Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
presidential election of 1992 was a tight race, compared to others in history. The struggle between the Clinton camp, which focused on a platform involving the economy, the Bush camp, who focused on a platform whose basis was trust and taxes, and the Perot camp, who relied on a business-style economic platform, all combined to form one of the most interesting and changing races in recent years. This paper will discuss how Clinton used his economic platform to win a difficult election, and how the Bush campaign's overconfidence and faulty pre-election strategy helped Clinton to win what some believed was an unwinnable race for the Democratic Party.
It is important to first understand the incumbent's reliance on his popularity in the era of a victory in Iraq, and in the post-cold war atmosphere. In 1992, the American population found themselves in a changed world, where the Berlin Wall and intercontinental missiles no longer existed. The Soviet Union was no longer united, Germany had become united, and the threat of nuclear conflict, so long a staple of the American psyche, had disappeared. Bush had recently completed a successful military attack in Iraq, showing the power and force of the American military.
In this unheard of political environment, the election was bound to be a unique. Throughout the first three years of the Bush Administration, the president's popularity was unshakable, generally due to military actions. According to Gallup Polls, Bush's popularity was 80% following the 1990 invasion of Panama, 76% following the 1990 initial invasion of Kuwait, and 89% following the close of the Gulf War. The Gallup polls, in fact, showed the highest approval rating for a president in a post-war period ever recorded (Gallup Organization, 2005).
In light of this post-war approval rating, a win for Bush should have been an easy victory. However, William Clinton, the Democratic challenger, brought to the campaign a straightforward economic campaign, which appealed to the voters. Following the Iraq war, the United States found themselves in a deep recession. Clinton, realizing this issue was vital to the election, built his campaign on economic theory, and planned reforms. His platform included a series of taxation and job creation proposals, as well as tax credits for business investments and tax cuts for the struggling post-war middle-income Americans. He proposed plans and promises to reduce the deficit by cutting defense spending by $60 billion, citing the end of the cold war and the post war era, while creating new jobs for the struggling economy by boosting public works spending by $20 billion a year (Kranish, A1).
Clinton's economic platform, summed up by the phrase "The economy, stupid," seemed to appeal to the American population (Rosenthal, A31). The response of the Bush campaign was less than ideal. Convinced that Clinton was not as much of a threat for the Republicans as Perot, who was also harshly criticizing the deficit problems, the Bush campaign fought to prove Bush's solidarity. This tactic succeeded. However, Gallup Polls showed soon after that the issue pressing the president was not that of Republican solidarity, but the impression that he was unconcerned over the state of the economy in post-war America. Clinton's camp furthered this idea with a campaign commercial showing clips of Bush denying the country was even in a recession (Wines, 1:26).
However, Bush was still popular, based on the after-effects of the Iraq War, and his campaign soon became one used by incumbents throughout history, focusing on ideas such as experience and trust. Bush could successfully discuss his experience with the handling of foreign affairs, as well as domestic issues. Further, Bush brought Clinton's credibility into question, in terms of his lack of military service, and other issues. The strategy seemed to work. Whereas polls had showed Clinton leading by 12 points, the tide began to change. With only three weeks left in the campaign, Bush had regained his popularity to tie in the polls with Clinton (Wines, 1:26).
However, the debates against turned the tide of the race. Perot, while considered one of the most popular independent runners in history, was only maintaining 7% of the votes until the debates. But a strong presence created a rise in his popularity, forcing some voters away from both Clinton and Bush. Forty-three percent of voters stated the debates had influenced…[continue]
"Election Of 1992" (2005, March 23) Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/election-of-1992-63462
"Election Of 1992" 23 March 2005. Web.21 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/election-of-1992-63462>
"Election Of 1992", 23 March 2005, Accessed.21 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/election-of-1992-63462
The answer to this open-ended question was "someone other than Bush." They should have framed the question to leave only their answer, rather than suggesting we were "one unknown dictator away from the next major crisis." "Arkansas 2" gave us nothing to identify with except vague, generalized fear. This "differential reinforcement" (Althouse, Nardulli and Shaw 2001, p. 4) failed. If these were the only campaign outreach, this would bear out
" Another factor that determined the failure in the 2002 elections, is that the Democratic candidates' campaign was not as aggressive as it should have been. The Democrats' opponents used attack campaigns, so the Democratic candidates should have responded "preferably with a plan that turns his attack campaign into a character issue on him." Other than this, Shawni Littlehale of the free-market Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that: "the majority
midterm elections reminded us - if we needed reminding - that the United States is indeed a two-party country, with Democrats and Republicans capturing the vast majority of officers from the local to the federal level. However, even as this is the case it is also true that there are serious third-party candidates running for many of those offices. This paper examines the question of whether the coverage of the
Also, viewers may perceive the negative advertising as an infringement upon their right to decide for themselves. Such a perception may result in reactance, a boomerang effect in which the individual reacts in a manner opposite to the persuader's intention. What these studies show, then, is that a candidate is never going to know how for sure how a negative ad may impact the voters. In the long run,
Internet Voting in the U.S. At least in the last decade, the use of the internet has become a part of the daily schedule of the 90% majority who go online at least daily, 2/3 at least 10 hours a week and 1/3 at least 20 hours a week (Davis 2000), most of them below 25 years old. There has been dramatic growth in the amount of information available online and
Superiority of the Canadian Government over that of the United States Regarding Access to the Media by Political Parties The media, with its diverse modes of mass communication, plays a pivotal role in electoral campaigns both in Canada and the United States. Candidates for political office thoroughly understand the infinite potential in utilizing the media for their campaign platforms. With just one brief thirty-second advertisement during a commercial break either
American Democracy Voter Turnout in 1988 American Presidential Election: Democracy is for the people and by the people and it can be successful if people participate effectively in electing their representatives. In 1988, presidential elections were held in United States of America. Statistics shows that voter turnout for this presidential election was very low. Voter turnout was as low as 50.1%. In spite of an increasing trend of voter turnouts in the