Why The 2016 Election Is Different

The election of 2016 was an event that brought out the worst in Americans. Joanne B. Freeman describes that the constant arguing between voters and the persistent burlesquing between candidates in the most recent election is not all that different than the 1800 election. Both elections also used forms of media of the time to gain votes. The media of 1800 were newspapers, rather than instagram posts and tweets. I agree with these notions and that the election of 1800 is not a “stepping-stone to modern party politics”. I think this way as well. The two elections are extremely different because the recent election was majority focused on the two-party system, while the 1800 election came down to two candidates of the same, democratic-republican,

The election of 1860 and 2016 divided our country. There are some similarities and differences, but both elections had the same effect. Each point in time had problems, and each candidate had a different point of view on how to solve these problems. The people who are voting for our future president need to have some background information, so that’s what I’m going to give to you. Hopefully after reading this, you will be sure the person you’re voting for is right for the country.

The government of the United States is bought and sold like stocks. Billionaires and corporations have poured an incomprehensible amount of money into thousands of political campaigns. According to opensecrets.org, the average cost to win a senate race is now $11,474,362. For the 2016 presidential race alone the Koch brothers plan on spending $889 million. It is nearly impossible to win an election without the support of billionaires and corporations. The impact that money has on elections has spiraled of control. A political revolution to fix the power the wealthy have in politics is already happening. Senator Bernie Sanders is the one leading this revolution. Even without the revolutionary policies, Sanders would set in place to end the American Oligarchy his campaign is still important. Sanders leading by example and showing the country that it is possible to run a campaign without support from the elite. Sanders campaign has raised $75 million so far with an average donation of only $25. If

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.

Have you ever felt like an outsider? Did you ever feel like you didn’t fit in and you weren’t accepted? Well, I don’t think it’s much of a problem for the outsiders in this upcoming presidential election. The presidential candidates, Donald J. Trump and Bernie Sanders, are known as the “outsiders” of the election but, are gaining so much support and acceptance. Sanders is a highly Liberal candidate who wishes for many free social systems for the United states while Trump is a conservative business man who wishes to “Make America Great Again” (“About Donald…”). The people that are voting for Trump are not going to back down any time soon or change their minds but, when it comes down to a general election, the majority of the United States population seems to side with Bernie Sanders.

The next presidential election will be one like no one has ever seen before in terms of campaign funding and expenses. Even now, the GOP Presidential Primary races are already showing signs of how money will not be an object for their presidential candidate. The seemingly limitless budget exists for these candidates thanks to the so-called Super PACs (Political Action Committees). These Super PACs are allowed to come up with independent financing for the presidential campaign, sans any budgetary ceilings. The inner workings of such a committee has left a bad taste in the mouths of the voters even though very little is known about the actual history and reasons for the existence of the Super PACS. This paper will delve into the committee's

With the campaign contribution, money plays a major role in the partisan elections. It leads to long ballots causing problems for citizens in terms of elections. Voters are able to partake in the straight

Effective election campaigns have always relied on the candidates’ ability to raise money. Even in the days before television, radio and the internet, it still took money to get the word out to the people in a far-flung land. However, today’s candidates are faced with raising larger and larger amounts of money with each new election that comes along.

The 1992 and 2012 U.S. Presidential Elections were two of the most famously negative campaigns in history and share multiple similarities despite being separated by twenty years. In 1992, incumbent President George H.W. Bush was seeking reelection against Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, while the 2012 general election saw incumbent President Barack Obama seeking reelection against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. The campaigns of both incumbent presidents incorporated heavy use of television attack advertisements in the attempt to improve their political image, discredit their opponent, and win reelection.

With the upcoming presidential election, it has been interesting to learn about things as they are actually happening in our country today. Among the many issues that surround the race to the office, financing the presidential election seems to be a major topic that is always in the public eye.      There are many different views on how the election should be financed but it is hard to tell how far government funding and donations can go before democracy is left behind.

Candidates such as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are surrounded by money. This will allow for easy unlimited funding from the citizens who agree with their views and will benefit from them winning. Presidents would obviously reward these organizations once elected in one way or another. This will allow wealthy individuals to make a much more significant impact on elections. While old PACs had a cap on how much could be donated by individuals, while prohibiting organizations and companies from donating, these new “isolates” super PACs can receive unlimited donations. A major company may decide to spend a few million dollars to support a specific candidate if it could return profit on the investment from taxation policies the winning candidate puts in place. This puts a large importance on money in the election, and less on debates and views. This is shown in the current election, with two of the candidates being some of the biggest financial influencers in the United States. Donald Trump is one of the faces of the business world and has huge influences in the business world. Hillary Clinton was a former first lady and has many large backings. This election has two of the biggest iconic faces in this country, most likely due to this new

The 2004 and 2012 Presidential Elections demonstrated the voter’s commitment to incumbent Presidents during tough times and major crises. In 2004, voters were interested in foreign policy, terrorism and the current wars. In 2012 the national focus was the economy, following the financial crisis that began in 2008. Consequently, the challenging nominees had backgrounds appropriate for the issues, but had the inability to stand out as a better option. Perhaps because, typically incumbents have the advantage of better name recognition, experience and their agenda has had longer time to be defined.

In the land of politics, the more money that one has is the better. This is no exception when it comes to campaigns and elections. The goal of any political campaign is to get their nominee the votes they need to win. Whether this is through negative or positive campaign tactics, one thing can fuel a campaigns success is money. Money in a campaign means that more advertising can be bought. This is the perfect way to get the candidate seen by the public and is also a way to paint a negative picture of the other candidate. However, questions can be raised where does the money that funds campaigns or campaign advertisement come from, should there be regulations imposed to monitor where it comes from and what part of the campaign does this money fund? Questions like these and more were answered in the Supreme Court Case Citizens United Vs. Federal Election Commissions and many were not happy about this ruling.

The presidential election of 2000 between Bush and Al Gore was one of the most tendentious ballads of all time. Due to miscounted votes in Florida the election was ordered a recount, to initiate who would be our next president of the United States. Katherine Harris, the Secretary of State of Florida certifies the recount to occur in all fairness to the people. She concurred that 18 out of the 67 counties didn’t run their ballots through for a second time. This was also one of the closest election we have had in presidential history, 327 was the difference between the referendum. The 2000 election was more legitimate than it was counterfeit. Allowing there to be a recount giving a deadline of December 12th is legitimate to figure out who will

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 about 50.8 percent of the ballots cast. In 2004 the issue that was of most concern for Americans was terrorism. The attacks on September 11th 2001 under George Bush's first year in office, seemed to bring the country together in a way not seen since the second world war. 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 on Iraq, 50 to 37; on moral values, by 47 to 29. Kerry led 48 to 32 on jobs and unemployment and by