The 2000 American Presidential Election

Abstract

The 2000 Presidential election was one of the longest, most expensive and closest in American history. It was the Presidential election that exposed the flaws (or genius) of the electoral college system, demonstrated the imperfections of media dependency on exit polls and quick election calling, and showed how a third party candidate with just two percent of the popular vote could make the difference in the crucial state of Florida. Democrats lost states they should have won; Republicans lost every big city and most of their suburbs; and the Florida election came down to a five-to-four muddled decision by the Supreme Court. Americans collectively learned a great civics lesson: that even in a bitter, controversial contest, our candidates accept defeat graciously; the simple act of voting is not so simple; and that for all its shortcomings, the electoral college did work.     

The American Presidential Election in Perspective

In 2004 President Bush was elected more decisively than in 2000, but he would have lost if Ohio had voted for John Kerry. Turnout in a polarised electorate was the highest since the 1960s. Bush saw his party increase its existing majorities in both houses of Congress - the first Republican candidate to do so since 1924. The Republicans benefited from political trends in the South, international developments and the impact of social issues. Gains by Bush at the time of the national conventions were reduced by Kerry's strong showing in the televised debates. In the end, Americans were unwilling to eject their commander-in-chief during the wars on terror and in Iraq. While the Republicans have been advancing in national politics since the 1960s, it is unclear whether 2004 was a realigning election. There was not a realignment in the classic way that it occurred in 1932.     

The 1990 Presidential Election in Poland

This article examines the conditions that appear to have influenced political preferences of Poles during the presidential election in November 1990. The first section offers a short introduction to the political and economic situation of Poland after the rise to power of Solidarity. A short presentation of the main candidates, Walesa, Mazowiecki and Tyminski, and their political profiles is also provided here. Then results from a survey conducted one week before the first round of the presidential elections are presented and discussed. It is concluded that there were some systematic differences in socio-economic status and values of the supporters of the main candidates. Specific features of Mazowiecki's electorate were: high social position, high level of education and high income. Typical values for this group were political and economic liberalism. Characteristic of Walesa's electorate were a low level of education, higher age, and an occupation as a small businessman. Conservative Catholic morality, anti-Semitism and pro-market attitudes were overrepresented among Walesa's supporters. Tyminski's supporters, finally, were disproportionately working class and young persons. His electorate was anti-liberal in both the political and the economic meaning of the word. His supporters were often opponents of traditional Catholic morality.     

The 1988 Election Campaign in Denmark

In this article the 1988 national election campaigns of the Conservative Party, the Christian People's Party and the Social Democratic Party are analysed focusing upon: the impact of environmental factors – i.e. the constitutional setting, the party system and the media system; and the campaigns themselves – i.e. preparation and planning, control, strategy, financing and style. Findings indicate that the single most important factor for understanding national election campaigns in Denmark is that parties never know when a general election will be called. As a result, preparation and planning are virtually absent, TV is assessed as the most important channel of communication, the campaign is fairly centralized and controlled by the party leadership, the parties are dependent upon voluntary manpower and financial support, the use of 'outside' expertise is minimal, and the complex pattern of cooperation and conflict in Danish politics has a modifying impact on the amount of aggressiveness displayed in the campaign. All in all, similarities among the parties' campaigns are more pronounced than differences. It appears to make no difference whether the party is incumbent or in opposition, established or new, left-wing or right-wing, large or small.     

The General Election in Denmark 1988

Foiketing (Parliament) slates that for the last 30 years it has been Danish policy not to accept nuclear arms on Danish territory (including ports). The government is urged to inform visiting naval ships of this.
Hereatter the Ting (Parliament) proceeds to the next item on the agenda.
Proposal fur motivated agenda set forward by The Social Democrats on April 14 1988     

The Presidential Election of 2008*

Senators Barack Obama and John McCain each has severe problems. McCain must take his distance from the very unpopular President Bush while keeping the support of the core Republican voters, but suffers from lack of rapport with the Fundamentalist Protestants and traditionalist Catholics. In foreign policy, he is more devoted to US global hegemony (in a world which stubbornly refuses it) than the incumbent. Senator Obama knows that this is a dangerous illusion but thinks that it is unwise to say so. He supports Israel in exaggerated terms and repeats the fabrications of the war party about Iran. Obama has the difficulty of being part black and entirely intellectual, and he needs the votes of the working class men and women who are very reserved about him. McCain seeks low taxes and less government expenditure and intervention, but tens of millions of economically hard‐pressed citizens are ready to return to the ethos and practices of the New Deal. Obama promises to revive the regulatory and redistributive role of government to help them, but his reluctance to criticise the arms budget may makes him seem unrealistic. Obama's vision of the United States puts the achievement of the American Revolution in the future whereas McCain thinks of the nation as already perfected. In many respects, we have a classical conflict between left and right.     

The 1987 Eduskunta Election in Finland*

The election to the Finnish Eduskunta which was held on 15–16 March 1987 may go down as something of a turning-point in Finnish postwar politics. It marked an end to the long-standing practice of excluding the Conservative Party from the list of potential government parties. Social Democratic Party leader Kalevi Sorsa elaborated on this topic in several campaign speeches and in such terms that there was little doubt he was more favorably disposed towards the Conservative Party than towards the Center Party In a speech which he delivered when visiting one of the local party organizations in Helsinki in late 1986. the Social Democratic Prime Minister even suggested that the Center and Conservative parties had changed places on the Finnish left/right continuum. As a consequence there did not seem to be much hope left for the kind of red/green government coalitions to which the Social Democrats had been committed ever since the mid sixties.     

The Age Gap in the 2008 Presidential Election

The 2008 presidential election suggests a significant realignment among voters entering the electorate, with younger voters deviating considerably from older voters in their partisan preferences. Barack Obama won the vote of those under 30 years old by a 66% to 32% margin and first time voters favored him by an overwhelming margin of 69–30%. The fact that the age gap between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination contest was also among the largest age gaps in American electoral history suggests that part of the age gap was undoubtedly due to the appeal of Obama with younger Americans. Part of the age gap, however, was also due to the unpopularity of the George W. Bush administration. The strong youth vote for Obama in 2008 was thus both pro-Obama and anti-Bush in nature. The huge age gap in 2008 suggests a split of the electorate along generational lines and the long-term consequences of the age gap appear to overwhelmingly favor the Democratic Party. George W. Bush’s unpopular and divisive presidency helped to make the youngest generation of American voters increasingly Democratic in their vote preference. This suggests that if younger Americans follow other generations in keeping the same partisan voting patterns throughout their life, the Democrats are potentially poised to make considerable gains in future elections.     

Federalism in the 2000 Presidential Election

Federalism was not an explicitly prominent feature of the 2000presidential election, but it exerted significant influencein shaping the political landscape as well as the candidates'positions on the role and purposes of the federal government.America's federal system created powerful undercurrents thatinfluenced the selection of the two major presidential candidates,the campaign issues, and the candidates' messages. At the sametime, George W. Bush and Albert Gore differed considerably intheir answers to how the United States' federal system shouldfunction and the objectives it should seek. Bush favored a federalgovernment that promotes economic opportunity through a marketplaceand allows state and local governments to determine their ownmoral and policy objectives. Gore preferred a national commonwealth,where the federal government determines the moral objectivesand the states cooperate to achieve those objectives.     

Changing Horses in Wartime? The 2004 Presidential Election

The literature makes clear that foreign policy affects voting, but it does not lead to clear expectations as to how a war will affect voting. Will views about the advisability of the war predominate? Or will the indirect effect through the incumbent’s image be more important? Will a war crowd out other potential issues, particularly domestic ones? This paper addresses these questions through a series of focused analyses of NES survey data. We find that an increase in strong Republican partisans clinched the election for President Bush. The Iraq War was not a direct vote gainer for the President, but the larger War on Terrorism burnished his image as a leader, at least long enough to win the election. Likewise, the cultural war allowed President Bush to retain some of the votes that he might otherwise have lost due to the unpopularity of the Iraq War.     

The American Presidential Election 2012: Anybody's Guess

The election of Barack Obama as President of the United States in November 2008 was an electric moment for the whole world, a shock in the course of history. The world's most powerful democracy had chosen a black man from a humble background, grandson of a Kenyan peasant who had risen to be a cook in the British Army. It was a truly amazing reaffirmation of the equal opportunity for all that is the stuff of the American dream. Shirley Williams examines the upcoming election and the players.     

Fear in the Voting Booth: The 2004 Presidential Election

Every presidential election offers interesting questions for analysis, but some elections are more puzzling than others. The election of 2004 involves two linked and countervailing puzzles. The first is: How did President George W. Bush manage to win at all, avoiding the fates of George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter? The other is: Why didn’t he win by a more substantial margin than in his first election, as all reelected presidents since Eisenhower were able to do? On the one hand, in the wake of September 11, the president had approval ratings around 90% and the threat of terrorism remained a substantial concern through Election Day. This would seem to afford Bush an overwhelming advantage. On the other hand, the public’s views of the state of the economy and of the course of the war in Iraq were negative. We think that the juxtaposition of these questions will help to explain the outcome of the election and of the pattern of the results. Moreover, by unpacking our explanation of the vote into three policy-related issue components—economic retrospective evaluations, domestic policy views, and foreign policy views—we examine the way these preferences contributed to the electorate’s voting decisions.     

Voter Choice in the 1995 French Presidential Election

This study estimates a model of voter choice for the first and second ballots of the 1995 French Presidential election. Its objective is to characterize the relative importance of traditional bases of French voter choice such as social class relative to campaign issues and voter evaluations of the economy. The study also seeks to identify candidate-specific bases of voter choice. Multinomial logit analysis of voter choice among the four leading candidates reveals a stronger role for campaign issues than previous studies suggest. Voter-candidate ideological proximity is the strongest predictor of first and second ballot choice, followed by voter perceptions of candidate ability to address unemployment and political corruption. Demographic variables have limited explanatory power in both the first and second ballot models. The parameter estimates demonstrate considerable differences in the bases of voter choice across candidates, with the bases of voter choice for National Front leader Jean-Marie le Pen most distinct from those of the remaining candidates.     

2016美国总统大选的秩序维度

2016年是美国总统大选年,选战在特朗普与希拉里两人之间展开。特朗普的竞选之路,非常特别,充满着众多的不被看好,充满着坎坷和荆棘,是一个人面向美国整个国家秩序力量的挑战之路。特朗普的竞选之路、胜选之后的交接班之路,当选之后的履职之路,都充满着秩序维度的挑战。这一挑战其实也是西方世界所面临的挑战。