Although John Kerry's race to the White House is a definite challenge that will be hard to tackle, it is one filled with fruitful returns if achieved. John Kerry will need to be an individual that sets him apart from the other running candidates by addressing key issues that are pertinent to the highest percentage of voters in the United States by learning from the past. On the other hand, as a democratic candidate, John Kerry should uphold the new democratic view of being a moderate while using the media and other mediums of communication to his full advantage to achieve support for his political platform.
Looking back to the past success and failure of the Democratic Party will be an effective method of devising a winning campaign strategy. The 2000 Election was a heavy lesson learned by the Democratic Party as Albert Gore lost his spot in the White House by leaning too much to the political left and not capitalizing on his strength of foreign policy negotiations and economic prosperity. Al Gore's political views may have changed because of wanting to separate him from Bill Clinton's low morale reputation which simultaneously separated him from Clinton's moderate views. However, Kerry is far removed from Bill Clinton's mishaps and he should take heed of Clinton's successful methodology of reaching out to the people.
In order to achieve his goal of winning the presidential position Kerry needs to look back to Clinton's 1992 and 1996 campaign strategy of approaching the broad middle class instead of approaching particular group interests as Gore had done in the past and garner votes from those who are looking for a political home; particularly Independents, upscale suburbanites and young voters. Although bein...
... middle of paper ...
...ture and for older voters, making himself visible at public/business functions (i.e.-fundraisers, business dinners, social engagements) or at town meetings shall be the equivalent. While it is important that he visits the traditional Democratic states such as Washington, Oregon, California and the New England states, he should put his micro scale publicity efforts into less dependable states such as Colorado, Idaho, and Kansas.
John Kerry is definitely on his way to White House as long as he emphasizes his strengths, his visions for the future, keeping public visibility, and be more approachable as an American citizen. Although others may seem him as uptight, he must let his sincerity to serve the working class Americans shine through and emphasize his "100 days plan" on reforming the United States in achieving a more stable economy and a more secure nation.
In 1971, John Kerry stood in front of the Senate and spoke about his experiences in Vietnam as a soldier. There would be many that would agree with his position, some that would disagree and ultimately some that had no strong opinion at all. John Kerry knew that although he was speaking to the senate he was also speaking to the American people and through his intentional way of speaking he used this to his advantage. In John Kerry’s speech, strongly opposing the Vietnam War, Kerry successfully uses his persona as one who experienced the war head on, to reveal the lack of morality in Vietnam and paint the war as barbaric acts with no true purpose behind them.
The first activity that was presented by Mayhew is due to the tremendous advertising that the members undertake. Through advertising, a congressman is able to build a favorable reputation for himself which will then attract voters. Although the incumbent’s image can have “little or no issue content,” it is still important to gain credibility from the voters so reelection of the specific incumbent can be achieved. Different ways that congressman advertise are through frequent visits to their district, mailings or letters sent to homes, and “nonpolitical speeches to home audiences.” With
Wines, Michael. "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: THE AD CAMPAIGN; Clinton: Reminding Voters of a Promise." New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast) ed.Oct 03 1992. ProQuest. Web. 8 Mar. 2014 .
Though Kennedy and Clinton addressed their audiences nearly thirty-two years apart, each rhetor faced a common rhetorical barrier – an American populace too heavily focused on the personalities within each respective presidential election rather than the true issues confronting the United States. To overcome that barrier, both Kennedy and Clinton utilize definitional strategies – in the form of association – as well as language strategies –specifically, historical allusions. Whether or not the speeches directly correlate with both candidates winning their presidential elections does not concern the examination; this paper observes how exactly the rhetorical devices used served to dissolve the barriers between the rhetor and the intended audience.
In 2014 Beyond Blue released a video campaign that illustrated that ‘Discrimination stops with you’ and posted a message that ‘No one should be made to feel like crap just for being who they are’ (Beyond Blue 2014). The campaign dubbed The Invisible Discriminator showed a sequence of events where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience racism and links how these incidents that may seem insignificant to those being unconsciously racist can lead to anxiety and depression.
For the 2004 presidential election, Republican president George W. Bush is attempting to defend his post and reassure the American people that his political choices are the best for our country. His opponent, Democratic senator John Kerry believes that his political ideas will be better for a changing America. Four main topics debated on by the candidates are: Homeland Security, Civil Rights, Education (no child left behind), and the Economy. The two candidates have differing views on most of these topics. President George W. Bush believes that we need to stay our course. With military action in Iraq, Bush is confident that in the next four years as president he will strengthen Homeland Security, improve our schools with higher standards for teachers, and boost our economy. John Kerry however, believes that he has a better plan for “strength and security,” “world class education for all,” and “a stronger economy.” Never before have preliminary polls shown a closer presidential race. With this paper I plan to separate the candidates and prove that there is a better candidate.
In 1992 the incumbent president George Bush was seeking reelection. It was the general consensus that he would be the 'hands down, no contest winner'. When the smoke had cleared and the votes were tallied, many were shocked at the results. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton had defeated the incumbent by a landslide! How could this be? How did the commander and chief of what could be considered the greatest victory in modern American history defeat the Iraqi army and one year later lose the election for the presidency? The answers to these questions as well as explanations for the outcome lie within the campaign strategies and tactics used by each candidate. There were various major political events and public opinion data that occurred throughout the general election stage of the campaign. This paper will analyze both the political events and the public opinion data, in hopes of developing a better understanding as to what helped shape the overall outcome. There were three candidates in the race for the presidency, President Bush (R), Bill Clinton (D), and Ross Perot (I). Each of the three, to a greater or lesser extent, focused their campaign on the economy. President Bush focused more of his campaign on criticizing his opponents primarily Bill Clinton. He would often compare the economy to that of other nations, claiming it wasn't all that bad and resumed attacking his opponents. Bill Clinton on the other hand focused his campaign strategy on implementing the need for 'change.' At that time the national debt and unemployment was rising. Clinton vowed to improve the economy and the quality of life for the American people by bringing about change. Ross Perot was more of a crusader against Washin...
...irth abortion and opposes Roe v. Wade. He voted with his party 81 percent of the time last year. John McCain's supporters hope the New Hampshire primary will give him enough credibility with independent voters and fellow Republicans who do not support the "coronation of George" in 2000 to help make up for his inability to match his opponent's fund-raising skill.
All across America the success of the Democratic Party platform can be seen. But we want more. The Democratic Party is determined to giv...
Political machines were supported by continuing immigration, sustained by patronage, enlarged by wealth, and in the end were weeded out by reformers progress for public rather than private good, and caused by the need for public works and skilled workers, after the population of cities expanded.
During the November 2000 presidential elections, two children tried to make daddy proud. First there was Albert Gore Jr. – the son of a powerful and respected senator of Tennessee – who was no stranger to politics and privilege. As a child he attended the prestigious St. Alban’s School and while growing up, it was common to see then Vice President Richard Nixon as a guest at the family dinner table. Then there was George W. Bush – a third-generation politician, with his grandfather a former senator, his brother the governor of Florida, and his father being former president. The November 2000 presidential elections would become the battle of dynastic supremacy. Whose silver spoon was shiniest? In the end, Bush’s spoon was voted most polished (at least by the electoral standards, certainly not by the popular) and was given the presidential seat. The election had many Americans frustrated, echoing columnist Lars-Erik Nelson’s protest, “Bush’s spectacular career rebuts the notion that America has become a meritocracy, in which we are all born equal and then judged upon our intelligence, talent, creativity, and aggressiveness” (qtd. in Maass 10).
Today’s leading news stories range from sports to overseas affairs, and from these Americans must decide what is important to our nation. Governor George W. Bush tries to make this decision a little easier in his announcement of candidacy on June 12, 1999 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Like most candidates in an election, Bush’s main purpose is to present his ideas to a large audience and convince them that he is the man that can change the presidency. Governor Bush offers his opinion on free trade, our current military power, and drawing a moral line in politics. Bush speaks elegantly to his intended audience, which consists of his loyal supporters and those interested in changing America’s political scene with a “compassionate president.” At the same time he tends to exclude people who haven’t kept up with his agenda or that are not in the market for significant political transformation. Overall, Bush gives sufficient information to back up his claims. Only reading the speech would not indicate this, but exploring his website provides background information and family history, and is all done with a friendly, inviting tone. The effort made by Bush to run and manage this campaign exemplifies a caring and committed candidate and produces an effective rhetorical argument.
The American Presidency Project. 10 January 2014. The "Democratic Party Platform, 2012. " The American Presidency Project. 10 January 2014.
Running for a position of power is a tough thing to do. There are many things to worry about: your image, your policies, and, especially, your voters. While running for Congress is not as stressful as running for president, it has it own set of obstacles: making a “home style,” representing the people well, and making useful public policy. Listening to the words of Richard Fenno, John Ellwood, and Eric Patashnik can make doing these things a whole lot easier.
If he wants to repeal The Affordable Care Act, he should be prepared to tell all Americans why and show them his plan to replace it. If a candidate wants to get rid of Common Core Standards or scrap the public school system, that is well and good, but he should be prepared to enlighten the people as to why and show them a better way of doing education. If a candidate is against illegal immigration, I get it, but please, tell me your step by step plan to resolve the issue. I want the presidential candidates to get down to the nitty gritty of how they can do the job of president better and shut up with generalizations that amount to little more than stirring up a pot of jaw flapping