Lesson 2, Part 2 Campaigns and ElectionsDuring his 1956 presi.docx

Lesson 2, Part 2: Campaigns and Elections
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to
Adlai E. Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every
thinking person!” Stevenson replied: “That's not enough,
madam, we need a majority!”
Expected Outcomes
To understand how political candidates conduct campaigns; to
comprehend how the American electoral system works and how
the electoral map reveals political turning points; and to analyze
the style and substance of leading candidates in the 2008
election.
Overview
Today, American politics has come a long way since the days of
whistle-stop tours and street pamphlets, which, before the age
of television, encapsulated political messages.
Some Presidential Campaign Slogans from the Past
1860 Abraham Lincoln "Vote Yourself a Farm"
1864 Abraham Lincoln "Don't Swap Horses in the Middle of the
Stream"
1888 Benjamin Harrison "Rejuvenated Republicanism"
1896 William McKinley "Patriotism, Protection, and Prosperity"
1900 William McKinley "A Full Dinner Bucket"
More sophistication has now entered the process of campaign
and elections. Politicians hone their messages with “focus
groups” and, often, modify their positions based on opinion
polls.
As this Lesson travels across time, it reveals that the technology
and sophistication of campaigns has changed dramatically. That

being said, it is not possible to say that campaigns are more
substantive today than in previous decades or centuries.
In the age of the whistle-stop tour, not many Americans were
exposed to political messages – but those who were often got an
earful. Consider, for example, the famous Lincoln-Douglas
debates of 1858 (held for a US Senate seat from Illinois), were
complex, nuanced, and substantive. Today, television enables
candidates to reach out to tens of millions of people, but they
often do so with a simplistic mix of soundbites, catchphrases
and bumper-sticker slogans.
Elections for Congress are held at the state level, and rules vary
from state to state. This unit is primarily concerned with
campaigns and elections for national office – for the
Presidency.
The United States Electoral College is the official name of the
group of Presidential Electors who are chosen every four years
to cast the electoral vote and thereby elect the president and
vice president of the United States. It was established by Article
Two, Section One of the United States Constitution, which
provides for a quadrennial election of Presidential Electors in
each state.
In each election, there are 538 possible electoral votes to be
won (270 are needed to win), with large states such as
California worth more than small states such as Rhode Island.
There is a rough but not exact correlation between population
size and electoral votes.
The Electoral College dilutes the votes of population centers
that might have different concerns from the rest of the country.
The system is supposed to require presidential candidates to
appeal to many different types of interests, rather than, say, the
urban voter.

Thinly-populated states like Wyoming are worth 3 votes, even
though they have only about 500,000 people. As a result of
these inherent imbalances, it is possible for a candidate to lose
the popular vote but still win in the right combination of states,
thus putting him over the top. Bush in 2000, for example, lost
the popular vote but won the electoral vote as decided by the
Supreme Court. This is a “winner take all system.” If a
candidate wins California by just one vote, for example, he or
she wins all 55 votes and the rivals win zero.
John Kerry (D-MA) actually won California in 2004 (as did Al
Gore in 2000), but that was not enough to hold back the red tide
of Republican states in the heartland, and President George
Bush won re-election.
Each state is worth between 3 and 55 votes depending on the
last census estimate of population. In the system above, small
states with few people are actually overvalued because they
receive 3 votes. In reality, many states are divided by county,
and even many counties are divided, giving rise to the concept
of a “Purple America.” Some centrist Republicans and Centrist
democrats ran in 2008 not in terms of shoring up existing Red
or Blue “bases” but rather by appealing to moderates and
centrists in each state, hoping to sway “purple” into either “red”
or “blue.”
Since getting an amendment to the Constitution passed is
unrealistic in today's political environment, the only realistic
way to modify the Electoral College is to change how states
select their electors. Most states allot electors based on who
wins the popular vote in the state ("winner take all," as
previously mentioned). However, there are other ways a state
could allot these votes. A state could award electoral votes
based on which candidate won each congressional district in the
state. Or, a state could allocate the electoral vote
proportionally as a result of the state-wide election results.

Campaigns and Advertising
Reaching a position of candidacy for public office requires
campaigning. It has often required meeting citizens, and
pressing the flesh, in schools, factories and universities.
A century ago, candidates simply boarded a train and undertook
a “whistle-stop tour” of America, stopping when crowds
gathered to give a speech. Television, however, revolutionized
political campaigns, especially at the national level.
While advertising for commercial products – like soap –
normally emphasizes its positive qualities, political ads are
distinguished by the fact that many of them are so negative.
They not only point out the advantages of the principal
candidate but also point out the disadvantages or weaknesses of
the rival.
The first truly negative ad that made a deep impact on the
campaign was that of Lyndon Johnson against Barry Goldwater,
an Arizona Republican considered by many to be an extremist
and a war-monger.
Johnson took out an ad that implied that under a Goldwater
presidency there would be an atomic World War III. The ad
showed a young girl plucking the leaves of a daisy, and then a
male narrator counted down: 3, 2, 1…. BOOM!
The DAISY ad is widely considered to be the most effective and
powerful political advertisement ever concocted. Check it out:
Daisy Girl: Lyndon Johnson 1964
Clearly, in the past several decades there has been a shift in
political advertising from positive to negative. Virtually all
campaigns for state-wide office, and for the president, contain

many negative ads about the opposing candidate – ads that
question his or her character, record, motivations, sexuality or
any feature that reflects negatively on that person. But the
below are not the only incidents to consider. As you can see in
the Founding Fathers' Dirty Campaign article, contention has
been around since the earliest days.
Some advertisements are positive, emphasizing the
contributions and characters of the candidate. Now, you will be
seeing the most interesting political ads here. Some are positive
and others negative. Be sure to analyze the ad from the
perspective of marketing. Who is the target audience? What is
the strategy?
Please explore the following links:
Reagan 1984 Ad - "It's Morning in America Again"
Commercial: Bush 1988 Election Ad - Willie
HortonClinton/Gore 1996 Campaign Ad--Bob Dole's Record
Wrong for Our Future Swiftboat Veterans Ad on John Kerry -
Sellout (2004)1984The 1960 Election (Kennedy v. Nixon)
In 1960, the era of Dwight D. Eisenhower was coming to an
end. He had completed two terms as a Republican president and
was most famous for leading US forces in Europe during WWII.
Eisenhower had been a popular and relatively successful
president, but many Americans were eager for a fresh face and a
new party.
Recalling the experience of 1928 Catholic Democratic
presidential nominee Al Smith, many wondered if anti-Catholic
prejudice would affect Kennedy's standing among non-
Catholics. Kennedy's victory over Humphrey in the largely
Protestant state of West Virginia proved decisive. Kennedy,
with a youthful image and the aid of his father's Joseph P.
Kennedy political skills, carried the nomination at the
Democratic convention in Los Angeles. Kennedy selected

Johnson, the Senate Majority Leader, as his vice presidential
candidate to balance the ticket and secure Southern votes. Many
Southern Democrats were opposed to the national Democratic
Party's platform on civil and voting rights.
A crucial factor in this election was the first televised
presidential debate. Nixon refused television makeup and
appeared tired, especially in contrast to Kennedy. It is a
commonly repeated story that voters who had listened to the
debate on radio thought Nixon had won, but the television
audience gave the win to Kennedy.
The main economic issue during the election was the USSR's
high economic growth rate in comparison to the United States'.
According to analysis at the time, the Soviet economy was
expected to overtake the American economy by 1984. Kennedy
also claimed the Republican administration had allowed a
missile gap by not matching Soviet defense spending and
allowing the military to weaken. The claim was made plausible
by Soviet superiority in the space program, evidenced by their
successful Sputnik program and numerous United States launch
failures. However, there is evidence there never was a gap as far
as missiles were concerned.
The November 8 election was extremely close-- Kennedy beat
Nixon by two tenths of a percentage point (0.2%) in the popular
vote. The New York Times, summarizing the discussion late in
November, spoke of a “narrow consensus” among the experts
that Kennedy had won more than he lost as a result of his
Catholicism.
Some Republicans alleged that Kennedy benefited from vote
fraud especially in Texas and Illinois. There is no certainty that
Nixon would have won both Texas and Illinois (which he would
have had to do to win the electoral vote). What is certain,
however, is that in Illinois, Kennedy won by a bare 9,000 votes,

and Mayor Daley, who held back Chicago's vote until late in the
evening, provided an extraordinary Cook County margin of
victory of 450,000 votes. The Republican party urged Nixon to
pursue recounts and challenge the validity of some of the votes
for Kennedy, especially in the pivotal states of Illinois,
Missouri and New Jersey, where large majorities in Catholic
precincts handed Kennedy the election. Nixon publicly refused
to call for a recount, saying it would cause a constitutional
crisis.
The 1968 Election (Nixon v. Johnson)
In 1968, President Lyndon Baines Johnson announced that he
would not be seeking re-election. The war in Vietnam was
draining his presidency of energy and popularity, and LBJ had
become a much-hated figure on college campuses. Johnson had
won in 1964 shortly after assuming the presidency in the wake
of John F. Kennedy’s assassination.
The election of 1968 revolved around many issues, particularly
around civil rights and the war raging in Vietnam. The
campaign also included the assassination of liberal Democratic
candidate Robert F. Kennedy, John’s younger brother.
Hubert Humphrey, the Democratic candidate, was damaged by
the scenes of riots and chaos at the Chicago Convention. Thus,
Richard Nixon, who had previously been a presidential
candidate, won handily on a law-and-order platform by
appealing to America’s “silent majority.”
The emergence of the hippie counterculture, the rise of New
Left activism, and the emergence of the Black Power movement
exacerbated social and cultural cleavages between classes,
generations and races. Every summer during Johnson's
administration, known thereafter as the "long, hot summers",
major US cities erupted in massive race riots that left hundreds
dead and destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars in property.

The Vietnam War had escalated, with over 500,000 Americans
inside the country, suffering thousands of casualties every
month. The Tet Offensive of February 1968 made the war front-
page news for the first time. The military demanded hundreds of
thousands more soldiers--which could only be provided by a
draft because Johnson refused to use the Reserves of the
National Guard. In the months following Tet, Johnson's
approval ratings fell below 35%.
The American Independent Party was formed by George
Wallace, whose pro-segregation policies had been rejected by
the mainstream of the Democratic party. The impact of the
Wallace campaign was substantial, winning the electoral votes
of several states in the Deep South. Wallace also accomplished
a strong showing in several northern states.
Nixon campaigned on a "law and order" theme, which appealed
to many voters angry at hundreds of violent riots that had taken
place across the country, with Army troops called out in Detroit
and Washington. He had devised a "southern strategy," which
was designed to appeal to the middle class southern voters, who
traditionally voted Democratic but who were ignored by
Humphrey.
Humphrey campaigned on continuing the Great Society
programs initiated by President Johnson. Labor unions took a
major role attacking Wallace, who was winning half their
members according to summer polls.
In the end, the war became the central issue of the Democratic
campaign, with the party deeply divided and Humphrey hounded
by anti-war protesters whenever he made public appearances.
Late in the campaign Humphrey, who trailed badly in the polls,
began to distance himself from the Johnson administration on
the Vietnam War, calling for a bombing halt. He began to gain

momentum, especially when President Johnson actually
announced a bombing halt, and even a possible peace deal,
shortly before the election. During the campaign, Nixon
promised a new approach, which was ridiculed by Democrats as
a "secret plan" although Nixon never actually claimed to have a
'secret plan.' In the final days of the election, much was riding
on the success or failure of the Paris Peace Talks with the North
Vietnamese.
Nixon clinched the electoral vote easily on November 5, 1968,
although the popular vote was closer than expected.
The 1972 Election (Nixon v. McGovern)
By 1972, the Vietnam War had not calmed down. If anything,
the war had become the central issue in American society. The
issue of civil rights for African-Americans was also central. The
1972 election was a landslide.
George McGovern ran on a platform of ending the Vietnam War
and instituting guaranteed minimum incomes for the nation's
poor.
Nixon ran a harsh campaign with an aggressive policy of
keeping tabs on perceived enemies, and his campaign aides
committed the Watergate burglary to steal Democratic Party
information during the election.
Nixon's level of personal involvement with the burglary was
never clear, but his tactics during the later coverup would
eventually destroy his public support and lead to his
resignation. Also, Nixon's so-called "southern strategy" of
reducing the pressure for school desegregation and otherwise
restricting federal efforts on behalf of blacks had a powerful
attraction to northern-blue collar workers as well as
southerners.

The 1972 campaign witnessed the birth of “gonzo journalism.”
This guerrilla-style reporting paid little respect to the old code
of conduct, and Hunter S. Thompson loaded up on alcohol and
drugs to cover the events.
Nixon won the election in a landslide, but the seeds of his
eventual ouster were planted as people working for his
campaign broke into the Democratic headquarters in the
Watergate hotel.
The 1980 Election (Reagan v. Carter)
Jimmy Carter had won the presidential election in 1976 rather
handily. He promised to restore honesty and integrity to the
White House after the Republican Party’s scandals concerning
the Watergate break-in.
Jimmy Carter did in fact live up to his promise never to lie to
the American people, and he is widely considered to be an
honorable person, but his administration was plagued by
economic recession and foreign policy disasters.
In many ways, Carter had to suffer the consequences of the
1973 oil embargo. This OPEC-led embargo was originally
inspired by the Arab nations’ hostility to the US having helped
Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The embargo was short, but
it strengthened the oil cartel. Saudi Arabia and other nations
managed to drive up the price of oil slowly but steadily, leading
to inflation, recession and “stagflation” (high inflation with
high unemployment, two indicators which do not normally
accompany one another).
Apart from economic difficulties, the Iranian Revolution of
1979 led to the Iranian taking of American diplomats as
hostages. This was an ordeal played out day after day. When
Carter organized a rescue attempt, two large helicopters crashed
in the Iranian desert, and the American hostages remained in

Teheran. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan highlighted
America’s weak military position.
Ronald Reagan, a former actor and Governor of California,
found that the political landscape was fertile for his message:
“It’s Morning in America.” Reagan promised a return to the
1950s-style formula of aggressively confronting communism,
defending traditional values at home, and bolstering free market
principles.
This election was a landslide for Ronald Reagan. The 1980
election is considered by some to be a realigning election,
meaning that it fundamentally altered the electoral map for the
parties. In effect, Reagan attracted many conservative
Democrats, called “Reagan Democrats,” especially in the South.
Reagan took the South away from the Democrats – and with the
exception of Bill Clinton, who made some gains into the South,
the Democrats have never been able to make inroads into this
region.
Reagan ran a campaign of upbeat optimism, together with
implications of a more militarily aggressive foreign policy. This
contrasted with the "malaise"-ridden attitude of the late Carter
administration and its apparent impotence in the face of the Iran
hostage crisis. Towards the end of the campaign, as Carter's poll
numbers continued to slip and Reagan's rose, Carter responded
with more militaristic rhetoric and announced plans to
reinstitute the military draft; this succeeded only in alienating
some of Carter's supporters. With inflation and interest rates at
record highs, and unemployment stubbornly high, Carter had
few boasts to make about the economy. He had a pro-feminist
record, but the management of many women's groups attacked
him for not doing even more. On foreign policy the Soviet
invasion of Afghanistan spelled the end of detente and the
renewal of the Cold War. Carter moved to the right, but Reagan
was already there.

Reagan promised a restoration of the nation's military strength.
Reagan also promised an end to "'trust me' government" and to
restore economic health by implementing a supply-side
economic policy. Reagan promised a balanced budget within
three years (which he said would be "the beginning of the end
of inflation"), accompanied by a 30% reduction in taxes over
those same years. With respect to the economy, Reagan
famously said, "A recession is when your neighbor loses his
job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when
Jimmy Carter loses his."
In August, after the Republican National Convention, Ronald
Reagan gave a campaign speech at an annual county fair on the
outskirts of Philadelphia, Mississippi, which civil rights leaders
said was an insensitive reminder of the Mississippi civil rights
worker murders of 1964.
Reagan announced, "I believe in states' rights." He also said, "I
believe we have distorted the balance of our government today
by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the
Constitution to that federal establishment." He went on to
promise to "restore to states and local governments the power
that properly belongs to them." [1] Critics claimed that the
speech signaled Reagan's opposition to the civil rights reforms
of the 1960s. However, Reagan supporters would argue that the
speech was simply a statement of Reagan's conservative
political ideals.
As in most elections fought against an incumbent, the voters
already had a clear impression of Carter, which was largely
negative by this time, and both sides spent most of their effort
trying to define Reagan, the challenger. The campaign was
largely negative, with many voters disliking Carter but also
perceiving Reagan as an intellectual lightweight, possibly
unable to handle the presidency and with various questionable

policies.
The election of 1980 was a key turning point in American
politics. It signaled the new electoral power of the suburbs and
the Sun Belt. Reagan's success as a conservative would initiate
a realigning of the parties, as liberal Republicans and
conservative Democrats would either leave politics or change
party affiliations through the 1980s and 1990s to leave the
parties much more ideologically polarized.
Although Reagan's candidacy was burdened by Representative
John B. Anderson of Illinois, a liberal Republican who ran as an
independent, the three major issues of the campaign were far
greater threats to Carter's prospects for reelection: the economy,
national security, and the Iranian hostage crisis. Carter seemed
unable to control inflation and had not succeeded in obtaining
the release of US hostages in Tehran before the election, losing
eight soldiers in a failed attempt to mount a rescue.
The election was held on November 4, 1980. Reagan won by
10% of the popular vote. Republicans also gained control of the
Senate for the first time in twenty-five years on Reagan's
coattails. The electoral college vote was a landslide, with 489
votes (representing 44 states) for Reagan and 49 for Carter
(representing 6 states and the District of Columbia).
The 1992 Election (Clinton v. Bush Sr.)
The 1992 election witnessed the emergence of sex scandals on
the national political scene. True, Senator Gary Hart had to drop
out of the Democratic primaries in 1988 because of a
photograph showing he and a lover on the ship the “Monkey
Business,” but 1992 was the first time such issues became truly
national. Unfortunately for Bill Clinton, who would win this
election, it was not the last time, and he would be periodically
hindered by what his critics called “the bimbo factor.”

Gennifer Flowers - The 12-Year Affair
So, let's go to the videotape, shall we? On January 26, 1992,
Bill and Hillary Clinton appeared on CBS's "60 Minutes" to
confront Gennifer Flowers's lurid account of a 12- year love
affair with the candidate in the supermarket tabloid the Star.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Flowers was paid upwards
of $140,000 for her story.
On CBS' "60 Minutes," Steve Croft asked Bill Clinton about
Flowers' accusation of a 12-year affair. "That allegation," he
replied firmly "is false."
In response to a backup question, Clinton added that both he
and Flowers herself had previously denied the affair. He went
on famously to acknowledge having "caused pain in my
marriage," added that he trusted voters to understand what he
meant by that, and indicated that he and Hillary would have
nothing more to say about it.
In effect, Clinton had admitted adultery. Croft never asked the
conclusive "have you ever" question, and Clinton certainly
never answered it. Long before the CBS interview, Clinton was
firmly on record as saying that he thought it out of bounds and
would never under any circumstances answer it. It's been
reported that he made that understanding an explicit condition
of the "60 Minutes" interview.
In a contemporaneous ABC News poll, 73 percent of
respondents said they agreed with Clinton that whether or not
he'd ever had an extramarital affair was between him and his
wife.
On the following day, Flowers herself held a press conference
in a New York hotel ballroom. Dressed in a scarlet dress with
matching lipstick, she played excerpts from tape-recordings of
several telephone conversations with Clinton.

The U.S. presidential election of 1992 featured a three-way
battle between Republican George Bush, the incumbent
President; Democrat Bill Clinton, the governor of Arkansas; and
independent candidate Ross Perot, a Texas businessman.
Bush had alienated much of his conservative base by breaking
his 1988 campaign pledge against raising taxes, the economy
had sunk into recession, and his perceived best strength, foreign
policy, was regarded as much less important following the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the relatively peaceful climate
in the Middle East following the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War.
Clinton successfully capitalized on these weaknesses by running
as a centrist New Democrat and won the presidency.
The Bush reelection effort was built around a set of ideas
traditionally used by incumbents: experience and trust. It was in
some ways a battle of generations. George H. W. Bush, 68,
probably the last president to have served in World War II,
faced a young challenger in Bill Clinton who, at age 46, had
never served in the military and had participated in protests
against the Vietnam War. In emphasizing his experience as
president and commander-in-chief, Bush also drew attention to
what he characterized as Clinton's lack of judgment and
character.
For his part, Bill Clinton organized his campaign around
another of the oldest and most powerful themes in electoral
politics: change. As a youth, Clinton had once met President
John F. Kennedy, and in his own campaign 30 years later, much
of his rhetoric challenging Americans to accept change
consciously echoed that of Kennedy in his 1960 campaign.
As Governor of Arkansas for 12 years, then Governor Clinton
could point to his experience in wrestling with the very issues
of economic growth, education and health care that were,

according to public opinion polls, among President Bush's chief
vulnerabilities. Where President Bush offered an economic
program based on lower taxes and cuts in government spending,
Governor Clinton proposed higher taxes on the wealthy and
increased spending on investments in education, transportation
and communications that, he believed, would boost the nation's
productivity and growth and thereby lower the deficit.
Similarly, Governor Clinton's health care proposals to control
costs called for much heavier involvement by the federal
government than President Bush's. During the campaign,
Governor Clinton hardened a soft public image when he
controversially traveled back to Arkansas to oversee the
execution of functionally retarded inmate Ricky Ray Rector.
The slogan “It's the economy, stupid” (coined by Democratic
strategist James Carville) was used internally in the Clinton
campaign to remind staffers to keep their focus on Bush's
economic performance and not get distracted by other issues.
Governor Clinton successfully hammered home the theme of
change throughout the campaign, as well as in a round of three
televised debates with President Bush and Ross Perot in
October.
On November 3, Bill Clinton won election as the 42nd President
of the United States by a wide margin in the U.S. Electoral
College, despite receiving only 43 percent of the popular vote.
It was the first time since 1968 that a candidate won the White
House with under 50 percent of the popular vote. The state of
Arkansas was the only state in the entire country that gave the
majority of its vote to a single candidate; the rest were won by
pluralities of the vote.
The 2000 Election (Bush Jr. v. Gore)
The 2000 election was held between Democrat Al Gore, Bill
Clinton’s former Vice President, and Republican George W.
Bush, former Governor of Texas.

The period of economic growth under Bill Clinton did not
translate into support for Al Gore. Some analysts even wonder
if Gore’s distancing himself from Clinton’s sex scandal hurt his
reputation among voters, who value personal loyalty to a
president. Other analysts think that George Bush won largely
because of Karl Rove’s “smear machine,” which elevated the
tactics of negative campaigning to new heights (or depths).
Certainly, the 2000 election was one of the first in which
national economic issues and military issues largely took a back
seat to the “culture wars.” Evangelical voters, who had felt
sidelined by the Clinton administration, turned out to vote for
Bush and his policies of “family values.”
The 2000 election was settled in the Supreme Court, and the
outcome angered many liberals and centrists, largely because
the justices appeared to vote along partisan lines – that is, in
favor of the party under whose previous presidents had
nominated them to office. Furthermore, the conservative
justices distanced themselves from the states’ rights argument,
which is often invoked on the conservative side, and they cited
the 14th Amendment, generally their least favorite amendment.
Critics charged that the conservative justices were rejecting
their basic principles in order to decide the election in favor of
Bush.
Infuriating democrats and liberals even further, the Court then
claimed that their opinion - which can be certainly be
considered “activist” for overturning a state decision - should
be restricted to this case and should not set precedent: “Our
consideration is limited to the present circumstances…”
The 2000 Supreme Court Per Curiam:
The recount process, in its features here described, is
inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect

the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a
statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial
officer. Our consideration is limited to the present
circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election
processes generally presents many complexities…
None are more conscious of the vital limits on judicial authority
than are the members of this Court, and none stand more in
admiration of the Constitution’s design to leave the selection of
the president to the people, through their legislatures, and to the
political sphere. When contending parties invoke the process of
the courts, however, it becomes our unsought responsibility to
resolve the federal and constitutional issues the judicial system
has been forced to confront.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is reversed, and
the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent
with this opinion.
Justice Stevens wrote a dissent:
Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will
be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain.
Although we may never know with complete certainty the
identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the
identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s
confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of
law.
After the Court’s 5-4 decision, George Bush emerged as the
winner of the 2000 election because he reached, with Florida,
the sufficient number of electoral votes. He did lose the total
number of popular votes, however. George Bush is the only
president to be reelected after having lost the popular vote in
his first election. Previous presidents who did not win the
majority of the popular vote (John Quincy Adams, Rutherford
B. Hayes, and Benjamin Harrison) were not reelected.
The 2004 Election (Bush Jr. v. Kerry)

The election campaign was widely seen as a referendum on
Bush's job performance to date, in particular his leadership in
the prosecution of the "War on Terror." Bush defended the
actions of his administration, while Kerry contended that the
war had been incompetently executed, and that the Iraq War was
a distraction from the "War on Terror," not a part of it.
President Bush focused his campaign on national security,
presenting himself as a decisive leader and contrasted Kerry as
a "flip-flopper." Bush's point was that Americans could trust
him to be tough on terrorism while Kerry would be "uncertain in
the face of danger." One of Kerry's slogans was, "Stronger at
home, respected in the world." This advanced the suggestion
that Kerry would pay more attention to domestic concerns; it
also encapsulated Kerry's contention that Bush had alienated
American allies by his foreign policy.
Americans who based their vote on the issues of terrorism or
moral values tended to support President Bush. Those who
focused on the war in Iraq or economic issues like jobs and
health care more often backed Kerry.
Over the course of Bush's first term in office, his extremely
high approval ratings immediately following the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks steadily dwindled, peaking only during
combat operations in Iraq in the Spring of 2003, and again
following the capture of Saddam Hussein in December the same
year. Kerry supporters attempted to capitalize on the dwindling
popularity to rally anti-war sentiment, symbolized by the box-
office success of Fahrenheit 9/11 in the summer of 2004.
However, there was also a surprising focus on events that
occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This scrutiny was
most intense in August and September of 2004. Bush was
accused in the Killian documents of failing to fulfill his
required service in the Texas Air National Guard.

Meanwhile, Kerry was accused by the Swift Vets and POWs for
Truth, who averred that "phony war crimes charges, his
exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his
deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of
Swift boat operations compels us to step forward." The group
challenged the legitimacy of each of the combat medals awarded
to Kerry by the U.S. Navy, and the disposition of his
discharge. None of these accusations proved truthful.
The election took place on Election Day, November 2, but it
was not until the next day that the winner was determined. The
election hinged on Ohio, a controversial battleground state
which operated black box voting machines, except in some
southern counties, such as Hamilton which used a paper punch
card ballot. But, at midday the day after the election, Kerry
conceded he had lost the Buckeye State, and the election along
with it. The final certified count showed 286 votes for Bush,
251 for Kerry, and 1 for Edwards (due to a faithless elector
pledged to Kerry voting for Edwards).
According to Republicans (and some Democrats), President
Bush won the 2004 vote in terms of both popular and electoral
votes (it’s the latter that matters). Bush supporters insist that
the president won re-election because of his strong stance on
the war on terror and the overall economy, which had been
growing.
According to some Democrats, however, the decisive factor in
the Ohio election was setting up too few voting booths in
African American neighborhoods (which lean heavily
democratic), leading to excessively long lines compared to
white Republican voting places.
The Conyers Report was an attempt to document the “voter
suppression” that allegedly put George W. Bush into the lead.

Not all Democrats – and certainly few if any Republicans –
agree with the Conyers Report, but it contributes to the
perception among international election monitors that there are
deep problems in the current voting process.
The 2008 Election (McCain v. Obama)
The 2008 Presidential Election was a very hard fought battle as
there was no incumbent President or Vice President running,
and there was no clear favorite. The Democrats made the
ongoing conflict in Iraq a central issue of the campaign, while
the Republicans tried to maintain their historic advantage in
foreign policy. On the domestic front, Republicans argued that
the economy expanded rapidly since 2003, while the Democrats
tried to make the point that only the wealthiest citizens were
benefitting from the economic expansion.
On the Democratic side, New York Senator Hillary Clinton had
name recognition, but she was a very divisive figure in the
opinion polls. Illinois Senator Barack Obama was the party's
golden child, but it was questionable if voters thought he would
be ready for the presidency. Obama managed to win the
Democratic Party nomination over Clinton, Biden, and many
others.
Arizona Senator John McCain led the pack for the Republican
Party and leaned to the right politically to secure his party’s
nomination for president over many other candidates.
The 2008 Presidential Election was dominated by the following
issues:
· Iraq War - Candidates were running for cover if they voted for
the war, and saying "I told you so" if they didn't.
· Abortion Debate - For decades, pro life and pro choice groups
have used every Presidential election to sound off.
· Illegal Immigration - Candidates walked on eggshells when
discussing illegal immigration because nobody had an easy
solution.
· Pay as You Go Budgeting - The economy was soaring, but so
was the budget deficit.

· Universal Healthcare System - Every election cycle, we hear
about the forty million uninsured citizens. There is no shortage
of proposed solutions, but none are guaranteed to work.
In the three most recent presidential administrations in which
the president could not run for a third term due to term limits
(those of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton), the incumbent vice
president ran for president (Richard Nixon lost the 1960
election, George H. W. Bush won the 1988 election, and Al
Gore lost the 2000 election).
However, Vice President Dick Cheney, announced in 2001 that
he would never run for president, a statement he reiterated in
2004. While appearing on Fox News Sunday, Cheney stated: "I
will say just as hard as I possibly know how to say... If
nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."
The 2008 race was a non-incumbent or "open seat" election in
which a sitting president wais not a candidate. It was the first
time since 1928 that neither the sitting president nor the sitting
vice president ran for president, though the 1952 general
election between Dwight D. Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson
did not include a sitting president or vice president since neither
President Harry Truman (who dropped out after losing the New
Hampshire Primary) nor Vice President Alben Barkley won the
Democratic nomination.
Senator Obama defeated Senator McCain mainly by positioning
himself as the candidate for change, from the war in Iraq to the
domestic economy. He campaigned hard across the country and
across the Internet, targeting minority voters. This approach
worked as he handily defeated McCain.
The 2012 Election (Obama v. Romney)
With an incumbent president running for re-election against
token opposition, the race for the Democratic nomination was
largely uneventful.
For the first time in modern Republican Party history, three
different candidates won the first three primary contests in
January. Although Mitt Romney had been expected to win in at

least Iowa and New Hampshire, Rick Santorum won Iowa by 34
votes, Newt Gingrich won South Carolina by a surprisingly
large margin, and Romney won only in New Hampshire.
Santorum, who had previously run an essentially one-state
campaign in Iowa, was able to organize a national campaign
after his surprising victory in Iowa. He unexpectedly carried
three states in a row on February 7, and overtook Romney in
nationwide opinion polls, becoming the only candidate in the
race to effectively challenge the notion that Romney was the
inevitable nominee. However, Romney won all of the other
contests and regained his first-place status in nationwide
opinion polls by the end of February.
The 2012 election marked the first time since FDR’s last two re-
elections in 1940 and 1944 that a Democratic presidential
candidate won an absolute majority of the popular vote in two
consecutive elections. Obama was also the first president of
either party to secure at least 51% of the popular vote in two
elections since Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956.
Romney lost his home state of Massachusetts by more than
23%, the first time this has happened for a major-party
candidate since John Fremont in 1856! In addition, since
Obama carried Ryan's home state of Wisconsin, the Romney-
Ryan ticket was the first major-party ticket since 1972 to have
both of its nominees lose their home states.
Combined with the re-elections of Bill Clinton and George W
Bush, Obama's victory in the 2012 election marked only the
second time in American history that three consecutive
presidents achieved re-election (the first time being the
consecutive two-term presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and
Monroe).
Conclusion
Presidential elections are more than determining who is going to

occupy to Oval Office. The direction of the nation itself is
largely determined by the presidents it chooses, and for this
reason, every four years the United States witnesses the
spectacle of a presidential election.
Alexis de Tocqueville, a Frenchman who wrote Democracy in
America, commented on this phenomenon.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America:
“Long before the appointed day arrives, the election becomes
the greatest, and one might say the only, affair occupying men's
minds.... The President, for his part, is absorbed in the task of
defending himself before the majority.... As the election draws
near, intrigues grow more active and agitation is more lively
and widespread. The citizens divide up into several camps....
The whole nation gets into a feverish state…”
Lesson 2, Part 1: Political Opinion and Political Parties
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart;
and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no
brains.”
-Winston Churchill
Expected Outcomes
To understand the philosophical differences between
conservative, liberal, populist and libertarian cultures; to
comprehend the impact of race and gender on political opinion;
and to evaluate the differences between the Republican and
Democratic parties.
Overview
Opinion is the driving force of politics, and this unit examines
how opinion acts upon the structures and processes of
government (which were described and analyzed in the first part

of this course).
When a critical mass of citizens feels strongly about an issue,
they pressure Congress to pass laws favorable to their opinion
or they vote a president in or out. Controversial topics in
American society today include:
· Abortion
· Stem-Cell Research
· Death Penalty
· Welfare
· Gun Control
· Patriot Act
· Guantanamo
· Deficit Spending
· Illegal Immigration
· Same-sex Marriage
· Marijuana
The Spectrum of Opinion: Liberal, Conservative, Populist and
Libertarian
The United States has four political cultures: Conservative,
Liberal, Populist and Libertarian, with the first two being the
most dominant.
Conservatives, who today tend to affiliate with the Republican
Party, also tend to prefer order; and liberals, who tend to
affiliate with the Democratic Party, tend to prefer equality, but
there are much more profound differences to be explored below.
Again, the United States is primarily characterized by a
spectrum of opinion ranging from liberal on the left to
conservative on the right. Traditionally, most people were in the
middle, but in recent decades there has been a polarization of
opinion. Today, liberals are very liberal and conservatives are
very conservative, with fewer people occupying the middle
ground.

Conservative Thought
Conservatives prefer that the government stay out of the
economy as much as possible. They see government regulation
as interference. Also, conservatives believe that the overall
economy performs best when industry and management is given
wide latitude. Specifically, these views pertain to “economic
conservatism."
In this same line of thinking, economic conservatives place
little faith in affirmative action programs to lift up the lives of
the poor and of minorities; they prefer to contribute to a culture
of hard work and sacrifice. For this reason, conservatives tend
to support standardized testing in schools and performance-
based pay for teachers.
Most conservatives also believe in a strong moral order, which
means that the government must frame culture, regulating
individual behavior: drug addiction, homosexuality and other
forms of behavior that oppose traditional morality. One reason
for this is that most conservatives (but not all) also self-identify
themselves as Christians or with related terms: evangelicals,
born-again Christians, fundamentalists or Dominionists. Most
Christians would point out that the Bible is clear regarding
matters of personal and sexual morality.
“Conservative” justices of the Supreme Court who practice
“judicial restraint” believe that the U.S. Constitution should be
considered: 1) as literally as possible; and, 2) with the “original
intent” of the signers. This tends to advance the concept of
“States’ rights.”
The criticism often made against conservatives is that they have
a reflexive tendency towards authoritarianism and protecting the
powerful against the powerless; that the States’ rights argument
is a thinly-disguised excuse to perpetuate race and class
imbalances; that conservative judges are in fact “activist” when

it comes to imposing conservative morality (like prohibiting
States from legalizing medical marijuana); and that the
Founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be
fossilized in the 18th century.
Liberal Thought
Liberals (left-wing) want to government to intervene in the
economy in order to produce a leveling of social differences and
to help the disadvantaged – not just the poor or minority groups,
but also the disabled, the uninsured, illegal immigrants and
other classes of people. Liberals have also been in favor of
heavy government regulation of industry in order to protect the
environment, and the “global warming” issue is high on the
agenda.
Liberals tend to not want the government to interfere in
personal matters. They approve of government in the corporate
boardroom, but not in the private bedroom. Many liberals wish
to see the legalization of same-sex marriage, and they do not
want the government to censor “obscene” material in the media.
Liberals also tend to favor the Roe v. Wade decision that allows
abortion. Perhaps paradoxically, liberals tend to favor the
legalization of drugs (in order to treat the drug problem as a
medical one), but the near criminalization of tobacco.
Liberals are also wary of any “excessive entanglement” between
Church and State, and share Thomas Jefferson’s preference for a
“wall of separation.” This philosophy originally emerged from
the “Enlightenment” era and its populist reaction to perceived
abuses by the alliance between Church and Crown – an alliance
which had been cemented by the “Divine Right of Kings.”
Some liberals wish to repeal the Second Amendment, with its
right to bear arms, and others even reject the interpretation of
the right to bear arms as extending to private citizens.

“Liberal” justices who advocate or practice “judicial activism”
or “active liberty” believe that the Constitution should be a
living document, a flexible text that needs to adapt to the times.
The Constitution, they believe, needs to allow for the expansion
and growth of individual liberty and minority rights.
There are, however, two additional political philosophies in the
United States: populism and libertarianism. While nor
dominant, they sometimes emerge in third parties or
movements.
Populist
Populists tend to come from the Upper Midwest, where small
farmers needed government protection against the abuses of
railroad monopolies, and where industrial workers’ unions
depended upon government to take their side in negotiations
with industry. Populists prefer government intervention in the
economy in order to prevent abuses of power and monopoly
capitalism.
While both right-wing and left-wing populists tend to be
“economic populists,” “conservative populists” are moralistic in
social and sexual matters while “progressive populists” are
more libertarian. Populists of both stripes are strongest in
Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan.
Libertarians
Libertarians tend to favor a reduced role of the government in
both the economy and in the culture. They agree with
conservatives in economic and financial matters; they agree
with liberals in cultural matters, even to the point of allowing
for gambling and prostitution (in Nevada). Libertarians are
strongest in Nevada and Montana.
Simply put, and as a generalization, conservatives want small
government in the economy and big government in the culture.

Liberals want small government in the culture and big
government in the economy. Libertarians want small
government in both spheres; populists want large government in
both spheres.
It has been said that Americans are now tending to gravitate
toward holding either quite liberal or quite conservative views
on the above issues. Fewer people, apparently, occupy the
political center than before, but the degree of political distance
between one side and another, or “polarization” in American
society is difficult to measure, and some political scientists
wonder if we are more divided today than a generation ago.
Generally speaking, the more passionate one’s opinions are the
more active one will participate in politics. Abortion is an
emotional issue that creates much activity among “pro-life” and
“pro-choice” citizens. Aside from the normal way of
participating in politics – voting – these activists join
demonstrations, make telephone calls and use the courts to
advance their cause.
Clearly, polarization is evident today in Congress. Republican
and Democratic members of Congress are not in agreement
regarding numerous issues, such as health care, and many other
issues. One reason for the political polarization in the U.S. is
that the Cold War is over. For 50 years, having a common
enemy (the USSR) unified Republicans and Democrats on many
basic issues. While the global war on terror provided a short-
term sense of unity, and political rivalries today are intense.
Many members of Congress take their political cues from
opinion polls, which measure how people feel about the issues
listed above. Pollsters fan out across the country to ask people a
few questions as they conduct their daily business. Other
pollsters use the telephone or Internet, asking people for a few
minutes of their time.

But, how do people actually form their political opinions?
One’s family is an important factor. A father or mother’s
political orientation is often passed down to children at the
kitchen table. Teachers and peers also play a role. Increasingly,
mass media and cable news (like Fox or CNN) help shape
peoples’ ideas. These ideas – and the people who hold them –
end up affiliating with rival political parties and political
cultures.
It is useful to point out that reasonable and principled people
can hold either liberal and/or conservative views.
Unfortunately, the media and the campaign trail have given
way, recently, to a “demonization” of one side or another. Radio
“shock jocks” on the left or right ignore that the Declaration of
Independence and the U.S. Constitution contain both liberal and
conservative principles.
As a final thought, conservative economic policies are largely
responsible for the dynamism and innovation which animate the
American economy; and liberal policies are responsible for
ending child labor in the United States, providing wheelchair
ramps for the disabled and launching “Head Start.” Both
philosophies have contributed to the betterment of the nation.
The Demographics of Opinion
“Demographics” refers to the study of populations and, in this
case, how different population groups exhibit different political
opinions and voting patterns.
Gender and Opinion
On many issues, there is not much difference between the
opinions of men and women, but regarding military
intervention, for example, men are considerably more pro-
intervention and pro-military than women. In greater numbers
than men, women tend to back diplomatic solutions to

international problems, even if such approaches do not appear
to produce immediate results.
On other issues, there is a surprising disparity of opinion.
Throughout the 1970s, for example, more men than women (as a
percentage) were actually in favor of the Equal Rights
Amendment (or ERA) which would have changed the U.S.
Constitution to eliminate any separate treatment based on
gender. Conservative groups, religious organizations and
political action committees formed largely by women were
largely responsible for blocking the ERA (for better or for
worse).
Political pundits have long speculated over the “gender gap”
come election time. Women tend to vote more Democratic than
men, who tend to vote more Republican. This difference is
narrowing, however, due in large part to the number of
Christian women in 2004 who voted against Senator Kerry
because of his liberalist leanings.
The role of gender in politics is certainly lessening over time,
however. Women have already won most of the legal and
political battles that impeded their professional progress. Also,
mainstream American culture no longer exerts as much pressure
on women to become wives or mothers, as this was the social
pressure that in past decades led to a resistant feminist
movement. Arguably, a much more defining factor in political
opinion is race more than gender.
Race and Opinion
The question of racial or ethnic identity and political opinion
and voting has preoccupied political scientists for generations.
Generally speaking, political scientists have measured all non-
Anglo groups against the Anglo norm, as this was up until
recently the dominant group numerically. Today, Anglos are

still in the majority, but barely, and in many states, like Texas,
Anglos are a “majority-minority,” meaning that Hispanics and
African-Americans together outnumber Anglos. Thus, many of
the older assumptions and categories no longer apply –
especially as new generations of Americans are born of one
Anglo parent and another Hispanic parent, for example.
Still, the field of political science has always assumed that
Anglos were more or less evenly divided along liberal and
conservative lines, nationally speaking. Geography and class
then provided further subdivisions.
For a long time, Hispanics tended to vote Democratic, but today
Hispanics resemble the Anglo population in that its vote is not
necessarily one-sided or predictable.
For the purposes of this course, “Hispanics” are Americans of
Latin American descent (from many countries), and they are to
be distinguished from “Mexicans” and even from “Mexican-
Americans,” as this latter group often retains many legal,
political and cultural connections to Mexico. Similarly
“Latinos” does not include the notion of having put down roots
in America; tourists can be Latinos. “Hispanics,” by contrast,
are a fully American group.
A new and interesting theory is emerging in Political Science
(and by no means universally accepted): If a wave of Mexican
immigrants are regularized or legalized in the United States
(through amnesty or whatever other program), it is possible that
they would vote Democratic in the short run (out of economic
interest), but Republican in the long run (being culturally
conservative).
African-American citizens have fairly stable political opinions
regarding the liberal-conservative spectrum, although in recent
years a small, but vocal, minority within the African-American

community has taken a conservative turn. Still, African-
Americans remain the most politically stable population in that
they rarely fall below a 90% voting rate for the Democratic
Party.
Traditionally, African-Americans have held liberal beliefs in
that they have looked to the federal government for redress and
solutions to problems of racial discrimination. After all, in
many southern states, white majorities denied African-
Americans real access to election polls, to adequate public
education and even to justice in the courts under the banner of
“states’ rights.” For Reverand Martin Luther King Jr., the
federal government (and specifically the Supreme Court) was
the only weapon available to break the back of southern racial
segregation.
For similar reasons, African-Americans have looked to the
federal government to intervene in the economy – and to mass
movements to demand federal action. This liberal or progressive
line of thought is evident in the philosophies of Reverend
Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be
demanded by the oppressed."
-Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King
Not all African-Americans agree, however. A few, like Alan
Keyes, believe that federal programs have created a culture of
dependency among African-Americans, and that the “reverse
discrimination” of affirmative action and quotas has produced a
backlash of resentment, moving the country even further away
from being colorblind.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Secretary of
State Condoleeza Rice are two African Americans who do not

think the federal government should be as activist regarding
racial matters as it once was, and they also put faith in the
defense establishment and in the military.
So, while Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson continue in the liberal-
progressive current of Martin Luther King, Alan Keyes
represents a much smaller but still growing group of
conservative African-Americans. Just how small are they? Only
about 11% of African-Americans voted for President George W.
Bush in the 2004 election.
On cultural issues, African-Americans are about as equally
divided as other demographic groups. African-American
participation in church is high, and these religious affiliations
tend to produce what they would describe as pro-life and pro-
family opinions. Other African-Americans, more secular and
tending to live in larger metropolitan centers, tend to hold more
liberal attitudes about culture.
Compared to Anglo Americans, African-Americans do reflect a
much more liberal or progressive set of ideas regarding the role
of the federal government in the economy and in politics.
African-Americans are also largely opposed to the Iraq War – a
position held long before the war became unpopular among
whites as well.
The Republican and Democratic Parties
The United States has a two-party system with occasional third
parties and numerous smaller parties. These third parties will be
examined in a subsequent unit.
The two-party system is the product of U.S. election law, which
has a “winner-take-all” electoral system. For example, a
presidential candidate who wins the state of California by one
vote carries all its electoral votes for that state; his opponent
gets zero. For this reason, political forces tend to congregate

around one or the other party. Generally speaking, Republicans
and Democrats have represented two rival cultural groups.
The Republican Party
The modern Republican Party is built upon a coalition of white-
collar management, investors, agribusiness, conservative
religious groups, Cuban-Americans and established Hispanics.
The Republican Party is primarily geared towards protecting the
free-market system and preserving traditional family values.
This is the party that includes Abraham Lincoln, Teddy
Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.
The Republican Party also prides itself on its effort to restore
the work ethic and eliminate the culture of dependency on a
welfare state. President Ronald Reagan was one of the first
Republican presidents to attempt to roll back many of the social
programs begun in FDR’s “New Deal” or with Johnson’s “Great
Society.”
The Republican Party is also more popular with people in the
military, as Republicans have been traditionally seen as stronger
supporters of national defense. The Republican Party has
traditionally led challenges to Fidel Castro’s Cuba, the Soviet
Union and other communist regimes.
Critics of the Republicans would say that in recent years the
Republicans have moved away from free market principles to
the protection of monopolies. Also, critics of the Republican
Party charge that too many of its members launched head first
into Iraq without questioning the consequences of having a
protracted occupation. Another major criticism of Republicans
is that too many place great faith in the federal government and
its intelligence services, which might lead to a “Big Brother”
government of domestic spying.
One vocal critic of the Republican Party is actually a

Republican from Texas with libertarian leanings, Ron Paul. In a
recent debate with the other Republican candidates, he reminded
them that the Republicans used to be truly “conservative” and
opposed to military intervention unless absolutely necessary;
opposed to nation-building; and opposed to excessively large
defense budgets. This echoes President Dwight Eisenhower,
also a Republican, who warned Americans of the rapid growth
of a “military-industrial complex.”
Today, the Republican Party might be better described as “neo-
conservative” than “conservative,” as it has put some distance
between itself and the ideas of previous Republican
administrations.
The Democratic Party
The modern Democratic Party is built upon the “New Deal”
coalition of industrial blue-collar workers, immigrants, minority
groups (particularly African-Americans), small farmers,
teachers and academics. This New Deal coalition was pieced
together by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s,
when free-market capitalism collapsed during the Great
Depression. As FDR and his backers saw it, there was no choice
left to the U.S. government than to expand programs of training
and entitlements. This is the Party of FDR, John F Kennedy,
Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.
This New Deal coalition has changed somewhat, as unions are
no longer powerful. Still, people in large cities and immigrant
groups tend to vote Democratic. The Democratic Party tends to
attract people who self-identify as progressives, liberals,
modernists and secularists. Democrats pride themselves on
being the party of JFK, who launched the Apollo program to
reach the moon and who started the Peace Corps.
Critics of the Democratic Party would say that the Democratic
Party has gone too far in the direction of providing “free

lunches” with a vast array of social services, and that the party
is steadily constructing a cradle-to-grave welfare system.
Finally, conservative Republicans do not like the tendency
among many Democrats to be in favor of same-sex marriage and
the decriminalization of drugs. Also, detractors of the party
insist that Democrats are weak on national defense, and that
they would not take strong military action against Iran or North
Korea if the crisis became extreme.
Conclusion
It used to be that most people were strongly Democratic or
Republican – that their sense of “party ID” was pronounced.
Then, beginning in the 1970s, more Americans became
“Independent,” voting in one election for a Republican and in
another for a Democrat – depending on the candidate. Many
voters increasingly split their vote, voting for a Republican
national candidate and, on the same ballot, a Democratic local
candidate.
Today, while there is an increasing degree of polarization in
terms of ideology; people are not necessarily turning toward
traditional political parties for guidance.

Lesson 2, Part 2 Campaigns and ElectionsDuring his 1956 presi.docx

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Mehr von SHIVA101531

Mehr von SHIVA101531 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Lesson 2, Part 2 Campaigns and ElectionsDuring his 1956 presi.docx