as Clinton’s possession of all three attributes have

as Clinton’s possession of all three attributes have

as the “Michigan” model, is a deterministic way of evaluating a candidate. This model relies heavily on strong party identification. Party identification helps us to understand why people vote along same party lines. In the 1996 presidential election, Bill Clinton’s popularity among his own party proved to be too strong for his opponent.

There are five reasons why the “Michigan” model is helpful for evaluating the outcome of the ’96 election. The first one is that it is a good predictor of the vote. There are many reasons why Clinton came out victorious in the ’96 presidential election. This model helps to explain those reasons. A second reason is that people rarely switch parties, going from a Republican to a Democrat, and vice versa. Clinton supporters had a very strong party identification , and this partisanship is what Clinton was counting on to win the election. Third, this model illustrates that most p! eople develop party ID from their parents.

This means that if your parents were Democrat, more than likely you will be on too. Since the number of Democrats is greater than the number of Republicans, Clinton had a greater advantage over his Republican adversary. The fourth precept in defense of the “Michigan” model is that even when people deviate, their party ID still remains strong.

This makes it harder for people to switch entirely to the other extreme, their is still a bond between them and their grounded party. The fifth reason of this model says that nothing has really changed. Basically, that people have stayed loyal to their parties.

As we saw in the ’96 election, the party with the most loyalists won. This is very fundamental for maintaining an election. The “Michigan” model thrives on competence, leadership, and integrity of a candidate. Throughout Clinton’s Administration in his first four years as being president, he has shown himself to be quite competent in his dealings with domestic as well as foreign affairs.

He has also shown his leadership, especially during hostile war-like times, when the U.S. raided on Iraq. This leadership greatly increased his popularity among the American people. His charisma helped to establish his integrity, although it was tested and may have been slightly tarnished by the scandalous White-Water allegations.

For the most part, Clinton’s possession of all three attributes have undoubtedly smoothed the way for his victorious second presidential election. Another type of model that can help us explain Bill Clinton’s victorious presidential election is the Rational Choice model. This model is non-deterministic and relies more on what people can obtain from the election.

The Rational Choice model elevates issues, and not so much emphasis is centered around the candidate himself. It relies heavily on the principle of cost and benefits. What can the people gain if they reelect Bill Clinton? This is the kind of question this type of model purports. Clinton used this way of thinking to his advantage and promised to give the people what they wanted if they would vote for him. Since the economy seemed to have gotten better over the last four years, and the fact that most rational voters tend to be retrospective, greatly helped Clinton’s edge over Dole. Parties need a lot of support, and the most motivated people tend to be the ideological ones.

This helps to explain why party activists always try to push their way towards the! extreme. Since this type of model deals more with issues, parties and candidates try and push voters to be irrational. They will be vague and ambiguous when discussing certain topics.

A lot of things candidates promise to give back to the people, many times never reach the forefront. Bob Dole was in fact a little skimpy on elaborating on some issues dealing with such things as gays in the military. What ever the reasons may be for each model’s evaluations, it is not hard to see why Clinton’s persona and the issues he discussed, helped him win the 1996 presidential election. 2. According to Holbrook, there is a natural tendency to give a certain level of support to a candidate. What he means by this is that a large part of public support stems from factors unrelated to campaigns.

There is already an underlying equilibrium that becomes natural for us to support a certain candidate. Besides the campaigning, people look at things such as the candidates home life, his personal interaction with fellow Americans, his suave demeanor, and yes even his physical appearance plays a role. There are, however, three major factors about equilibrium that are integral in voting behavior. They are the economy, presidential popularity, and time in office. These three factors are fundamental to the assessment of debates. When voters can relate to these qualities they are more inclined to vote in that candidate’s favor.

In defense that campaigns do have an effect on elections, Holbrook emphasizes that information from campaigns is very influential on the o! utcome of an election. Campaigns target the voting public with efforts of persuasion. The ultimate objective of candidates in a debate or convention is to persuade voters either to vote for them or to vote against the other candidate. One difficulty encountered when staying whether candidates are able to persuade voters during debates, however, is that the perceptions of most viewers are colored by their political predisposition’s going into the debate. Most people who watch the debates usually leave thinking their candidate won. This makes it even tougher for candidates to try and persuade the voting public, when most have an idea of who they are going to vote for form the outset of the election.

It is expected that part of the reason debates and conventions have an influence on voting behavior is that they change they way people perceive the candidates. There are limits, however, to the potential effect of debates on both the large scale and individual-level outcomes.! First, although there are frequently post debate bumps in public support for the “winning” candidates, it is unlikely that the bump will be big enough to alter the course of the race unless the race is extremely close going into the debates. Second, this again is affected by the fact that most people think their preferred candidate won the debate. In most cases, people who are dissatisfied with their candidate’s performance tend to view the debate as a tie rather than to admit that their candidate lost.

4. As far as debates have gone, most tend to have their own appeal. Some are more discerning and stand out more than others. Because of the way they are conducted, large amounts of people and the vast quantities of information the media covers help elevate the importance of debates. The candidates are given a chance to reach out to the public as a whole. Debates help impact the way people vote and definitely affect public opinion. There are many reasons why people watch debates.

People watching the debates can see if a candidate stands fast to his issues and is grounded in his beliefs in those issues. Debates help to provide guidance for voters who are unsure on how to vote. They also provide good reinforcement and help strengthen their bond to their candidate. A third why debates are important is that they give large amounts of information to the public, allowing them to be more well informed on issues. As funny as it may seem, debates also create excitement and d! rama for those interested in satisfying their emotional needs. Debates can also offer support to those who have already made up their minds from the outset of the election.

According to the Social Learning Theory, there are 3 important steps regarding communication between the audience. They are attention, comprehension, and acceptance. The capturing of the audience’s attention is very vital in debates. It is important that debates help voters understand the issues being discussed in order to gain acceptance toward a certain candidate. It is a chain reaction, where one triggers the other and together they make a remarkable impact during the debates and on the election as a whole. Debates become meaningful when voters are directly influenced by the issues set forth.

What may affect on voter, may not affect another. But what ever the reason may be, this makes the debate more meaningful and even creates an emotional tie. Candidates try very hard to appeal to the public in ways they feel will help them win the election. For this reason they are vague with certain issues in hopes of not scaring away potential votes.

Debates are also confrontational in every way, and this helps intensify the voter’s emotions. The impact of primary season debates are not as dramatic and do not generate enough public interest and are received with less impact as the ones later held in the campaign. This is due to the slow rolling effect that most voters tend to have. The longer the campaigns go on, the more interested and opinionated the voters become about the candidates and their issues. This, however, is not to undermine debates’ overall impact, because debates will always make there presence known and will always help sway public opinion.