There were many factors throughout the election which had an impact which I will explain below. The first factor which determined the outcome of the 2008 presidential election was the fact that Obama was backed by the elites and the wealthy, the most notable elite being Warren Buffet. These elites gave as much money as the laws enabled them to but they also gave Obama their names, a strong PR move which gave Obama the edge as people who looked up to the endorsers would then side with them. These two factors also argue that elitism outweighs pluralism in America, and that elitism was so strong, that it determined the outcome with supporters of for example Warren Buffet voting for who he endorsed. However, there is also reason to suggest that this is not the case, and that pluralism determined the outcome of the 2008 election.
How did Obama beat Clinton to the democratic nomination? When the little known US Senator for Illinois announced his intentions to run in the democratic presidential primary in 2007, few believed that he could defeat the party backed establishment candidate, Hilary Clinton. Clinton’s campaign was described as “the largest and most powerful presidential campaign in History” and although Obama himself was quietly confident, his early investors were sceptical as Clinton gained an early twenty point lead. So how was he able to turn things around? Obama had three key factors on his side.
What is the probability that an investor tracks the portfolio monthly? (References: example 6 page 137, end of section exercises 45 - 48 page 145) (5 points) How often tracked? Response Daily 235 Weekly 278 Monthly 292 Few times a year 136 Do not track 59 Section 3.2: Conditional Probability and the Multiplication Rule 3. a. In a battleground state, 36% of all voters are Republicans. Assuming that there are only two parties - Democrat and Republican, if two voters are randomly selected for a telephone survey, what is the probability that they one is a Democrat followed by a Republican?
The negotiation agreement stated exclusively that no distribution agreement was in place, unless in writing, therefore there was no official agreement between the parties. Furthermore, a Big Time Toy manager sent an e-mail to Chou stating the “Strat Deal” restating details of the oral agreement that included time frames, price, and commitments of parties involved (Melvin, 2011). There was intent to create a business deal, and the e-mail was evidence of the negotiations. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? A factor benefitting Chou is BTT paid him 25K for negotiation rights for a 90-day period.
Asses the importance of the ethnic minority vote in the US political system The political system within the US consists of two parties; Democrats and Republicans. Whilst the Democrats conventionally gain the vote of the worse off citizens, the Republicans achieve the vote of the better off citizens; nevertheless, neither party are oblivious of the importance of the ethnic minorities. In 2008 Blacks voted at higher levels than they ever had in any other Presidential Election. Black voter turnout averages between 5% and 10% below that of the White voter turnout. Many Blacks doubt the political system has any value for them.
By using these specific words, Douthat is saying that the Democrats are not to be relied on or trusted. In his column, liberal Ronald Brownstein writes that demographics gave Obama the boost he needed to win the presidential election of 2012. He uses logos to demonstrate how demographics helped Obama win. He says that ever since 1992 Democrats have won the popular vote in four of the past five elections. He also writes that in
Without the write-off, earnings per share for the company would have been $1.06. Last year, Ragan, Inc., had an EPS of $4.54 and paid a dividend to Carrington and Genevieve of $63,000 each. The company also had a return on equity of 25%. The siblings believe that 20% is an appropriate required return for the company. Questions: 1.
Due to the fact that there is a direct correlation between the candidate who spent the most money on their campaign, and the eventual winner of the election, suggests that whoever spends the most money on their campaign will ultimately become president. In 2008 Barrack Obama won the election after spending over $750million on his campaign. John McCain spent $370,000million, less than half of what Obama spent. Over $425million of Obama’s money went towards the media, when you consider the fact that McCain spent under $130 million on the media it is clear that Obama was in the public eye a lot more frequently, therefore the average voter would have been constantly hearing positivity around Obama in the newspapers and on TV, and less about McCain, meaning that they would feel more inclined to vote for him as they have a greater idea of who he is and what he is doing. This suggests why Obama won the key swing states, Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania.
Although they got more votes than any other party, only 35.2% of the population actually wanted a Labour government, yet they ended up representing 55.1% of the country in Parliament. No government in recent years has ever been elected after obtaining a majority of the votes; the closest any government has got is 40%. Therefore this shows that First Past the Post doesn’t select a government which is popular with the people as the majority of the people didn’t actually vote for the government they have ended up with. Another, more recent example of this is the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. The Conservatives got 36.1% of the votes and the Liberal Democrats got 23%.
"In the 20th century, US presidential elections, the taller candidate usually won (22 out of 25 times) (Sorokowski, 2010)." The taller candidates are twice likely to win the presidential race (Blaker, 2013). Not only height affects leadership opportunity. Armstrong, Green, Jones, and Wright (2010) stated leadership judgments made from faces of unfamiliar political candidates have predicted real election outcomes in American congressional, gubernatorial, and presidential races. The face cues also affect federal election outcomes in Australia and Japan.