If the Gulf War had taken place during the presidential campaign, George H. W. Bush would have been elected for a second term.
The lesson to be learned is that a candidate must be aware of the issues facing the country and hope that world events play into his hands.
Franklin Roosevelt used the problems of the Great Depression and the hopes of the New Deal to win the election in 1932.
The country would have been hard-pressed to defeat a sitting president during a national emergency because of his popularity during World War II.
Eisenhower was projected into the role of Republican standard bearer in 1952 because of his fear of communism and military success.
The image of a more conservative Richard Nixon was helped by John Kennedy's hopes for a new generation.
The war in Vietnam was unpopular in 1968 and Richard Nixon promised to end it.
You can begin to understand why President Clinton struck such a positive chord with the electorate by looking at the top 20 worries of the American electorate in 1996.
The voters became convinced that the incumbent president deserved reelection because of his convention theme of "building a bridge to 21st Century" and his constant slogan of protecting education, the environment, Medicare, and Medicaid.
George W. Bush made education reform a priority in his 2000 campaign.
Voters liked his slogan that he would leave no child behind.
The events of 2001 dominated the campaign.
Bush's senior political consultant Karl Rove developed a three-pronged strategy.
Bush was portrayed as a commander-in-chief who could protect the country against another terrorist attack because he had emphasized his "steady leadership".
Bush became the champion of moral values, opposing same sex marriage and supporting a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
McCain tried to portray Obama as a candidate who didn't have the experience to be president.
McCain's mistakes in dealing with the economy turned voters against him.
McCain's poll numbers declined along with the economy after Obama pounced on the remark.
The media is a great way to communicate with the public.
The modern presidential campaign has become high-tech.
Political ads are paid to bring the message to the voters.
The 30- and 60-second spots, as well as paid infomercials incorporating charts and graphs, have all been used in recent campaigns.
Television has been a factor in the campaign since the 1960 debates between Kennedy and Nixon.
People who heard the debate on the radio thought that Nixon won, whereas people who watched the debate on TV thought that Kennedy won.
Reagan established a positive presidential image in his debates with Carter.
Reagan was portrayed as a person who could hold his own.
The vice presidential debates give a contrast between the candidates.
The Bush campaign was hurt by Lloyd Bentsen's response to Dan Quayle.
"Spin doctors," those campaign staff members who try to influence the media, became part of the campaign landscape.
The media contrast between President Clinton and Senator Dole in 1996 portrayed two candidates miles apart in their use of the media.
President Clinton had a media advantage over his opponent due to the contrast of the 1996 State of the Union address and the poorly-received response by Senator Dole.
The three presidential debates in 2000 were a turning point.
Vice President Gore lost the debates on style.
He made statements that had to be changed because of his exaggeration.
Bush held his own against the more experienced debater.
The presidential debates and political advertisements were important in the 2004 election.
The election was the first since the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law went into effect.
Both campaigns raised record amounts of hard money despite the restriction.
The creation of "527" independent groups, which are exempt from the law, was also created.
The backers of these groups were sympathetic to the candidates and their campaigns even though they couldn't legally coordinate their ad campaigns.
Millions of dollars worth of ads were sponsored by the parties and candidates.
Most people thought that Kerry won the first debate and that he won the next two.
The winner of the debates did not win the election.
He came across to the electorate as knowledgeable and confident.
Voters thought that Obama won all three debates.
Get the vote out by using the campaign organization and workers.
The local faithful of the party are responsible for getting the vote out.
The message is driven by telephone calls, mailings, and posters.
Success in the campaign depends on the selection of campaign staff on both the national and state levels.
John Kennedy's choice of his brother as campaign manager, Jimmy Carter's choice of Hamilton Jordan, and Bill Clinton's selection of James Carville had an impact on their campaigns.
John Mitchell's inability to run the Committee to Re-elect the President eventually led to his downfall and the resignation of Richard Nixon.
A candidate's coattail potential--the ability of the top of the ticket to help other candidates from the same party win--also plays a role on the state level.
Local organizations were motivated by knowing that Lyndon Johnson was elected in 1964.
Religious groups who use the pulpit to urge their congregation to vote for Republicans who are against abortion have aided the Republicans.
There was no suspense regarding the outcome because President Clinton held a double-digit lead.
He and the Democrats had to fight apathy and focus on the contest for control of Congress.
The Republican strategy was successful.
When Dole was going to be defeated, the GOP changed its strategy and aired commercials asking voters what would happen if they elected a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress.
Even though Clinton won an easy electoral victory, the Republicans retained control of Congress.
It was clear by the eve of the 2000 election that the contest would be close.
Vice President Al Gore lost the electoral vote to George W. Bush after the Supreme Court ruled that Florida's electoral votes should be.
The story of the 2004 election was getting the vote out.
The final vote totals reflected a record turnout of 126 million voters, an increase of more than 15 million from the 2000 election.
In 2000 voter turnout was over 60 percent, but in 2004 it was over 64 percent.
This number was close to the voter turnout from the 1960s.
Even though the youth vote stayed at seven percent of the electorate in 2000, the actual turnout increased from 44 percent in 2000 to over 54 percent in 2004.
Bush and Kerry had the support of their bases, but the Republicans did a better job of getting out the evangelical vote, which did not come out in large numbers in 2000.
One of the keys to Obama's victory was his campaign organization.
The Obama campaign got more people to vote in the primaries than the Republicans.
More than 30 percent of voters in key battleground states went to the polls by mail or in person before the election.
In key states such as Florida, Nevada, and North Carolina, Obama won a majority of those voters.
The winner and also-ran will be determined by the American electorate in the privacy of the voting booth.
We focus on voter behavior.
The hope was that the primary would make the process more democratic by taking the power away from party bosses.
The system was expanded to include primaries for every office.
The candidates are forced to wage three election campaigns even though they have a greater choice.
The more candidates running against the party's official designee, the more likely there will be a split among the party faithful.
The winner of the primary may be the loser in the general election if one of the defeated candidates stays on the ballot.
The process of the presidential primary has been criticized.
Critics say that the media hype of the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary is "Make or Break" contests.
The voters in Iowa have the same political beliefs but stress different issues than the voters in New Hampshire.
The winner of these contests gets the "big mo", whereas the loser has to make up lost ground.
Success in the early primaries and caucuses is necessary to sustain the flow of money during the general campaign if one of the prerequisites of a successful candidacy is the ability to raise funds.
The amount of money raised by Clinton and Obama in 2008 was a record.
Barack Obama did not accept federal matching funds in the general campaign.
The McCain campaign raised more money than the Obama campaign.
A candidate can win a primary if they have less than 30 percent of the votes.
In a caucus, the figure is less than 10 percent.
The educated and wealthier voters in the general election are less representative of the average voter.
In response to the importance of the Iowa and New Hampshire votes, many Southern states changed their primary day to the same day early in March.
Super Tuesday gave an advantage to candidates who were more conservative and had a Southern political base.
The winners of the Super Tuesday primary received a lot of publicity.
The nature of the primaries in election years 2004 and 2007 remained the same even though the Republicans thought the primary system hurt their presidential candidate.
In 2008 the Nevada caucus followed the Iowa caucus and the South Carolina primary followed the New Hampshire primary.
New York and California held primaries on Super Tuesday, which was moved to February.
If the presidential primary were held in the late spring, it would shorten the primary season.
Proponents of a single primary vote feel that more people would vote, expenses could be cut down, and the nomination would be wrapped up after the votes were counted.
Critics of the plan think that a national primary would be more complex and expensive than the regular campaign.
The media could easily be accused of being a kingmaker, as the role of the media would become even more significant.
A series of Super Tuesday regional primaries would be an alternative to a national primary.
Decentralizing the system would allow attention to be focused on different regional issues.
It wouldn't reduce the cost of media attention.
The candidate who won the first regional primary would still have an advantage.
Increasing the number of caucus votes is one suggestion.
The supporters of this proposal claim that it is the most democratic and possibly would reduce the amount of media intrusion.
A series of state party conventions should be used for the primary or caucus.
Adoption of this system is less likely because of the dominance of party bosses.
The most talked about proposal is a national primary day.
New Hampshire and Iowa are hesitant to give up the national spotlight because of all the attention presidential hopefuls and the media give them.
There were calls for election reforms after the 2000 election.
The "butterfly" ballot was removed from Florida's procedures, as the state moved toward electronic voting.
Congress allocated funds to help states reform and update their ballot procedures.
The funding is seen as a key ingredient in the success of congressional and presidential campaigns.
Costs go up because of the use of the media by candidates, the increase in direct mailing, and the increase of campaign staff salaries.
The amount of money raised and spent is related to who wins an election.
The cost of presidential campaigns has gone up even though there is federal funding.
Eisenhower spent $5 million when he beat Stevenson.
Bush spent $46 million when he beat Dukakis.
The total amount of money in federal elections has grown from 14 million dollars in 1952 to more than 200 million dollars in 2004.
Campaign finance reform aims to remove the influence of special interests by limiting the amount and nature of political contributions.
They accept small contributions of $5 and $10, but this accounts for the smallest percentage of funds raised.
In 2004, Howard Dean used the Internet to raise millions of dollars for his presidential campaign.
His campaign used a number of methods to communicate with their supporters.
In order to run for office, you have to have a significant financial base.
During the 1992 campaign, Ross Perot spent his own money.
Millions of dollars are given to congressional candidates by political action committees.
In the 2008 election, groups such as the American Medical Association gave millions of dollars to political candidates.
Another way for groups to channel money into the coffers of political hopefuls is through election committees.
Many questions have been raised about the kind of influence and payback that campaign donors expect.
Federal law regulates campaign financing.
The 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act set up restrictions on the amount of advertising, created disclosure of contributions over $100, and limited the amount of personal contributions candidates and their relatives could make on their own behalf.
Private contributions can be made through tax credits and tax deductions.
A $1 tax write-off was allowed on federal income taxes.
The allocation had an effect on federal elections.
After revelations in the Watergate hearings that the Committee to Re-elect President Nixon had "laundered" campaign contributions to support political operatives conducting dirty tricks and providing "hush money" to the organizers of the Watergate break-in, the turning point of campaign finance legislation came.
Businesses that contributed large amounts of money were promised favorable treatment by Nixon.
The Federal Election Commission was established by the Federal Election Campaign Act to enforce the provisions of the law and establish matching federal funds for presidential candidates in primaries and the general election.
A candidate had to raise at least $5000 in at least 20 states in order to get these funds.
The candidate would be eligible for matching funds if they disclosed campaign contributions.
The election process has been impacted by the public funding of presidential campaigns.
Money has been given to candidates during the primary campaign, to the parties to help fund national conventions, and to candidates in the general election campaign.
More than $65 million in federal matching funds was given to candidates in 1988.
George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis received over $46 million in public funds.
In 2004, candidates received $75 million in federal matching funds.
McCain received $84 million in matching funds.
Candidates who accept public funding must pledge that they will not spend more than what was given to them and that they will not accept other types of donations.
Soft money was raised by state and local party organizations.
Campaign finance abuses were raised during the 1996 presidential election.
By the end of the campaign, it was apparent that soft money was abused, foreign money was laundered, and there was a possibility that China was using illegal contributions to influence local, congressional, and presidential elections.
Illegal contributions were returned by the Democratic Party.
The president and vice president were suspected of using the White House for illegal purposes.
The issue of "presidential coffees" and "sleepovers" in the Lincoln Bedroom haunted the Democrats.
Both parties were criticized for using soft money.
A law prevents a national party from using soft money to air ads favoring specific candidates.
Both houses held hearings regarding the fundraising practices of both political parties.
The purpose of the hearings was to investigate the extent of the illegal use of funds with the end result being the passage of new campaign finance reform laws.
Campaign finance reform became a political issue after the 2000 presidential election.
Spurred on by the efforts of Arizona Senator John McCain (R), Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold (D), Connecticut Congressman Chris Shays (R), and Massachusetts Congressman Marty Meehan (D), Congress passed a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill that President George W. Bush signed in 2000.
The main features of the bill include a ban on all soft money, increased individual hard money donations, and a ban on special interest political ads paid for by soft money prior to the primary and general election.
The law was found to be constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2002.
Both parties increased the amount of money they raised for the election.
Special Interest groups were able to get around the ban on soft money donations by forming.
These groups were able to run advocacy ads because they were protected by the tax code.
The First Amendment's free speech clause was the basis of the 2010 Citizens United case.
There was a fivefold increase in the amount of money spent by special interest groups.
The amount of money can be donated by individuals, national party committees, and state and local party committees.
The political action committees that are allowed under the Citizens United case are described in the second chart.
An endorsement is the only other answer that could fit the question.
The designation of a candidate is not represented by an endorsement.
The use of money and media is part of an overall campaign strategy.
His political advisers put the best face on issues that Clinton was involved in.
Choices B, C, D, and E do not apply to the concept of spin.
Bush beat John McCain after losing the primary.
Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama.
Obama won the nomination.
In this case, you should know that it is not essential and that it can hurt a candidate to announce the choice of the vice president prior to the convention.
Even though there was a lack of qualified presidential candidates and Supreme Court justice nominations that have had problems, the proliferation of political action committees has been criticized.
The answer is negative so it is similar to an EXCEPT question.
The other choices are not accurate.
Reducing the amount of contributions is the solution.
The other choices are viable, but not possible reforms.
Through elimination, choice B is the best choice.
Choices D and E are false.
Choice A is incorrect because most campaigns don't convert voter preferences, whereas choice C is incorrect because voter preference is reinforced.
Raising large sums of money is the only choice that fits that criterion.
Students who don't understand whatselective perception is will choose Choice C.
Although recall petitions are voter initiated, they do not result in the approval of legislation.
The selection of candidates is a result of primary votes.
When a candidate throws his hat into the ring, he begins the process of seeking major donations and trying to gain front-runner status in order to get the media's attention.
The Commission was formed after the debacle that took place at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, where Mayor Daley almost single-handedly prevented minority delegate representation.
The characteristics of campaigning are Choices A, B, D, and E. Richard Nixon made a mistake in the 1960 presidential campaign.
Explain how the Republicans tried to nationalize the campaign.
The Democrats tried to make the election about local issues.
You should record your responses on different pieces of paper.
Deficit reduction, welfare, and health care were some of the national issues that the public focused on during Clinton's presidential campaign.
Local issues became secondarily important for most of the time.
Republicans expanded the scope of the election.
Under the leadership of Haley Barbour and Newt Gingrich, the GOP tried to focus on President Clinton's weaknesses with respect to national issues.
Republicans capitalized on Clinton's low approval ratings by linking Democratic incumbents to him.
Republican candidates were able to visually link congressional candidates and President Clinton in TV campaign ads.
The GOP's "Contract with America" was a panacea for national fiscal problems and convinced the public that the Democrats had produced national political and economic ruin.
The Contract was adapted by the Republicans for the off-year election.
Since the benefits of incumbency would usually favor Democrats, they addressed national issues instead of focusing on local affairs.
The incumbent Senators and Congressmen talked about what they had accomplished.
The Democratic party tried to refute the Republican claims that Clinton's policies were flawed.
They actively engaged in campaigns against the Contract, widening the debate to translate local issues into the national arena.
The off-year referendum on Democratic and Presidential leadership was created by this.
They suffered the greatest loss in the history of midterm elections because they retreated from local matters.
This is a summary of the Contract with America.
There is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and a line item veto power for the president.
Both parties agreed in principle to a balanced budget by the year 2002 and a line item veto was passed into law.
The Taking Back Our Streets Act includes stronger sentencing procedures, exclusionary rule exemptions, more effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from the Democrats' crime bill.
Some provisions of the bill became law as riders to other laws.
The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 incorporated many of the original parts of the Contract and became known as the Personal Responsibility Act.
Antipornography laws, education vouchers, and tax incentives for adoption were never enacted into law.
This was part of the 1997 budget deal.
The National Security Responsibility Act was never enacted into law.
The Senior Citizens Fairness Act raises the Social Security earnings limit and repeals the 1993 social security tax hikes.
The limit on earnings was repealed.
The Job Creation and Welfare Enhancement Act lowers the capital gains tax and provides other business incentives.
The 1997 budget deal had a lower capital gains tax.
President Clinton vetoed it.
The Citizen Legislature Act limits the number of terms that a representative can serve.
The House never passed a constitutional amendment.
If the student answers "no," 1 point is awarded for a statement showing an understanding of how the Republicans conducted their campaign, and 2 points are awarded for a specific example of what tactics they used, such as the Contract with America.
1 point is awarded for a statement showing an understanding of how the Democrats conducted their campaigns stressing local issues if the student answers "yes".