Presidential Elections

 

 

 

 

Please post your thoughts in detail ( I want detailed analysis including but not limited to percentages of which voters voted for whom by critical states in order to earn maximum points- you need to break down voters by age, gender, race, ethnicity, state, income, etc) Be very detailed in your discussion.

 

The presidential election of 2000 and the presidential election of 2004 were both remarkably similar and in obvious ways very different ( a new candidate, new campaign themes, etc.). Discuss the several ways the campaigns (2000, 2004) were very similar and how the great rift and civic divide remaining from the 2000 election in American politics failed to be healed or addressed by the 2004 campaign ( and continues to this day).

 

Also discuss the elections of 2008 and 2012. How are they different and the same as previous 2000 and 2004 elections ( much more than we elected an African American president)? Again analyze these elections and determine similarities and differences. How did the trends of 2000 and 2004 again occur in these elections or did not occur?

 

These elections show a deepening of the fragmentation of American Politics. A fragmentation that has deep roots in the formation of the country, civil war, world wars, the depression and the civil rights movement and Vietnam struggles as well as the impact of he economic system and world views..

 

Finally discuss the election of 2016 and discuss how this election contributed to the ongoing great divide and how this fragmentation of the electorate and citizens has increased. What does this mean for the United States policy making process. You can also include the 2018 mid term elections and what they mean.

 

There are several parts to this analysis and your effort must include analyzed data and several sources and the analysis needs to be extensive. This is also a major board.

 

 

 

Sample Solution

re are several interpretations which explore the main reason for the end of the Cold War such as the Afghanistan War, Reagan’s Presidency, Gorbachev’s leadership, the economy and the independence of Eastern European countries. The main factor that led to the end of the Cold War was the debilitated relationship of the Soviet Union with Eastern European countries which meant that countries such as Poland and Hungary gained independence. As Levesqué argues, the independence of Eastern European countries led to the end of the breakdown of the Soviet Union, ultimately ending the Cold War because of the lack of focus on the East and the increased focus on the West. Moreover, the Soviet Union could not maintain their power and control over the Eastern European countries and could not provide financial aid when requested by Eastern European leaders. Thus, they saw Soviet control and support as inadequate. Although Oberdorfer sees Gorbachev’s leadership as the most important reason for the end of the Cold War, it is not true because the gaining of independence was the most detrimental factor which completely dissolved the Soviet Union, hence why the gaining of independence of Eastern European countries was the most impactful factor that led to the end of the Cold War. Levesqué: Levesqué believes the main reason for the end of the Cold War was the lack of control Gorbachev had over the Eastern European countries. Ultimately, this led to the end of the Cold War because the countries broke away from the Soviet control, which further led to the rapid downfall of the Soviets. Levesqué argues Gorbachev tried to have “the best of both worlds” by having “change and relative stability” in the Eastern European countries. Gorbachev was too focused on the West, disregarding the Eastern European countries which led to their independence because “first priority was given to the East-West rapprochement”. Therefore, the Eastern European countries were a significant reason for the end of the Cold War because the Soviet Union lost control over them as their power was minimised. Additionally, Levesqué depicts how historians in the past thought that Soviet Union leaders had “very poor information on the situation in Eastern Europe”. His argument is based on newly released documents, such as the report from the Bogomolov Institute, which clearly reveal problems at the time – they were just not acted upon. Eastern countries e.g Bratislava were looking to become independent because they disliked the Russian control, but this desire for independence was negative since it meant that the Soviet Union had less control over reforming them. Gorbachev wanted the leaders themselves to implement the changes, supporting the idea of freedom and democracy, but this ultimately led to the Cold War’s end as many were hesitant and refused to implement changes. “Gorbachev was convinced that reform could work in Eastern Europe, but he believed that the initiative had to come from the top leadership of these countries”, supports Oberdorfer’s central argument of his leadership being the main reason of the Co

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.