalitarian and allow power to its people,. The presidential campaigns were the first in American history and helped form the ideals of a stable government, which controlled the future for the America we live in today. It is effectively important to notice that Larson explains that, “The longtime friends had become

On November 2, 1920 the presidential election was different than any other election ever.The election was between a republican Warren G. Harding and democrat James M. Cox. Warren G. Harding won the presidential election in a landslide over James M. Cox. Before, the campaign had started Woodrow Wilson was looking to serve a third term but, during Woodrow’s last term he had a lot of criticism from the American people. Woodrow Wilson was unhealthy while trying to win the 1920 presidential election.Warren G. Harding won 404 electoral votes and the democrat James Cox won only 127 electoral votes. People criticized Woodrow Wilson for the reverse of the promise in 1916, which meant he would keep the country out of war but didn’t meant the beginning

The central question that my research paper is trying to answer is why do some states vote drastically different at the state level verses the federal level? I am particularly looking at the differences between Gubernatorial and Presidential races in the time frame of 1980 to 2016. Despite our hyper partisan political climate, there are numerous examples of states who in the most recent election voted heavily for Hillary Clinton (Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont) or Donald Trump (Montana, Louisiana) who have governors of the opposite party who are in power and popular. Over the course of my reading I encountered several explanations as to why the public is willing to vote differently for Governor compared to President. I have decided to

In the 2000 United States Presidential election, the close pre-election polls showed the election could be won by either the Republican or the Democrat Party. Both Parties had two strong candidates, with a handful of other third party candidates, including Green Party and Reform Party representatives. As I watched the results of the 2000 presidential election, I felt bad for Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. The Presidency seemed to be well within Governor George W. Bush’s grasp. The television news networks were showing a big lead for Bush across the country. I turned the television off in my office, and I advised my Soldiers to get back to work. My Soldiers and I were stationed overseas in the Republic of Korea. We were thirteen hours ahead of the Eastern Time zone in the United States. We worked for the Commanding General for all United States Troops in Korea. The General often spoke about the election, but never let on which candidate got his vote. When I turned on the news at home that same evening, I was shocked to learn the presidency had not been decided. It seemed Gore rebounded across the country; however the total vote count in some states is too close to call. The 2000 Presidential election was important to me because the last time a Bush was in office, I found myself overseas as a part of a Multinational Coalition as the United States had declared war on the country of Iraq. In the year 2000, the peninsula of Korea had been in a delicate state with

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

Many people believe sparking conversation about the election is not only wrong but culturally unacceptable. ¨He and his friends have bitter fights over who they want to win the election.¨ Although talking about the election may be controversial and cause verbal and in some cases physical fights, speaking your opinion and knowledge about the election spreads around information that other people may have not known about; which may lead them to chance they vote in some cases. A Hillary supporter might hate Donald Trump because someone on twitter said he's a racist, but then in a debate with a Trump supporter, she would learn that Donald Trump indeed in not a racist whatsoever. Speaking your opinions about the election can be a good thing or a bad thing; if you know what your talking about and your information is correct, yes spreading your knowledge to other individuals is a good advantage for you supported candidate to win. My

Primary elections is conducted within a political party to select candidates who will run for public office in a subsequent elections. Candidates running for any major office is elected first by a primary elections. In other words it nominates candidates for any major political office. The primary election works in a simple way, basically the people vote for any political party (Republican party, Democratic party, Libertarian party, etc.) and the winner of the party’s primary election is officially the candidate that goes on to speak for the party in the main election called the presidential election. There are four types of Primary elections open primaries, closed primaries, semi-open primaries, and runoff primaries. As of today, March 30,

The presidential election process comes down to starts with individuals announcing their candidacy and ultimately seeking to gain 270 electoral votes. Usually, candidates announces their intentions to run in the early months of an election year. Immediately following is a process called the primaries. During this time, candidates run against individuals in their own party. This full of things such as debates and speeches through the country. The point of the primary is to win a parties nomination. This leads up to each parties national convention which takes places at the end of the summer. During this time, a single candidate is selected from each party to run for president. The convention is also a time where party unity is displayed.

For a citizen that follows and contributes to the American election process, one of the most important things to them is that they are being represented properly. The whole reason a person votes in the first place is so that they can be represented in decisions being made within the government. If it were not the job of elected officials to represent the people’s word then voting would never happen. This is a hot topic because everyone wants to make sure they are being represented fairly. There have been issues with how minorities, women, and even people of certain beliefs have been represented. This paper is going to focus on the election process and how minorities are being represented in both negative and positive ways.

Although William Howard Taft had been President Theodore Roosevelt’s handpicked successor, Taft soon proved to be incompetent in many foreign and domestic affairs. To many Americans, it quickly became evident that Taft did not share the same political viewpoints as his successor, Roosevelt, had. Compared to Roosevelt, Taft was not as energetic and ardent; his policies caused much controversy from the Republican Party and Roosevelt himself (Brinkley 606). In addition to Taft’s passivity towards Congress, his administration was significantly comprised of members who did not stress reform. This would lead to poor decisions regarding Progressive Era reforms (Bailey 697). Even though President Taft had a few international accomplishments and domestic achievements dealing with trust busting, his ineptitude in office led to the splitting of the Republican Party and the outrage of former president Roosevelt.