The Presidential Election Of 2016

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 results of both the 2004 and 2012 Presidential elections were the same as both incumbents were able to capitalize on the voters being comfortable with them. Additional, since both incumbents had access to national assets, four years of on the job training, and “insider information” they were able to speak in-depth on a wide range of issues both foreign and domestic. In 2004, the largest and most important issue to the nation was the war in Iraqi and in 2012 it was the nation’s economy. Given the incumbents access to firsthand information on the issues at large, they were able to weaken their opponents in the nation’s eyes by dismantling the candidate’s strategies on the issues. History has shown that nations trend to focus more on domestic

The 2012 presidential election was fundamentally different than the presidential election of 2004. In 2004, George W Bush defeated John Kerry with 62,028,719 votes, which was essentially 50.8 percent of the ballots cast. In 2004 the issue that was of most concern for Americans was terrorism. Furthermore, the attacks on September 11th 2001 served in bringing the country together to help secure the win for Bush. The polling data shows that 52 percent of the people believed that Bush would do a better job dealing with terrorism and homeland security, versus 29 percent for Kerry. Voters seemed to prefer Bush in dealing with problems in Iraq, 50 to 37 and furthermore, on moral issues, by 47 to 29. Kerry was ahead 48 to 32 on jobs and unemployment and by a fairly wide margin of 51 to 28 on health care. When comparing how people voted, Kerry had the majority of

Watching the 2016 Republican candidates battle for the presidency of the United States, one might reach the conclusion that Ronald Reagan never left the campaign trail.  In the second GOP debate alone, the “Great Communicator’s” name was brought up a total of 23 times, which even exceeds the number of times Donald Trump mentioned China.  One of the comments coming from Jeb Bush was “I’m on the Reagan side of this.”  Additionally, Senator Marco Rubio stated that “Reagan and his approach worked (CITE).”  The candidates worked hard to evoke memories of and make comparisons to the beloved former president.  The debate even took place in the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California.  Reagan has been constantly praised by those on the

The 2004 presidential election was a re-election year, with current President George Bush with the republican ticket and as the democratic representative was John Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts. While the country watched the election and debates get underway, they decided that the candidates stance on the war in Iraq, terrorism, and the economy would be the separating difference of who would take office. As America watched the campaigns play out, they were finally able to decide on November 2, 2004 who would be their commander-in-chief. The 2004 election was set on a scene of war in the backdrop, similarly the 1944 election resembled the same scenery. From 1944 to 2004 to 2016, the key issues and the stance of each candidate needed to take

To sum up the 2016 presidential election cycle in one word: anomalous. Unconventional candidates and unprecedented campaign strategies made for one of the zaniest election years to date. And yet, this election was not free from the traditional problems regarding voter turnout, which has historically had a tremendous impact on the results of elections; whichever demographics turn out—or fail to—on that fateful Tuesday will determine the winners and the losers. Logically, then, the federal government should want to give as many people as possible the chance to get to the polls. However, this is simply not the case. The American Election day falls on a work day, unlike that of many global democratic counterparts. As such, work obligations frequently prevent a large proportion of Americans from casting their ballots, thereby potentially skewing the election results, and acting as a form of voter suppression. Making election day a holiday would prove to be entirely too costly to the economy; instead, election day should simply fall on a weekend day. This would give more Americans the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights and therefore result in a more accurate reflection of the desires of the American people.

In United States politics, voters are frequently placed into smaller groups or cohorts based on their social, economic, and even political views. The general public, pollsters, and even candidates will assume that these groups or cohorts will vote similarly, regardless of the type or magnitude of election. In the 2016 presidential election the two main candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump specifically targeted and campaigned towards some of these groups of voters in an effort to try and win the presidency. Among these targeted groups were independent/third-party voters, women, Millennials, African-Americans, Hispanics, and evangelical voters. One of the most influential groups of voters in the 2016 election was the independent or

The main goal of the plan is to bring fairness to our trade with China. Under the Trump administration, trade will flourish but it must also be fair trade. Its Great Wall of Protectionism uses unlawful tariff and nontariff barriers to keep American companies out of China and to tilt the playing field in their favor. The trade plan will include declaring China a currency manipulator, stopping China’s intellectual property violations, and reclaiming millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards. He will also strengthen our negotiating position by lowering our corporate tax rate to keep American companies and jobs here at home, attacking our debt and deficit so China cannot use financial blackmail against us, and bolstering the U.S. military presence in the East and South China Seas to discourage Chinese adventurism. As Donald Trump has said himself,“I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created, I tell you that. I’ll bring back our jobs from China, from Japan, from Mexico and from so many places. I’ll bring back our money. … Sadly, the American dream is dead. But if I get elected president, I will bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before, and we will make America great

America is warming up everyday due to the presidential election, which is going to be held on on Nov 8, 2016. People are talking about the upcoming presidential election everywhere. It is the best time for them to speak on for and against to the candidates. Even the general people are so excited about their favorite candidate to win this presidential election race, they keep on talking about Hilary should win because of this and that reason and some say Donald J Trump should win because of this and that reason etc.

With the presidential election right around the corner, many Americans insist on not voting. They see the choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as a choice between the lesser of two evils. They feel as if both presidential candidates are untrustworthy and an adverse depiction of the country. It seems to be a very difficult decision facing the American people today. But as American citizens with the right to vote, everyone should utilize this privilege. After all, the future of the country is determined by it. In Hillary Clinton’s DNC speech, she attempts to persuade the American people that she is capable of becoming the next president.

The 2016 Presidential Elections are right around the corner and many Americans are waiting until their votes are counted to find out who will be the President of the United States of America for the 2016-2020 term. All across America, the presidential candidates are attempting to get your support and to get your vote, but do these candidates really want to rebuild America and make this country great again? In these races there are many highly qualified candidates who want to grab your attention and address specific topics where they feel they are more qualified than their fellow candidates. Throughout all of the candidate’s campaigns, you have probably noticed many advertisements, posters and commercial’s with the contenders trying to gain your vote by accusing other candidates for failures or stating how they are “going to rebuild America.” The Republican and Democratic primaries are coming up in a month’s time. The Democratic Party is more straightforward with Hillary Clinton as the front-runner with Burney Sanders following behind. The Republican Party is more spread out with various candidates including Donald Trump (the front-runner), followed by Dr. Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, John Kasich and Rand Paul. Donald Trump, the leading candidate for the Republican Party, follows two goals stated in the Preamble of the United States Constitution: provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

As a nation, American’s face many issues that must fixed be as a whole. We face issues about our healthcare, education, taxes, immigration, etc. In the election of 2016 the two most important issues to focus on are healthcare regarding abortions, and the second amendment. Healthcare has been an ever-changing controversy, especially with the recently instated Obamacare in 2010. Between the two presidential nominees, Obamacare and abortion have been a debatable topic of choosing whether or not our country will face the direction of pro-life or pro-choice. Secondly, the next issue to focus on is the second amendment, which states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Recently, with the 2016 election underway, the second amendment has also been controversial in debating how far gun control should be taken.

On September 26, 2016, 84 million people tuned in to the most watched debate in American history (Battaglio). 84 million of the 135 million people who are estimated to vote in the United States’ 2016 presidential election fulfilled their citizen duties on becoming aware of the candidates’ policies in order to make an informed decision when voting happens in November (Battaglio). About 60% of estimated voters watched the raw debate so where will the rest of the voters get their information from? They will most likely watch the morning or evening news the next day but the problem is that the news will not be covering the hard facts of the debate. They will be talking about how many times Trump interrupted Clinton, Clinton’s ‘robotic’ answers, and possibly even update us on Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt’s divorce. The viewers will miss out on being informed about important issues such as tax policies and wage gaps that Americans face everyday. They are going to be informing us on things that grab our attention, things that will raise their viewership and make them more money. News outlets are now entertainment driven. As Al Gore points out in The Assault of Reason, the idea of celebrification of the news negatively affected our public sphere in 2007 and continues to harm the public sphere today. As a result, the public sphere is worse off today than in 2007.

America’s diminishing faith in free trade has been a controversial topic in the 2016 presidential election. As the former Secretary of State to a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has changed her attitude in regards to the Trans-Pacific Partnership because these different positions have allowed her to view different perspectives in international relations. When she was Secretary of State promoting the TPP was her duty but as a presidential candidate she spoke against it, claiming it is “for more new good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans.” In an interview with PBS Clinton argued that the TPP “kills American Jobs” because there is no safety net support that American workers need in order “to be able to compete and win the global economy”. Meanwhile as seen in Donald Trump’s campaign website, the Trans-Pacific Partnership undermines our economy and it will also threaten American independence. Trump told Breitbart News that “he would negotiate trade deals with individual countries, rather than a giant multinational deals like TPP” yet he tells Fox News that he is all for free trade “but it’s got to be fair” and wishes to go back to the days when America used to produce their own items.

The U.S. presidential elections are the most important events in all of American government. There are many differences and similarities when elections are compared throughout history in the United States. The 19th century was a time when the presidential era was considered nothing more but a job. The presidents was not held to the same standards as he (or she in the future) is in this day and age. Little effort was made in regards to publicly addressing an audience or making the general public happy. The president was merely seen as a civil servant. Congress was considered the most important part of the government’s because it controlled the federal budget and legislation. , the president is considered the voice of our country and is equipped with power that was not seen in the past. Differences and similarities in presidential elections of the late 19th, early 20th century and with the elections of today are present. Campaigning and debating are all comparable areas of presidential elections throughout history. One of the most interesting elections in recent memory was the Presidential election in 1992. This was a time when America had achieved something historic by achieving the greatest victory in modern American history. How did the commander-in-chief defeat the Iraqi Army and then lose an election to a unknown Governor from the poor state of Arkansa? A great campaign,