The first debate impends, and the odds that Donald Trump may be elected President appear to be narrowing. I will cast my own vote for Hillary Clinton with alacrity and confidence. From the beginning, her life has been devoted to public service and to improving the lives of children and the disadvantaged. She is intelligent, strong, profoundly informed, and extraordinarily experienced in the challenges and risks of our lurching, restlessly altering world and wholly committed to the global commonality. Her well-established connections to minorities may bring some better understanding of our urban and suburban police crisis. I have wished at times that she would be less impatient or distant when questions arrive about her past actions and mistakes, but I see no evidence to support the deep-rooted suspicions that often surround her. I don’t much like the high-level moneyed introductions and contacts surrounding the Clinton Foundation, but cannot find the slightest evidence that any of this has led to something much worse—that she or anyone has illegally profited or that any legislation tilted because of it. Nothing connects or makes sense; it beats me. Ms. Clinton will make a strong and resolute President—at last, a female leader of our own—and, in the end, perhaps a unifying one.
While most observers focused on the elected Governors as future potential presidents, the bigger impact was that State legislatures dramatically gerrymandered the country in a way that made it virtually impossible for the Democrats to win the House back for a decade. In 2012 and likely 2016, Democrats won the national popular vote in the House but didn't come close to winning a Congressional majority.
But to understand how truly unexpected this campaign season has been—for the country and for my own life—you have to understand something about presidential elections in general. The politicians devise strategies and court donors years in advance. At the same time, newspapers and networks carefully decide which reporter they'll match with which candidate.
Telefon do studia (czynny w godzinach funkcjonowania szkoły sites gb write me top admission essay on presidential elections professional school essay for phd do my custom personal essay online best critical analysis essay ghostwriting essay ghostwriter websites pay for my professional critical essay on founding
Ethics In Presidential Elections Essay Sample
best phd essay writing sites for phd pay to do popular analysis essay on mba best cover letter writing site usa top critical analysis essay editing service us top essay on shakespeare order custom custom essay on presidential elections
The 2000 US Presidential Election
do my leadership dissertation abstract eighteenth amendment to the united states constitution type my esl rhetorical analysis essay on presidential elections
In political debates and elections the application of schemas, mental structures people use to organize their knowledge about the social world around themes or subjects and that influence the information people notice, think about, and remember, are very important in getting support, votes, and earning the trust of millions of Americans in Democracy and our processes. Schemas are applied through accessibility and priming which is evident in this article. The accessibility of schemas is defined as the extent to which schemas and concepts are at the forefront of the mind and are judgments about the social world. There are two types of accessibility: (1) schemas that are chronically accessible due to past experiences. These are constantly active and ready to use to interpret ambiguous situations. (2) Schemas that are temporarily accessible for reasons that are more arbitrary. This particular schema is not always accessible but happens to be primed. Priming is the process by which recent experiences increase the accessibility of a schema, trait, or concept, by something people have been thinking or doing before encountering an event. Bargh and Pietromonaco studied accessibility and priming of schemas in 1987. They temporarily activated and manipulated schemas by flashing either hostile or neutral words across a screen so that people would interpret them in a certain way and behave accordingly, with what words they were exposed. The study showed that schemas could be temporarily activated and manipulated so people would behave in a certain manner. In the article, the Democrats and Republicans experience temporarily accessible schemas that are activated in certain situations. When they are asked about voting they say that they do not feel confident in the voting processes and fear that the election results will be contested in court. Their assessment is that the 2000 election controversy between President Bush and former Vice President Al Gore is the cause of such skepticism. The past experience of ballots being allegedly inaccurately calculated and resulting in the election proceeding to current President George Bush activates schemas, which leads Democrats to believe that the voting processes will be unfair and fail them again as it had in 2000. It also leads Republicans to feel that once again the Democrats will challenge the results of the election in court as they had in 2000 leading to another long drawn out presidential race conflict. These schemas are activated or primed by the 2004 presidential election where voters are put in an almost identical situation as in 2000, tight races in a couple of states, Florida once again, in which some districts still use punch card ballots which were the leading cause of controversy in the 2000 presidential race. This situation temporarily
Katy Tur Talks Covering Donald Trump's Candidacy for NBC
After attending Wave Week @ Villanova in 2011, two eager service superstars were inspired to do more for their communities. The Pay To Do Best Critical Analysis Essay On Presidential Elections following school year, Club