US Democracy and Participation

Parties on environment

Democrats: committed to getting 50% of our electricity from clean energy source within a decade Republican: support the development of all forms of energy that are marketable without subsidies including coal and oil.

Parties on abortion

Democrats: fight all efforts to roll back the clock on women's health and reproductive rights Republican: call for a permanent ban on federal funding and subsidies for abortion

Parties on gender rights

Democrats: fight discrimination and protect all LGBT Americans. Support Obergefell v Hodges (2015) Republicans: Recognise marriage as the union between one man and one woman.

Parties on minimum wage

Democrats: raise the minimum federal wage to $15 an hour over time and index it to inflation Republican: minimum wage should be handled at state and local level

Parties on crime

Democrats: understand the disproportionate effects of crime and incarceration on communities of colour Republicans: support mandatory prison sentences for gang crimes, robbery, murder, repeat drug dealers etc

Social Policy shows differences in policy between the Republican and Democrat parties

Social Policy: • It could be argued that the two parties agree to a certain extent on criminal justice reform, arguing that mandatory sentencing laws are discriminatory and ineffective, while the cost of incarcerating non-violent offenders for lengthy sentences is financially unsustainable • For example, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act in 2015 passed with bipartisan support in the Senate Judiciary Committee. • However, they disagree firmly on many other social issues. • Republicans are rooted firmly in the belief that an unborn child, like any individual in this country, has an individual right to life that should not be infringed upon by others. • Therefore, they oppose the Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade (1973) that legalized abortions. • They also oppose using public revenues to promote or carry out abortions, with the Trump administration recently proposing to cut federal funding for organizations that mention or offer abortion. • Furthermore, Republicans also disagree with Democrats on gun control - they believe that the American citizens reserve the right to own, carry and use firearms. • Republicans are thus staunch proponents of the 2nd amendment, that 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' • This could be seen in 2013, when a bill introducing universal background checks supported by over 90% of the US population was defeated in the Senate by Republicans. • Many Republicans also see marriage as an essentially religious institution, with Republicans in state legislature successfully amending their state constitutions to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman • As a result, many Republicans are very critical of Obergefell vs. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage. • In contrast, Democrats believe firmly in a women's right to decide whether or not to abort a pregnancy, regardless of whether or not she is able to pay for it, and Obama therefore funded Planned Parenthood. • The Democrats are also far more supportive of same-sex marriage, and favor more gun control as well • Democrats passed both the Brady Law (introduced federal background checks on anybody purchasing firearms) and the Assault Weapons Ban (which banned the manufacture of semi-automatic firearms in the USA), however it expired in 2004. • Following the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012, Democrats proposed a number of reforms, including the introduction of mandatory background checks and limits to the size of magazines. • Obama also took 23 executive actions that year, such as increasing police resources, to address gun crime. • Thus they disagree to a large extent on social issues, but not as fundamentally as on the role and size of the government - more overlap.

What is the invisible primary?

The year or so before the start of the primaries when potential candidates try to gain recognition and money as well as put together the necessary organisation.

campaigning shows that incumbency gives presidential candidates an advantage

Campaigning: • It could be argued that incumbency doesn't help with campaigning, as there is less immediate excitement over the president as a candidate. • For example, in the 2 months after he announced he would run, Bernie Sanders raised $20.7 million, $4mil more than any other Democrat candidate. • Similarly, Pete Buttigieg has experienced enormous excitement around his campaign since announcing as an unknown - 20% of Dems had an opinion of him in February 2019, compared to 50% by May, while an Emerson College Poll in March gave him 11% of the vote in Iowa, putting him in third place and showing his meteoric rise. • Moreover, due to hyperpartisanship, any serious Democrat or Republican candidate will win around 40% of the vote, so name recognition is not as important as winning over the swing voters in the middle. • Clinton had a large, comprehensive campaign in 2016, compared to Trump's relatively small and inexpensive operation. • Clinton had far more volunteers and offices in the field, with thousands more paid staff to help get-out-the-vote. It was also praised for its advanced databases, enabling them to target voters with specific messages, while Trump was ridiculed for spending more on 'MAGA' hats than polling; however, Trump won so campaign size doesn't always matter. • However, the incumbent president has a massive advantage in campaigning, and can raise far more money. • Indeed, Trump is the first president to raising money for his re-election bid within the first two years of his presidency - he raised $67.6 million in 2018, and $30.8 million in first quarter of 2018, significantly more than Sanders. • Moreover, he already has powerful PACs backing him, such as Trump Victory and Trump Make America Great Again - together, they raised $100m in 2018, all of which will help Trump in some form. • Trump has been spending this money - spending $5m more on social media than all the Democrats combined, and total spending of £56m in 2018. • Using this money to run a comprehensive and expansive campaign; e.g., 18 rallies in 20 days before the 2018 mid-terms, showing the size and sophistication of his campaign. • His campaign is so advanced that it claims to have identified every voter in key states that they think they can win over in 2020, such as in the elderly white demographic in Michigan. • It can therefore use its funds to expressly target these 26 million voters, rather than focus on winning over the entire electorate or increasing name recognition - president already has this. • President also can use the bully pulpit to address the nation and directly advocate for their own agenda - their offices gives them an incredible platform. • Indeed, since 1796, 31 presidents have run for re-election, and only 9 have failed - demonstrates the advantage.

Evaluate the view that incumbency gives presidential candidates an advantage

Campaigning: • It could be argued that incumbency doesn't help with campaigning, as there is less immediate excitement over the president as a candidate. • For example, in the 2 months after he announced he would run, Bernie Sanders raised $20.7 million, $4mil more than any other Democrat candidate. • Similarly, Pete Buttigieg has experienced enormous excitement around his campaign since announcing as an unknown - 20% of Dems had an opinion of him in February 2019, compared to 50% by May, while an Emerson College Poll in March gave him 11% of the vote in Iowa, putting him in third place and showing his meteoric rise. • Moreover, due to hyperpartisanship, any serious Democrat or Republican candidate will win around 40% of the vote, so name recognition is not as important as winning over the swing voters in the middle. • Clinton had a large, comprehensive campaign in 2016, compared to Trump's relatively small and inexpensive operation. • Clinton had far more volunteers and offices in the field, with thousands more paid staff to help get-out-the-vote. It was also praised for its advanced databases, enabling them to target voters with specific messages, while Trump was ridiculed for spending more on 'MAGA' hats than polling; however, Trump won so campaign size doesn't always matter. • However, the incumbent president has a massive advantage in campaigning, and can raise far more money. • Indeed, Trump is the first president to raising money for his re-election bid within the first two years of his presidency - he raised $67.6 million in 2018, and $30.8 million in first quarter of 2018, significantly more than Sanders. • Moreover, he already has powerful PACs backing him, such as Trump Victory and Trump Make America Great Again - together, they raised $100m in 2018, all of which will help Trump in some form. • Trump has been spending this money - spending $5m more on social media than all the Democrats combined, and total spending of £56m in 2018. • Using this money to run a comprehensive and expansive campaign; e.g., 18 rallies in 20 days before the 2018 mid-terms, showing the size and sophistication of his campaign. • His campaign is so advanced that it claims to have identified every voter in key states that they think they can win over in 2020, such as in the elderly white demographic in Michigan. • It can therefore use its funds to expressly target these 26 million voters, rather than focus on winning over the entire electorate or increasing name recognition - president already has this. • President also can use the bully pulpit to address the nation and directly advocate for their own agenda - their offices gives them an incredible platform. • Indeed, since 1796, 31 presidents have run for re-election, and only 9 have failed - demonstrates the advantage. Primaries: • Stiff challenge in a primary can significantly weaken a president. • In 1976, Ford faced a challenge from Ronald Reagan, while Carter had to defeat Senator Edward Kennedy in 1980 in the Democratic primaries - Kennedy won 12 state contests including the primaries in New York and California, two hubs of Democrat support. • Similarly, in 1992, GHWB had to fight off conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, and Buchanan's 37% in the New Hampshire primary was an embarrassment for Bush. • This opposition can seriously damage a president's reputation - all three of these presidents lost the general election, despite winning the primary. • Moreover, a stiff primary challenge provides material for the opponent in the general election; for example, Bill Clinton adopted Buchanan's slogan: 'Read our lips: no second term,' which was a parody of Bush's broken pledge not to raise taxes - 'Read my lips: no new taxes.' • In contrast, a wave of support in the primaries can energise the base of a party and carry a candidate to victory - Obama won the 2008 primary despite being an underdog, and rode the momentum from this to a 52.9% majority in the general election. • However, the president is rarely faced with a serious challenge in the primary, and they are often not even held - in 2012 Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, New York and other states didn't even hold a Democratic presidential primary. • Reagan, Obama and GWB all won over 90% of the primary vote in their election. • This is because the incumbent candidate is backed by the party establishment - shown by how the entire RNC and traditional Reps such as Jack Oliver, a campaign expert who helped GWB, are all now behind Trump, whereas they vehemently opposed him in 2016. • In addition, the difficulty of winning in the primary against an incumbent can discourage better-known and stronger candidates from competing, as they instead attempt to encourage party unity; e.g., Clinton not running again to challenge Obama in 2012. Legislative failures/success: • Recent incumbent presidents have lost because of their failures in office - they have a 4-year track record, and therefore it is easier to criticise them. • Ford's reputation was damaged by him granting a pardon to Nixon and his foreign policy in Vietnam. • Similarly, the end of Carter's presidential tenure was marred by the 1979-1981 Iran Hostage Crisis, which was a foreign policy debacle. • Moreover, Bush's electoral defeat was also in large part to his track record as president - he broke his 1988 campaign promise to not raise taxes and was heavily criticised as a result. • More significantly, all three presided over a failing and stagnant economy, which was a major factor in their defeat. • However, only 3 recent incumbent presidents have lost, as most presidents secure their biggest victories within their first terms, and this gains them enormous support among the electorate and helps them win a second term. • For example, Clinton passed the Brady Bill, ended the ban on lesbian and gay soldiers serving in the military in 1994 and reduced the budget deficit, which was particularly significant given the Democrats' less economically competent image - as a result he won 5% more of the population in the 1996 election than in 1992. • Similarly, Bush implemented major tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy, and passed the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), which imposed federal standards of education, and the USA Patriot Act, which increased governmental security powers, which had bipartisan support and was widely backed by the public - he gained an extra 3% in the 2004 election compared to 2000. • Moreover, as a president with a 4-year track record, an incumbent candidate doesn't need to try and explain what ideological position they hold or what significant reforms should be introduced - instead, they represent stability and continuity. • For example, in 2012, the public knew Obama would protect Obamacare, DACA and generally continue the status quo - in contrast, Romney wanted to 'Repeal and Replace' Obamacare and introduce a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. • Therefore, if economy is good and no major failures, incumbency helps.

Parties on Healthcare

Democrats: ACA has covered 20 million more Americans and ensured milli no more will never be denied it Republican: ACA must be repealed

Progressives in the Democrat Party

College educated professionals 49% were college graduates Popular support in metropolitan areas African American voters Ted Kennedy, Obama and Pelosi prominent liberals

Evaluate the view that campaign finance was the main influence on the result of the 2016 presidential election

Campaign finance: • It could be argued that campaign finance played a vital role in 2016 and was therefore the main influence on the result of the 2016 presidential election. • Indeed, the presidential campaign costs around $1 billion, due to all of the field offices, advertising, polling and campaigning that is needed over the 20-month long process. • Furthermore, Trump's campaign, including PACs, received far more money from individual donors, with Trump himself contributing $66.1m, than Clinton did. • Trump also received 76% of all 'dark money,' spending i.e. anonymous donations to PACs, compared to Democrats receiving only 17%. • In addition, Trump had support from several influential interest groups. • For example, the Chamber of Commerce spent almost $30m on congressional races while the NRA spent heavily on Trump and on Republican Senate candidates in North Carolina, Missouri and Indiana, all of whom were successful. • However, dark money was less important in 2012 as it was in 2016, with almost $130m less spent on it, thus suggesting it was not a hugely significant factor. • Furthermore, Clinton raised $1.4 billion through her own campaign, super PACs and party and joint fundraising committees, while Trump brought in only $957.3m through the same methods, thus suggesting that campaign finance was not the main influence in the election. • Indeed, Clinton's campaign raised $623.1 million, whereas Trump's campaign funding amount to $334.8m, almost half. • Moreover, the three largest pro-Clinton Super-PACs raised $213.8m, in comparison to the top three pro-Trump Super-PACs managing only $67.2bn. • This is particularly significant as PACs and super-PACs received and spent a record amount of money in the 2016 campaign cycle, accounting for more than 48% of all federal campaign donations totalling just over $4bn. • In addition, Trump was able to exploit earned media and received around $5bn in free media coverage in comparison to Clinton gaining only $3.24bn. • This as a result of Trump's status as an unconventional and controversial candidate, and enabled him to reach the public without spending enormous amounts. • Therefore, Trump won the election despite Clinton significantly outspending him, therefore demonstrating that while campaign finance is important in presidential elections, it was not the main influence in 2016. The System: The Electoral College: • Instead, the primary reason for Trump being elected president was the structure and system of presidential elections in the USA, and specifically the Electoral College. • The primaries initially hurt Clinton and helped Trump, as he rose from nowhere and gained lots of momentum whereas Hilary was expected to easily win and faced a challenge from Bernie. • Furthermore, Clinton won almost 3m more votes than Trump, and over 2% more of the American population; however, the winner-takes-all system of the Electoral College in every state but Maine and Nebraska resulted in Trump gaining 74 more College votes. • Rather than valuing votes across the country, all of the College votes for each state simply go to whichever candidate wins the greatest proportion of the vote there. • As a result, there are inevitably an enormous number of wasted votes, especially in contentious swing states. • For example, in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Trump won by an average of only 0.73% of the vote, yet gained 46 College votes from these states. • Indeed, had Clinton won there, she would have received 278 electoral votes, enough to win the election. • Thus, the 101,018 votes that won Trump these three states effectively won him the election, while individual votes in other, less contentious states, such as in California, meant very little to the overall result. • Furthermore, the votes in smaller states are overvalued compared to larger states - this can be seen in California, which has one college vote per 713,000 people, compared to Wyoming, with one per 195,000. • This favours Republican candidates such as Trump, as they normally have more rural support and therefore benefit from the overvaluation of smaller states. • Therefore, although campaign finance is significant, and Trump's spending in these swing states was vital to him winning there, without the Electoral College he would not have won the 2016 presidential election. Party campaigning: • It could be argued that campaign strategy and the campaign itself also played a role in Trump's victory. • Since the election, the Clinton campaign has been criticised for its approach, including its focus on Clinton's experience in comparison to Trump's lack thereof. • Rather than emphasising her own policy agenda, Clinton stressed the difference between her and Trump, which was not very successful; for example, her comment calling Trump supporters 'deplorable' only alienated swing voters. • Moreover, the Democrat have come under fire for failing to win over the white working-class males that Obama won yet Trump dominated among. • The Democrats also trusted the so-called 'Firewall' states, (Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire) too much, and devoted resources to other swing states. • This allowed Trump to dominate the Rust Belt states, and take advantage of their economic and industrial decline with his anti-free trade, nationalist approach, resulting in electoral victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. • Furthermore, the Clinton campaign was never truly able to recover from their "October Surprise," as James Comey announced that the FBI was re-opening its investigation into Clinton in October 2016. • However, at the time the Clinton campaign was praised for its strategy and efficiency in comparison to the Trump one, therefore demonstrating the relative unimportance of campaign strategy in the election's result. • Clinton had far more volunteers and offices in the field, with thousands more paid staff to help get-out-the-vote. • The Clinton campaign was also praised for its advanced databases, enabling them to target voters with specific messages, while Trump was ridiculed for spending more on 'MAGA' hats than polling. • Furthermore, Trump faced his own "October Surprise" in the form of the Access Hollywood tape, which was released on 7th October 2016 and included Trump claiming he could sexually grope women and get away with it; however, this damaging tape did not prevent him from winning the election. • Therefore, although Clinton did make several campaign missteps, so did Trump, while she was also commended at the time for her campaign, thus demonstrating that it was not her campaign that lost the election. Demographics/social factors: • Demographics and other social factors also played a somewhat influential role in the 2016 election. • Trump won over uneducated white voters by 37%, an enormous margin, especially considering Romney won among this same demographic by only 26% in 2012. • Indeed, traditionally the Democrats had a slim leader over the Republicans among uneducated white voters, winning their votes in 1992 and 1996. • Thus, Trump's victory here, which was perhaps due to his nationalist and anti-Washington/establishment approach winning blue-collar support in industrial states, was vital to his overall victory in the election. • Similarly, Trump won white voters by 58%, which several commentators attributed to a 'white-lash' - a backlash from white voters who want the government to take a harsher stance on law and order and immigration and who oppose political correctness. • In addition, Trump was also highly successful in winning over the evangelical vote, as he won it by the biggest margin of any candidate in recent history, with a 65% lead over Clinton. • This victory has been attributed to Trump's socially conservative stance on abortion, and his repeated promises to appoint SCJs who would reverse Roe and Wade. • In addition, Clinton failed to win over the minority vote, falling by 5 points among black voters, 6 among Hispanics and 8 among Asians, all of which suggests that demographics such as ethnicity played a major role. • However, although Trump was somewhat successful in winning over certain demographics, Clinton's failure to dominate among female voters suggesting that voters were convinced by other, seemingly more important factors rather than those specifically affecting their demographic. • Clinton was expected to win women by an enormous margin, given Trump's blatant sexism and the Hollywood bus recording, as well as the possibility of her being the first female • However, she only won 54% of the female vote, which was actually down one point from Obama in 2012, thus suggesting that gender did not motivate people's voting. • Furthermore, regardless of the specific numbers and percentages of demographics, Clinton still managing to win the American people as a whole, gaining over 2m more votes than Trump, therefore demonstrating she was successful in winning over key groups as well as widespread support within the electorate. • Yet, despite this vote majority, she did not win the election due to the college.

What is the Blue Dog Democrats?

2010 - 54 members 2016 - 15 members (lost members to liberal Obama Term) Want fiscal restraints at the federal level and dedicated to national security

What is the Freedom Caucus?

40/241 Republicans in House in 2016 Strongly unified If more than 80% vote one way they must all vote that way Paul Ryan was supported by the majority of them Can determine whether legislation passes through - stopped Trump-Ryan American Healthcare Act (2017) as it was too similar to Obamas

What is the Main Street Partnership?

70 members of Congress Susan Collins (Maine) John McCain Supported the Budget Act in May 2017 Want increased border security and an additional $15 billion for Pentagon spending

People moving apart is causing polarisation

75% of conservatives want to live in rural areas 77% of liberals want to live in urban areas Social and political bubble Red: Conservative, Christian, white, older Blue: liberal, diverse, younger 57% of conservatives think it's important many share the same faith in the area they live in

Access points shows that PGs promote pluralist democracy/can influence the three branches of government and public policy

Access points: • PGs also promote pluralist democracy by utilising the access points of the American political system, which are created due to the many centres of power within federalism. • For example, they can operate at the national level by advising Congressional Committees or, in the case of the NRA, giving all members of Congress a rating, and exert influence at a state level; for example, in Wisconsin in 2012, public sector unions worked together to amass 1 million signatures to recall the GOP governor Scott Walker following laws that removed collective bargaining rights. • Furthermore, PGs not advance their agenda with state and federal legislatures, but also influence the judiciary and the government, thus fully utilising America's access points. • This can be seen with ACLU, which frequently sends in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court and even brings cases to it. • For example, it filed a brief in 1954 during Brown v Board (1954) and brought McCreary v ACLU (2005) and Gloucester County School Board v G.G. (2017) to the courts, which concerned a display of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky Courthouse and transgender student rights in Virginia respectively. • Moreover, these access points allow pressure groups to operate at a grassroots level through direct action - this can be seen with Black Lives Matter, which holds marches, community building events and a 'toolkit for white people' class. • However, direct action is often unsuccessful, particularly when it becomes violent and the federal government feels that the PG is challenging its authority. • For example, in Seattle in 2000 during the World Trade meeting, several PGs attempted to protest and gain support; however, they were wholly unsuccessful, and were dealt with by the police in a physical manner that was supported by many in authority at the city, state and national level. • Furthermore, exploiting these access points requires significant funding. • Therefore, only rich, large and powerful PGs can take advantage of them and thus influence policy; for example, in 2012 at least 50 oil companies, business trade organisation, unions and political groups put together a combined $178 million, compared to only $5mil from the dozen groups opposing them. • Even the ACLU, which seeks to represent civil liberties in general rather than a specific interest, has over 1.2 million members and an annual budget of $100 million, thus further demonstrating that only powerful PGs can influence the branches of government. • Indeed, the use of direct action only further demonstrates this elitism, as smaller PGs are forced to resort to extra-governmental means without the requisite funding to have true influence. • Therefore, although the many access points of the US system enable PGs to influence government at multiple levels, ultimately only rich, large and powerful PGs are able to have any influence and exploit these access points.

Key ideas and principles of Republicans

Aim to protect traditional US values and way of life Limited federal government Social conservative, economically liberal Protection of states rights

campaign finance was the main influence on the result of the 2016 presidential election

Campaign finance: • It could be argued that campaign finance played a vital role in 2016 and was therefore the main influence on the result of the 2016 presidential election. • Indeed, the presidential campaign costs around $1 billion, due to all of the field offices, advertising, polling and campaigning that is needed over the 20-month long process. • Furthermore, Trump's campaign, including PACs, received far more money from individual donors, with Trump himself contributing $66.1m, than Clinton did. • Trump also received 76% of all 'dark money,' spending i.e. anonymous donations to PACs, compared to Democrats receiving only 17%. • In addition, Trump had support from several influential interest groups. • For example, the Chamber of Commerce spent almost $30m on congressional races while the NRA spent heavily on Trump and on Republican Senate candidates in North Carolina, Missouri and Indiana, all of whom were successful. • However, dark money was less important in 2012 as it was in 2016, with almost $130m less spent on it, thus suggesting it was not a hugely significant factor. • Furthermore, Clinton raised $1.4 billion through her own campaign, super PACs and party and joint fundraising committees, while Trump brought in only $957.3m through the same methods, thus suggesting that campaign finance was not the main influence in the election. • Indeed, Clinton's campaign raised $623.1 million, whereas Trump's campaign funding amount to $334.8m, almost half. • Moreover, the three largest pro-Clinton Super-PACs raised $213.8m, in comparison to the top three pro-Trump Super-PACs managing only $67.2bn. • This is particularly significant as PACs and super-PACs received and spent a record amount of money in the 2016 campaign cycle, accounting for more than 48% of all federal campaign donations totalling just over $4bn. • In addition, Trump was able to exploit earned media and received around $5bn in free media coverage in comparison to Clinton gaining only $3.24bn. • This as a result of Trump's status as an unconventional and controversial candidate, and enabled him to reach the public without spending enormous amounts. • Therefore, Trump won the election despite Clinton significantly outspending him, therefore demonstrating that while campaign finance is important in presidential elections, it was not the main influence in 2016.

candidate selection shows that the parties are in decline

Candidate selection: • It could be argued that parties have lost control over presidential candidate selection, as the party establishment has struggled in recent years to get their preferred candidate elected in the presidential primary. • This could be seen in 2016, as the Hillary Clinton faced a challenge from Bernie Sanders, despite her having the support of the establishment, while Trump was not the Republican establishment's preferred choice, yet won the primary through strong support from the Republican base. • Indeed, both GWB and GHWB, the party's only living presidents, and 2012 candidate Mitt Romney all opposed Trump. • Furthermore, in 2018 the Democrats voted to prevent superdelegates from voting at the Convention if it is not clear who will win, although they can vote in subsequent rounds. • This makes it harder for establishment candidates to get elected, as these superdelegates normally support them; for example, 572 out of 712 superdelegates voted for Clinton. • Moreover, the loss of party control over candidate selection can also be seen in elections for Congress, as despite Tea Party candidates lacking the support of the establishment, in 2010 32% of such candidates won the party primaries. • For example, Tea Party Republican David Brat defeated House Majority leader Eric Cantor by 12 points in a 2014 primary, demonstrating the complete defeat of the establishment. • However, although the party establishment cannot always control the selection of their candidate during the primaries, this is because so many different candidates run for the nomination - in 2016, there were 17 major candidates - and therefore demonstrates the importance of party support in election. • Neither Trump nor Sanders were associated with the party establishment, and Sanders runs for Senate as an independent; however, they both recognised that a party nomination was vital to success in US election and therefore ran in the party primaries. • This is because of the electoral college's state-based first past the post system - it heavily favours the major parties who have widespread support but also concentrate this support in certain areas, and therefore makes it very difficult for third parties to succeed. • For example, Ross Perot won 18.9% of the vote in 1992, and at least 10% in 49 states, but received no college votes at all. • Similarly, while the Tea Party were not supported by the establishment, all 138 candidates with Tea Party support in 2010 ran as Republican, thus illustrating that party support is also vital in Congressional races.

Evaluate the view that the parties are in decline

Candidate selection: • It could be argued that parties have lost control over presidential candidate selection, as the party establishment has struggled in recent years to get their preferred candidate elected in the presidential primary. • This could be seen in 2016, as the Hillary Clinton faced a challenge from Bernie Sanders, despite her having the support of the establishment, while Trump was not the Republican establishment's preferred choice, yet won the primary through strong support from the Republican base. • Indeed, both GWB and GHWB, the party's only living presidents, and 2012 candidate Mitt Romney all opposed Trump. • Furthermore, in 2018 the Democrats voted to prevent superdelegates from voting at the Convention if it is not clear who will win, although they can vote in subsequent rounds. • This makes it harder for establishment candidates to get elected, as these superdelegates normally support them; for example, 572 out of 712 superdelegates voted for Clinton. • Moreover, the loss of party control over candidate selection can also be seen in elections for Congress, as despite Tea Party candidates lacking the support of the establishment, in 2010 32% of such candidates won the party primaries. • For example, Tea Party Republican David Brat defeated House Majority leader Eric Cantor by 12 points in a 2014 primary, demonstrating the complete defeat of the establishment. • However, although the party establishment cannot always control the selection of their candidate during the primaries, this is because so many different candidates run for the nomination - in 2016, there were 17 major candidates - and therefore demonstrates the importance of party support in election. • Neither Trump nor Sanders were associated with the party establishment, and Sanders runs for Senate as an independent; however, they both recognised that a party nomination was vital to success in US election and therefore ran in the party primaries. • This is because of the electoral college's state-based first past the post system - it heavily favours the major parties who have widespread support but also concentrate this support in certain areas, and therefore makes it very difficult for third parties to succeed. • For example, Ross Perot won 18.9% of the vote in 1992, and at least 10% in 49 states, but received no college votes at all. • Similarly, while the Tea Party were not supported by the establishment, all 138 candidates with Tea Party support in 2010 ran as Republican, thus illustrating that party support is also vital in Congressional races. Traditional functions: • The traditional functions of the political party in America are being replaced, thus suggesting their decline. • This is partly due to the increasingly role of the media in political communication. • Traditionally, parties acted as the communicator between politicians and voters, as they organised functions such as rallies and Q&As. • Yet, politicians today communicate through television and social media, and receive feedback from the people via social media, email and opinion polls. • As a result, the party is cut out; for example, Trump's use of Twitter provides the electorate with a direct line of communication to him, and distances the president from the larger Republican party. • Similarly, the role of the party in "get out the vote" campaigns during elections has been superseded by Super PACs and soft money. • Moreover, there is an increasing connotation of corruption and ineffectiveness around the two major parties. • Indeed, the support for the Tea Party and Occupy movements suggest that many Americans are more likely to join a movement or pressure group than a traditional party, which is supported by a 2010 Gallup poll finding that 73% of people felt the Tea Party had energised part of the electorate to get involved in politics. • As a result, candidates have intentionally attempted to distance themselves from the party established; for example, Trump promised to "drain the swamp," while both he and Sanders referred to their campaigns as "movements" rather than as part of the parties whose nomination they were seeking, thus further illustrating the decline of the party's traditional functions. • However, the role of the party during elections is still extremely important, as demonstrated by the nationalising of election campaigns. • One of the earliest examples of this was in the 1994 mid-terms, as the Republicans campaigned on a national level around Congressman Newt Gingrich's ten-point policy programme called the Contract with America. • This approach was hugely successful - there was a 54-seat swing from Democrats to Republicans in the House, resulting in the first Republican House majority since 1952. • Furthermore, in recent years there has been increasing co-ordination between candidates from the same party, with significant success. • For example, in 2018 there was a national Democrat commitment to avoiding Trump and focussing on healthcare, - 44% of adverts for House Democrats emphasised this issue - leading to a gain of 40 seats in the House and a Democrat majority. • In addition, the party establishment still retains power over the electoral process; for example, the DNC penalised Michigan and Florida delegates for moving their caucuses and primaries before 5th February 2008. • Although they were both allowed to attend the Convention, they were only given half a vote each. In Congress: • The parties are also internally divided within Congress, as members of the parties disagree on policy and are even willing to disobey the party line. • Although they disagree on many issues, such as the size of government and immigration reform, party divisions are perhaps most evident on healthcare. • For example, despite controlling Congress, Republicans were unable to repeal and replace Obamacare with the American Health Care Act in March 2017. • Indeed, it was defeated 49 - 51 in the Senate after moderate Republican Senators John McCain, Susan Collins (who is a member of the Main Street Partnership) and Lisa Murkowski voted against it, thus demonstrating the weakness of the party and its inability to control its members. • Yet, the Democrats are similarly divided over healthcare, as progressives such as Elizabeth Warren advocate a universal healthcare system, whereas more moderate 'Blue Dog Democrats' simply favor reform of the current system. • These divisions were apparent during the 2016 presidential primary race, as Sanders took the progressive stance of introducing universal health care, whilst Clinton argued that this was financially unachievable and pledged to continue to support Obamacare. • Moreover, there is clearly widespread support in the party for both positions, as Sanders won 44% of the vote while Clinton gained 55% and won the nomination, further exposing this division. • However, the rise in hyperpartisanship in Congress demonstrates that party delineation is stronger than ever, and therefore that the parties are not in decline in Congress. • This can be seen in Congressional voting; for example, in the early 1970s, party unity voting was around 40%, but today is closer to 70% in both the House and Senate. • Moreover, party-line voting is strongest on important legislation - no Democrats in the House or Senate voted for Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017. • Similarly, despite their disagreements on healthcare, no Republican in Congress voted for the final version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, while all 60 Democrats in the Senate • Furthermore, this hyperpartisanship has pervaded all aspects of Congress, not just legislation; for example, all the Supreme Court judges confirmed since Roberts, namely Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, were confirmed along party lines, with the majority of the opposition party in the Senate voting against. • Indeed, only one Democrat voted for Kavanaugh and every Republican for despite the sexual harassment scandal surrounding him, thus demonstrating the strength of party unity. • Furthermore, as a result of this hyperpartisanship factions within the parties have also declined, and there are fewer moderates on both sides. • This can be seen in the decline of the Blue Dog Democrats, as the Blue Dog Coalition has fallen from 54 members in 2008 to only 27 in 2018, while high profile moderates such as Kirsten Gillibrand have become more progressive.

Parties on education

Democrat: committed to making good public schools available to every child and making debt-free college a reality Republican: the federal government should not be a partner in education; parents are a child's first and foremost educators

Parties on Wall Street

Democrat: enforce and build updates on Obama's financial reform law and stop Republican attempts to weaken it. Republican: banking regulations are an excuse to establish unprecedented government control over financial markets.

Direct legislative impact shows that PGs promote pluralist democracy/can influence the three branches of government and public policy

Direct legislative impact: • PGs have a large impact on the legislative, as they help politicians to get elected and to make decisions beneficial for the country through their expertise. • PGs and more importantly PAC's can get legislators and bureaucrats elected by endorsing and funding their campaigns; for example, in 2015-16, PAC spending on campaigns was just under $1.4bn. • Indeed, this has become even more significant since Citizens United v FEC (2012), which removed all restrictions on non-campaign affiliated spending for interest groups. • In addition, PGs are vital to politicians in office, especially to those in congressional committees, as lobbyists are specialists in the specific policy areas in which committees are interested. • Members of Congress must learn about and form opinions on an enormous number of issues, especially as House members only serve two years and Senators represent an entire state. • With Congressional staff often stretched thin, and lobbyists specialising in the issues they constantly campaign on, PGs can provide legislators and bureaucrats with accurate and detailed information, and thus aid them in making informed decisions. • This close relationship between PGs and Congressmen can be seen in voting records; for example, eight Democrat senators have always voted in line with AFL - CIO views in the last three years. • However, these close ties can often lead to iron triangles forming as strong relationships can develop between PGs, the relevant congressional committees and government departments or agencies. • For example, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has close ties with both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs committee and Veterans' lobby groups such as Vietnam Veterans. • Through these iron triangles PGs gain undue influence in government and in Congress - this can be seen when lobbyists for the Chemical Manufacturers Association and International Paper partially wrote a bill to weaken the Clean Water Act. • In addition, revolving doors are encouraged by these links, with ex-Congressmen or members of the executive taking up jobs with lobbying firms after their careers in government are over, and subsequently using their expertise and contacts to lobby institutions. • Although federal law forbids public officials from taking up a lobbying job within a year of leaving office, it is very common after this; for example, there are currently around 388 former members of Congress working as lobbyists. • Moreover, influence in Congress often only comes as a result of money spent; it has been alleged that the electioneering PACs perform enables them to effectively write legislation and 'own' members of Congress, leading the former Senator for Massachusetts Edward Kennedy to proclaim that America has 'the finest Congress that money can buy.' • Therefore, as a result of the impact PGs have on the legislature and on government, power is concentrated in the hands of a select few, who maintain their influence using iron triangles, financial resources and revolving doors, with the state legislatures and the people not really involved.

Significance of Electoral College

Electoral college came from the executive elections compromise. Stems from the fact that creators of the Constitution thought that the average person was not educated enough to vote.

What is the New Democrat Coalition?

Founded in 1997 Covers 1/4 of House Democratic Caucus - 68 members Pro-growth More centrist approach Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore

Fair due to funding shows that US presidential elections are democratic

Fair due to funding: • It could be argued that US presidential elections are fair, as recent reforms have reduced the impact of campaign finance. • For example, in 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was passed, which limited 'soft money,' donations by unions and corporations as well as individual donations to individual candidates, thus diminishing the importance of campaign finance. • Furthermore, 'matching funds,' provide dollar-for-dollar funding for candidates on contributions up to $250, and therefore enable less well-funded candidates to still run; for example, Jill Stein received almost $600,000 of federal money in 2016. • Indeed, financial spending is clearly not the determinant of presidential elections, as Trump spent the 5th most in the primaries, including less than half of Ben Carson's spending, and was also outspent by Clinton in the presidential election, yet still won. • However, it is undeniable that finance is hugely important in the presidential campaign, as around £1bn is needed to run for president, due to all of the field offices, advertising, polling and campaigning that is needed over the 20-month long process. • Moreover, although recent reforms have limited 'hard money' contributed directly to a campaign, soft money designated for 'party-building' is largely unregulated and in 2000 raised $750m. • Similarly, the Supreme Court has somewhat undermined attempts to make elections fairer, as McCutcheon v FEC (2014) ruled that that McCain-Feingold's limit on how much contributors could spend in a two-year electoral cycle ($48,600) violated the First Amendment, while Citizens United v FEC (2010) allowed the creation of Super-PACs, which have become increasingly important in presidential elections. • For example, in 2016 PACs accounted for almost 50% of all campaign donations, raising slightly more than $4bn. • In addition, unregulated 501(c)4s and bundling have both increased in importance with bundlers raising $200m for Obama in 2012 and 501(c)4s outspending Super-PACs in 2010. • Therefore, despite the attempts to regulate campaign finance, new methods of fundraising have developed, thus maintaining the importance of campaign finance in the outcome of US presidential elections and rendering them unfair.

Fair due to structural shows that US presidential elections are democratic

Fair due to structural: • However, US presidential elections are also fair because all votes count for the same amount and recent reforms have reduced the importance of early primaries. • For example, in 2016 when 11 states held primaries on 1st March, thus effectively creating a regional primary, while the GOP introduced the Growth and Opportunity Project in 2016, which stops the primary reaching a foregone conclusion due to a candidate winning multiple early winner-takes-all states. • Both of these reforms undermine the importance of any one state in deciding the outcome of the nomination process, and ensure that votes from all states get a more equal say, thus enhancing fairness. • However, despite these reforms the first states to vote in the primaries still often determine the result. • Indeed, this advantage is so great that in 2012, Arizona, South Carolina and Florida all scheduled their primaries before the allotted first four and accepted a penalty of losing half their delegates, with the president of Florida's state senate explaining: 'I'd much rather have a say in the nomination process as opposed to the coronation process.' • More importantly, the structure of the Electoral college renders widespread national support unimportant due to the winner-takes-all system in every state bar Maine and Nebraska, thus making it hard for smaller third-party candidates. • For example, Ross Perot won 18.9% of the vote in 1992 but received no college votes. • Furthermore, as a result of this system, the decision is often decided by several swing states. • For example, in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Trump won by an average of only 0.73% of the vote, yet gained 46 College votes from these states without which he would not have won. • Thus, the 101,018 votes that won Trump these three states effectively won him the election, while individual votes in other, less contentious states, such as in California, meant very little to the overall result. • Moreover, the votes in smaller states are overvalued compared to larger states - this can be seen in California, which has one college vote per 713,000 people, compared to Wyoming, with one per 195,000. • Therefore, very few votes actually end up determining the result of the election, therefore rendering the system unfair and undemocratic.

Full of choice shows that US presidential elections are democratic

Full of choice: • Presidential elections offer a huge amount of choice in the primary stage, and thus are democratic. • For example, in 2016 there were 23 candidates who ran for one of the major parties' nomination, 6 Democrats and 17 Republicans. • Furthermore, these candidates are not all political insiders with powerful financial backers, as Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Trump, all of whom had never held political office, at times outperformed the Republican 'establishment candidates' Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, thus demonstrating that are varied and credible candidates. • These candidates also differ significantly on policy, as shown by the difference between Sanders' universal healthcare proposal and Clinton's suggested continuation of Obama's policy, thus providing voter with considerable choice. • In addition, people can vote for third party candidates who they feel represent them best, and have incredible choice, as 192 candidates obtained recognition as official 'write-in' candidates. • However, most of these candidates are not credible - these 190 third-party candidates gained less than 5% of the popular vote combined, and, if not for faithless electors would have received no electoral college votes, thus demonstrating that the only real choice is one of the two party nominees. • Furthermore, even within the primary process there are few credible candidates - only 4 of the Republican candidates - Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Trump - actually won a primary or caucus, while Sanders and Clinton were the only Democrats to do so. • Similarly, primaries become essentially pointless with incumbent presidents; in 2012, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida and New York all didn't even hold one for Democrats, while in 1984 Reagan received 99% of the primary vote - thus, every second election one of the only two credible candidates is already pre-decided and voters essentially get no choice. • Therefore, despite the multitude of candidates who run from across the political spectrum, only two candidates, the party nominees, are actually credible in each election, and they are themselves chosen from a narrow pool in the primaries.

What is the Tea Party?

Grassroots movement that wants to protect the security and sovereignty of the USA. Take the constitution literally and are religiously conservative.

Immigration shows differences in policy between the Republican and Democrat parties

Immigration • The Republican party believe that "America's immigration policy must serve the national interest of the United States" and thus that the immigration system needs to be reformed and that illegal immigration must be reduced. • It believes that the interests and jobs of American workers must be protected from foreign nationals and believes "illegal immigration endangers everyone". • The Republicans also oppose amnesty to those who have previously entered the country illegally, as it only encourages more immigrants. • To reduce immigration, the Republicans prioritise increasing border security, including building a wall covering the entirety of the southern border as well as reconnaissance cameras, border patrol agents and unmanned aerial flights. • Can be seen in the 2018 $1.3 trillion budget, which gave $1.6 Billion towards limiting immigration and building a wall. • Republicans also want to reform the legal immigration system, including removing the immigration lottery and reducing the number of legal immigrants. • In contrast, Democrats are generally pro-immigration and want to introduce reforms, as they believe it is beneficial to the economy. • Rather than targeting innocent families, the Democrats want to prioritise the deportation and general immigration enforcement of those with criminal records. • This can be seen in Obama's actions on immigration - in 2012 he introduced DACA, which protected 800,000 immigrants who arrived in the US as children, and DAPA, which protected the parents of these immigrants. • Indeed, the Democrats are united in their support of DACA and of TPS (Temporary Protection Status) and want an easier path to citizenship for all those included in the programs.

parties in congress shows that the parties are in decline

In Congress: • The parties are also internally divided within Congress, as members of the parties disagree on policy and are even willing to disobey the party line. • Although they disagree on many issues, such as the size of government and immigration reform, party divisions are perhaps most evident on healthcare. • For example, despite controlling Congress, Republicans were unable to repeal and replace Obamacare with the American Health Care Act in March 2017. • Indeed, it was defeated 49 - 51 in the Senate after moderate Republican Senators John McCain, Susan Collins (who is a member of the Main Street Partnership) and Lisa Murkowski voted against it, thus demonstrating the weakness of the party and its inability to control its members. • Yet, the Democrats are similarly divided over healthcare, as progressives such as Elizabeth Warren advocate a universal healthcare system, whereas more moderate 'Blue Dog Democrats' simply favor reform of the current system. • These divisions were apparent during the 2016 presidential primary race, as Sanders took the progressive stance of introducing universal health care, whilst Clinton argued that this was financially unachievable and pledged to continue to support Obamacare. • Moreover, there is clearly widespread support in the party for both positions, as Sanders won 44% of the vote while Clinton gained 55% and won the nomination, further exposing this division. • However, the rise in hyperpartisanship in Congress demonstrates that party delineation is stronger than ever, and therefore that the parties are not in decline in Congress. • This can be seen in Congressional voting; for example, in the early 1970s, party unity voting was around 40%, but today is closer to 70% in both the House and Senate. • Moreover, party-line voting is strongest on important legislation - no Democrats in the House or Senate voted for Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017. • Similarly, despite their disagreements on healthcare, no Republican in Congress voted for the final version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, while all 60 Democrats in the Senate • Furthermore, this hyperpartisanship has pervaded all aspects of Congress, not just legislation; for example, all the Supreme Court judges confirmed since Roberts, namely Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, were confirmed along party lines, with the majority of the opposition party in the Senate voting against. • Indeed, only one Democrat voted for Kavanaugh and every Republican for despite the sexual harassment scandal surrounding him, thus demonstrating the strength of party unity. • Furthermore, as a result of this hyperpartisanship factions within the parties have also declined, and there are fewer moderates on both sides. • This can be seen in the decline of the Blue Dog Democrats, as the Blue Dog Coalition has fallen from 54 members in 2008 to only 27 in 2018, while high profile moderates such as Kirsten Gillibrand have become more progressive.

it's inaccessible showing that the process of selecting presidential candidates is flawed

Inaccessible: • It could be argued that the process is not flawed as anyone can run for a nomination. • Indeed, there were 23 candidates in 2016, compared to only 5 in 1968, demonstrating the greater choice and accessibility. • Moreover, these candidates are extremely varied - the 2016 Republican primary race included establishment candidates such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, as well as candidates like Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Trump, none of whom had ever held political office. • Indeed, the long process allows these outsiders to gain popular support, as demonstrated by Trump, and also enables intensive scrutiny of candidates' policy and personality. • This could be seen in 2012, when Rick Perry pulled out after his ineffective and disastrous campaign, which was epitomised by his failure to remember the third government agency he would shut down in the debates, showed he was unprepared for the presidency. • Money does also clearly not decide the primaries, as in 2015-16, Trump spent the 5th most, less than half of Ben Carson's and Ted Cruz's budget, yet still won the nomination. • Indeed, the front-runner does always not win the nomination, demonstrating that the system does not lead to financially-backed political insiders winning; for example, Obama in 2008, Clinton in 1992. • However, the primary process is extremely long; for example, the first candidate for the Democrat nomination, John Delaney announced almost 30 months before the first primary, while there are now 22 candidates more than a year before the primary itself. • As a result, the process requires money, volunteers, organisations and media coverage, and costs an enormous amount - in the 2012 nomination campaign, Romney raised $156mil and Obama $300 million. • Indeed, recent campaign finance judgements by the Supreme Court such as McCutcheon v FEC (2014) and Citizens United v FEC (2010), which enabled the creation of Super-PACs, have only increased the cost of primaries and therefore the necessity of funding. • In fact, often the candidate that spends the most goes on to win the nomination. • For example, Hillary Clinton out-raised Sanders in 2015-16 and won the Democrat nomination. • Moreover, candidates with name-recognition have access to events such as the Blue Commonwealth Dinner that give them momentum and can raise money quickly. • This can be seen in the first quarter funding numbers for the 2020 primary, as Bernie Sanders raised $20.7 million in 2 months, over $4m more than any other candidate.

Evaluate the view that the process of selecting presidential candidates is flawed

Inaccessible: • It could be argued that the process is not flawed as anyone can run for a nomination. • Indeed, there were 23 candidates in 2016, compared to only 5 in 1968, demonstrating the greater choice and accessibility. • Moreover, these candidates are extremely varied - the 2016 Republican primary race included establishment candidates such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, as well as candidates like Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Trump, none of whom had ever held political office. • Indeed, the long process allows these outsiders to gain popular support, as demonstrated by Trump, and also enables intensive scrutiny of candidates' policy and personality. • This could be seen in 2012, when Rick Perry pulled out after his ineffective and disastrous campaign, which was epitomised by his failure to remember the third government agency he would shut down in the debates, showed he was unprepared for the presidency. • Money does also clearly not decide the primaries, as in 2015-16, Trump spent the 5th most, less than half of Ben Carson's and Ted Cruz's budget, yet still won the nomination. • Indeed, the front-runner does always not win the nomination, demonstrating that the system does not lead to financially-backed political insiders winning; for example, Obama in 2008, Clinton in 1992. • However, the primary process is extremely long; for example, the first candidate for the Democrat nomination, John Delaney announced almost 30 months before the first primary, while there are now 22 candidates more than a year before the primary itself. • As a result, the process requires money, volunteers, organisations and media coverage, and costs an enormous amount - in the 2012 nomination campaign, Romney raised $156mil and Obama $300 million. • Indeed, recent campaign finance judgements by the Supreme Court such as McCutcheon v FEC (2014) and Citizens United v FEC (2010), which enabled the creation of Super-PACs, have only increased the cost of primaries and therefore the necessity of funding. • In fact, often the candidate that spends the most goes on to win the nomination. • For example, Hillary Clinton out-raised Sanders in 2015-16 and won the Democrat nomination. • Moreover, candidates with name-recognition have access to events such as the Blue Commonwealth Dinner that give them momentum and can raise money quickly. • This can be seen in the first quarter funding numbers for the 2020 primary, as Bernie Sanders raised $20.7 million in 2 months, over $4m more than any other candidate. Undemocratic: • It could be argued that the system is not flawed as recent reforms have made it more democratic. • The McGovern-Fraser commission was created in 1968 and introduced reforms to increase the democracy and transparency of the process, thus stopping candidates being chosen in 'smoke-filled rooms' by senior party members. • Indeed, prior to this, parties often controlled candidate selection through state party conventions only open to selected party members; for example, in 1968, neither party selected the winner of their primaries for nomination, with Dems picking VP Hubert Humphrey, who was not even entered in any of the primaries. • Similarly, in 2018 the Democrats voted to prevent superdelegates from voting at the Convention if it is not clear who will win, although they can vote in subsequent rounds, thus decreasing the importance of this undemocratic position. • In addition, primaries, which are more democratic than caucuses and had an average turnout 20 points higher than the average caucus in 2016, are being used more - in 1968 there were only 16 primaries, compared to 37 today. • Indeed, turnout has increased in recent years - in 2016, 28.5% of eligible voters voted in the primaries, close to the 30.4% record of 2008. • However, turnout is on the whole very poor in primaries, as NH set a record with only 52%, while Hawaii had a turnout of 4.6%. • Moreover, it is even worse in caucses; for example, in 2008 IA had a record year with only 18% turnout, thus demonstrating that a small minority of the people are involved in the selection process. • In addition, unpledged Democrat 'superdelegates' (around 15% of delegates) don't have to obey the results of primaries and caucuses and tend to favour establishment candidates - in 2016, 572 out of 712 superdelegates voted for Clinton. • Moreover, 8 Republican states, including Florida and Ohio, use winner-takes-all primaries, which result in many wasted votes for alternative candidates and are therefore undemocratic. • Furthermore, party crashing is frequent, as anyone can participate in open primaries so members of an opposition party can vote for an extreme candidate that they believe in unelectable in the general election. • In addition, the selection process becomes essentially pointless with incumbent presidents - in 2012, Virginia, SC, FL and NY all didn't hold primaries, while in 1984 Reagan received 99% of the primary vote. Unrepresentative/only appeals to certain parts of electorate: • It could be argued that the primary process does not only appeal to ideologues and certain parts of the electorate, as there are regulations against frontloading that favours certain states. • For example, in 2012 New Hampshire, Arizona, South Carolina and Florida all scheduled their primaries before the allotted first four (Iowa, NH, SC and Nevada) and faced a penalty of losing half their delegates for doing so. • The importance of early-voting states such as New Hampshire and Iowa has decreased in recent years - only one of the last four presidents won the NH primary, while Iowa has only a 50% (Rep) and 43% (Dem) success rate of predicting the candidate. • Similarly, states often group together, which reduces the importance of any 1 state and effectively creates a regional primary. • For example, on 'Super Tuesday' in 2016, 11 states held primaries on 1st March, which included around half of Rep delegates and a third of Dem. • In addition, the first states that hold primaries are forced to award delegates proportionally by both Democrats and Republicans, while in 2016 the GOP introduced the Growth and Opportunity Project, which allowed the Convention to be held in June, the earliest since 1948. • These reforms mean later states still get a say in the process, and the contest is not ended early by a candidate winning multiple early winner-takes-all states. • However, early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire are extremely important and, despite being older and whiter than America on average having only 2% of the population, have disproportionate influence over the process as the first caucus and primary. • This is because they can bring increased media coverage, money and opinion poll boosts. • For example, Obama raised over $50mil. In the month after the IA caucuses, an all-time one-month record, while in 2016 Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina and Jim Gilmore all dropped out after picking up no NH delegates. • In addition, only those who are ideological and interested in politics participate in primaries and caucuses in particular. • Indeed, better educated, higher income and older voters all turn out - in 2016, 50% of Rep voters had a college degree and 75% were 45 or over. • As a result, candidates have to appeal to this smaller, extremer minority before then trying to appeal to the majority of Americans if they win; for example, many 2020 Democrat candidates are supporting reparations despite the radicalism of this policy. • This means candidates often do not have consistent policies and change them after the primary - one of Romney's campaign team likened the move to an etch-a-sketch: 'you just shake it up and start again.'

incumbency is important in determining the results of Congressional elections

Incumbency: • Incumbents have enormous benefits in Congressional elections, as they are normally supported by the establishment and party National Convention, and therefore win the primary. • Indeed, from 1982 - 2016, only 8 incumbent Senators were defeated in primaries, and two of them, Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) in 2006 and 2010 respectively, got re-elected anyway despite losing the primary. • Similarly, in this same 34-year period, 72 incumbent House members were defeated in primaries, but as around 400 house members seek re-election every year, this is only 0.5% overall. • Moreover, incumbents also perform well in the general election, as they have greater name recognition and as a result can raise more money; for example, senatorial incumbents raise 7x more than challengers, while House incumbents raise 8x more. • In addition, incumbents can provide constituency services that increase their popularity in their district. • For example, they can perform pork-barrel spending, thus bringing funding for projects such as construction and renovation to their area, or can help an individual constituent receive the correct level of service from a federal department. • Furthermore, incumbents may hold influential positions in Congress such as membership or even chair of a committee or sub-committee. Replacing this incumbent means losing the seniority that the member will have gained over their years on Capitol Hill, and thus may lose significant benefits and more powerful representation for the constituents. • As a result of all these advantages, incumbents almost always win Congressional elections; for example, the nine elections from 2000 to 2016, in the House re-elections ranged from a low of 85.4% in 2010 to 97.8% in 2000 and in the Senate from 79.3% in 2006 to 96.1% in 2009. • In fact, more members of Congress voluntarily retire rather than are defeated electorally, as 320 House members and 62 Senators have retired from 2000 - 2016. • Therefore incumbency is very important.

Evaluate the view that incumbency is important in determining the results of Congressional elections

Incumbency: • Incumbents have enormous benefits in Congressional elections, as they are normally supported by the establishment and party National Convention, and therefore win the primary. • Indeed, from 1982 - 2016, only 8 incumbent Senators were defeated in primaries, and two of them, Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) in 2006 and 2010 respectively, got re-elected anyway despite losing the primary. • Similarly, in this same 34-year period, 72 incumbent House members were defeated in primaries, but as around 400 house members seek re-election every year, this is only 0.5% overall. • Moreover, incumbents also perform well in the general election, as they have greater name recognition and as a result can raise more money; for example, senatorial incumbents raise 7x more than challengers, while House incumbents raise 8x more. • In addition, incumbents can provide constituency services that increase their popularity in their district. • For example, they can perform pork-barrel spending, thus bringing funding for projects such as construction and renovation to their area, or can help an individual constituent receive the correct level of service from a federal department. • Furthermore, incumbents may hold influential positions in Congress such as membership or even chair of a committee or sub-committee. Replacing this incumbent means losing the seniority that the member will have gained over their years on Capitol Hill, and thus may lose significant benefits and more powerful representation for the constituents. • As a result of all these advantages, incumbents almost always win Congressional elections; for example, the nine elections from 2000 to 2016, in the House re-elections ranged from a low of 85.4% in 2010 to 97.8% in 2000 and in the Senate from 79.3% in 2006 to 96.1% in 2009. • In fact, more members of Congress voluntarily retire rather than are defeated electorally, as 320 House members and 62 Senators have retired from 2000 - 2016. • Therefore incumbency is very important. Timing: • The timing and year of a Congressional election can also have a significant impact on its result. • For example, a coattails effect occurs when a strong candidate for a party at the top of the ticket, such as for president or in midterm elections for state governor, can help other party candidates get elected at the same time. • For example, Reagan helped his party gain 33 seats in the House and a staggering 12 seats in the Senate, thus resulting in nine incumbent Democrat senators being defeated. • Similarly, Trump's stronger than expected showing in some states helped some Republican senators gain re-election who had been thought to be facing near certain defeat, such as Pat Toomey, Richard Burr and Ron Johnson, who all won their races despite their Democratic opponents leading in the polls, thus demonstrating that the success of a candidate is not due only to their status as an incumbent but also due to support for a presidential candidate of their party. • Indeed, the decline in split-ticket voting, when people vote for candidates of different political parties for different offices at the same election, further suggests the coattails effect is significant. • For example, in 2004, 4 states voted for Republican GWB but elected a Democrat to the Senate; however, in 2016, all 34 states voted the same way in both the presidential and senatorial races, thus suggesting that people will vote the same way in Congressional elections as they do for the presidency. • Similarly, in 1984 there were 196 congressional districts that voted for a presidential candidate from one party but a House member from the other party, compared to only 35 such districts in 2016. • In addition, in midterm elections, the president's party tends to lose seats in both houses; for example, in the six midterm elections between 1994 and 2014, the president's party has lost an average of 25 House seats and between four and five Senate seats. • This means that incumbents of the opposition party are far more likely to hold their seat, while those of the same party, including representatives who benefited from presidential coattails two years earlier, are less likely to hold their seat. • However, there was been little evidence of presidential coattails under Clinton, GWB or Obama. • Moreover, of the 21 winning Republican Senate candidates in 2016, 16 won a higher share of the vote in their state than Trump did, suggesting that his coattails had a limited effect on the success of these incumbents. • Similarly, despite the slump that the president's party often experiences in midterm elections, the majority of incumbents retain their seats; for example, although 31 incumbent Republicans were defeated in 2018 in the House, 91.2% of incumbents seeking re-election still kept their seats, illustrating that incumbents almost always win regardless of timing. Redistricting: • Redistricting means that there are very few competitive seats, so the same party stays in control, regardless of whether there is an incumbent or not. • Every ten years there is a census, and one of the two parties gets to redraw the district lines for the House, thus enabling them to create districts that favour their party and lead to fewer competitive seats, such as the Democrats grouping together older white voters that are less likely to vote for them into one district to minimise their losses. • As a result of such redistricting, there are far fewer competitive seats; for example, in 1992 there were 111 competitive House districts, i.e. those that were won by less than 10% at the previous election; however, by 2014, there were only 31. • As a result, it is far harder to incumbents to be defeated, as there are more 'safe' seats where the opposition party is weak; for example, in 2016 the Democrats needed to gain 30 seats to win back control of the House, but as only 43 seats were competitive, they struggled to defeat Republicans and only gained 6 seats. • However, redistricting can in fact result in several incumbents being put together into the same district, and thus result in some losing; for example, 13 House incumbents lost in 2012, the first election following redistricting in 2010. • Moreover, there are still many swing seats where the incumbent party can face a still challenge; for example, Ballotpedia identified 82 swing districts in the House in 2018, and 46 of them were won by the opposition party, thus suggesting that redistricting has not ensured that all states are safe. • In addition, this only further illustrates the advantages that incumbents hold, as most seats are not competitive - therefore, as soon as they win the initial race, an incumbent will continue to win in their 'safe' district. • Indeed, this incumbency advantage is evidenced by how years that saw lower incumbency rates were primarily due to politicians losing in primaries, rather than being defeated in the general election. • For example, in 2010, 32% of Tea Party-backed candidates won primaries against establishment Republican representatives, further illustrating that due to redistricting, incumbents that win their primary will likely hold onto their seat.

Evaluate the view that US presidential elections are democratic

Intro: • A democratic election is one which is open, fair and full of choice, i.e. anyone can run and vote, everyone who run has an equal chance/all votes matter equally, and there is a range of options to vote for. Fair due to funding: • It could be argued that US presidential elections are fair, as recent reforms have reduced the impact of campaign finance. • For example, in 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was passed, which limited 'soft money,' donations by unions and corporations as well as individual donations to individual candidates, thus diminishing the importance of campaign finance. • Furthermore, 'matching funds,' provide dollar-for-dollar funding for candidates on contributions up to $250, and therefore enable less well-funded candidates to still run; for example, Jill Stein received almost $600,000 of federal money in 2016. • Indeed, financial spending is clearly not the determinant of presidential elections, as Trump spent the 5th most in the primaries, including less than half of Ben Carson's spending, and was also outspent by Clinton in the presidential election, yet still won. • However, it is undeniable that finance is hugely important in the presidential campaign, as around £1bn is needed to run for president, due to all of the field offices, advertising, polling and campaigning that is needed over the 20-month long process. • Moreover, although recent reforms have limited 'hard money' contributed directly to a campaign, soft money designated for 'party-building' is largely unregulated and in 2000 raised $750m. • Similarly, the Supreme Court has somewhat undermined attempts to make elections fairer, as McCutcheon v FEC (2014) ruled that that McCain-Feingold's limit on how much contributors could spend in a two-year electoral cycle ($48,600) violated the First Amendment, while Citizens United v FEC (2010) allowed the creation of Super-PACs, which have become increasingly important in presidential elections. • For example, in 2016 PACs accounted for almost 50% of all campaign donations, raising slightly more than $4bn. • In addition, unregulated 501(c)4s and bundling have both increased in importance with bundlers raising $200m for Obama in 2012 and 501(c)4s outspending Super-PACs in 2010. • Therefore, despite the attempts to regulate campaign finance, new methods of fundraising have developed, thus maintaining the importance of campaign finance in the outcome of US presidential elections and rendering them unfair. Fair due to structural: • However, US presidential elections are also fair because all votes count for the same amount and recent reforms have reduced the importance of early primaries. • For example, in 2016 when 11 states held primaries on 1st March, thus effectively creating a regional primary, while the GOP introduced the Growth and Opportunity Project in 2016, which stops the primary reaching a foregone conclusion due to a candidate winning multiple early winner-takes-all states. • Both of these reforms undermine the importance of any one state in deciding the outcome of the nomination process, and ensure that votes from all states get a more equal say, thus enhancing fairness. • However, despite these reforms the first states to vote in the primaries still often determine the result. • Indeed, this advantage is so great that in 2012, Arizona, South Carolina and Florida all scheduled their primaries before the allotted first four and accepted a penalty of losing half their delegates, with the president of Florida's state senate explaining: 'I'd much rather have a say in the nomination process as opposed to the coronation process.' • More importantly, the structure of the Electoral college renders widespread national support unimportant due to the winner-takes-all system in every state bar Maine and Nebraska, thus making it hard for smaller third-party candidates. • For example, Ross Perot won 18.9% of the vote in 1992 but received no college votes. • Furthermore, as a result of this system, the decision is often decided by several swing states. • For example, in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Trump won by an average of only 0.73% of the vote, yet gained 46 College votes from these states without which he would not have won. • Thus, the 101,018 votes that won Trump these three states effectively won him the election, while individual votes in other, less contentious states, such as in California, meant very little to the overall result. • Moreover, the votes in smaller states are overvalued compared to larger states - this can be seen in California, which has one college vote per 713,000 people, compared to Wyoming, with one per 195,000. • Therefore, very few votes actually end up determining the result of the election, therefore rendering the system unfair and undemocratic. Full of choice: • Presidential elections offer a huge amount of choice in the primary stage, and thus are democratic. • For example, in 2016 there were 23 candidates who ran for one of the major parties' nomination, 6 Democrats and 17 Republicans. • Furthermore, these candidates are not all political insiders with powerful financial backers, as Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Trump, all of whom had never held political office, at times outperformed the Republican 'establishment candidates' Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, thus demonstrating that are varied and credible candidates. • These candidates also differ significantly on policy, as shown by the difference between Sanders' universal healthcare proposal and Clinton's suggested continuation of Obama's policy, thus providing voter with considerable choice. • In addition, people can vote for third party candidates who they feel represent them best, and have incredible choice, as 192 candidates obtained recognition as official 'write-in' candidates. • However, most of these candidates are not credible - these 190 third-party candidates gained less than 5% of the popular vote combined, and, if not for faithless electors would have received no electoral college votes, thus demonstrating that the only real choice is one of the two party nominees. • Furthermore, even within the primary process there are few credible candidates - only 4 of the Republican candidates - Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Trump - actually won a primary or caucus, while Sanders and Clinton were the only Democrats to do so. • Similarly, primaries become essentially pointless with incumbent presidents; in 2012, Virginia, South Carolina, Florida and New York all didn't even hold one for Democrats, while in 1984 Reagan received 99% of the primary vote - thus, every second election one of the only two credible candidates is already pre-decided and voters essentially get no choice. • Therefore, despite the multitude of candidates who run from across the political spectrum, only two candidates, the party nominees, are actually credible in each election, and they are themselves chosen from a narrow pool in the primaries. Open: • It could be argued that US presidential elections are entirely open, and thus are to a certain extent democratic. • There are almost no restrictions on who can stand for president, as the Constitution only states that you must be 35, a 'natural-born' citizen and must have lived in the US for at least 14 years. • Furthermore, presidential elections are open not only for candidates, but also for voters, due to universal suffrage. • As a result, every US citizen over 18 can vote, including those who live abroad thanks to absentee voting. • Indeed, US elections are in fact more open now than ever before, due to reforms combatting voter suppression such as the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which outlawed unequal application of voter registration requirements and the 24th amendment, which banned the poll tax. • However, despite these changes, US presidential elections remain closed off to some due to voting requirements. • For example, in 2012, Florida disenfranchised 1.5 million felons within the state, which totalled just under 10% of its voting age population, while other states such as Kansas require a voting ID card. • Both of these limitations non-proportionally affect black voters, and thus make elections less open for this particular demographic. • Furthermore, voter suppression also had an impact on the 2016 election in Georgia, where an 'Exact match' process held back voter registration applications where the information did not match social security and state driver records. • This disproportionally affected black voters from urban areas, and prevented over 37,000 such voters from participating in the election. • In addition, in 11 states both parties hold closed primaries, with only registered voters for that party allowed to participate, thus further rendering elections less open.

Evaluate the extent to which Pressure Groups promote pluralist democracy/can influence the three branches of government and public policy?

Intro: • A pluralist democracy is one which there are many centres of power. Representation, accountability, and participation: • PGs enhance representation, accountability and participation, as they provide a way for people remain politically involved between elections. • For example, PGs such as Black Lives Matter often ask members to participate in postal 'blitzes,' which pressure politicians and allow the people to influence and even hold accountable their representatives outside of elections. • Moreover, PGs at a grassroots level also often educate people to achieve their agenda, thus making the population better aware of societal problems and solutions. • Indeed, Mothers Against Drunk Driving spent $34 million in 2013 on campaigns to educate people on the dangers of drunk driving. • (This grassroots engagement indirectly places pressure on the legislature by raising awareness of the issue among the general population). • Yet, while this grassroots action increase both participation and accountability, PGs themselves are more effective in holding government accountable due to their greater influence and power. • For example, after the McCain-Feingold Act, campaign finance reform in 2002, the Campaign Finance Institute commissioned several experts to report on its impact, while the ACLU brought the first legal challenges to Trump's Muslim ban EO. • Indeed, the ability of PGs to hold government accountable also demonstrates their capability of representing their members by acting as a force multiplier for shared agendas. • However, this focus on free speech, participation and representation can in fact lead to atomisation. • By attempting to represent everyone's opinion on every issue, many PGs often end up campaigning for interest groups that are relatively small compared to the rest of society. • For example, there are, 21 PGs which seek to represent Native Americans, including the Women empowering Women for Indian Nations - yet Native Americans only make up 1.7% of the population. • Indeed, by representing such specific demographics within America, pressure group work towards their specific interest rather than the public interest, which can lead to group stereotyping and a lack of consideration for society as a whole. • Moreover, as there are so many competing PGs, any single group struggles to gain influence and have a real impact. • Therefore, PGs do not promote pluralist democracy, as although they hold government accountable and place pressure on government and the legislature to combat issues by raising grassroots awareness, this in fact leads to atomisation, group stereotyping and many small, weak groups unable to effectively take action or exert influence. Direct legislative impact: • PGs have a large impact on the legislative, as they help politicians to get elected and to make decisions beneficial for the country through their expertise. • PGs and more importantly PAC's can get legislators and bureaucrats elected by endorsing and funding their campaigns; for example, in 2015-16, PAC spending on campaigns was just under $1.4bn. • Indeed, this has become even more significant since Citizens United v FEC (2012), which removed all restrictions on non-campaign affiliated spending for interest groups. • In addition, PGs are vital to politicians in office, especially to those in congressional committees, as lobbyists are specialists in the specific policy areas in which committees are interested. • Members of Congress must learn about and form opinions on an enormous number of issues, especially as House members only serve two years and Senators represent an entire state. • With Congressional staff often stretched thin, and lobbyists specialising in the issues they constantly campaign on, PGs can provide legislators and bureaucrats with accurate and detailed information, and thus aid them in making informed decisions. • This close relationship between PGs and Congressmen can be seen in voting records; for example, eight Democrat senators have always voted in line with AFL - CIO views in the last three years. • However, these close ties can often lead to iron triangles forming as strong relationships can develop between PGs, the relevant congressional committees and government departments or agencies. • For example, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has close ties with both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs committee and Veterans' lobby groups such as Vietnam Veterans. • Through these iron triangles PGs gain undue influence in government and in Congress - this can be seen when lobbyists for the Chemical Manufacturers Association and International Paper partially wrote a bill to weaken the Clean Water Act. • In addition, revolving doors are encouraged by these links, with ex-Congressmen or members of the executive taking up jobs with lobbying firms after their careers in government are over, and subsequently using their expertise and contacts to lobby institutions. • Although federal law forbids public officials from taking up a lobbying job within a year of leaving office, it is very common after this; for example, there are currently around 388 former members of Congress working as lobbyists. • Moreover, influence in Congress often only comes as a result of money spent; it has been alleged that the electioneering PACs perform enables them to effectively write legislation and 'own' members of Congress, leading the former Senator for Massachusetts Edward Kennedy to proclaim that America has 'the finest Congress that money can buy.' • Therefore, as a result of the impact PGs have on the legislature and on government, power is concentrated in the hands of a select few, who maintain their influence using iron triangles, financial resources and revolving doors, with the state legislatures and the people not really involved. Access points: • PGs also promote pluralist democracy by utilising the access points of the American political system, which are created due to the many centres of power within federalism. • For example, they can operate at the national level by advising Congressional Committees or, in the case of the NRA, giving all members of Congress a rating, and exert influence at a state level; for example, in Wisconsin in 2012, public sector unions worked together to amass 1 million signatures to recall the GOP governor Scott Walker following laws that removed collective bargaining rights. • Furthermore, PGs not advance their agenda with state and federal legislatures, but also influence the judiciary and the government, thus fully utilising America's access points. • This can be seen with ACLU, which frequently sends in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court and even brings cases to it. • For example, it filed a brief in 1954 during Brown v Board (1954) and brought McCreary v ACLU (2005) and Gloucester County School Board v G.G. (2017) to the courts, which concerned a display of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky Courthouse and transgender student rights in Virginia respectively. • Moreover, these access points allow pressure groups to operate at a grassroots level through direct action - this can be seen with Black Lives Matter, which holds marches, community building events and a 'toolkit for white people' class. • However, direct action is often unsuccessful, particularly when it becomes violent and the federal government feels that the PG is challenging its authority. • For example, in Seattle in 2000 during the World Trade meeting, several PGs attempted to protest and gain support; however, they were wholly unsuccessful, and were dealt with by the police in a physical manner that was supported by many in authority at the city, state and national level. • Furthermore, exploiting these access points requires significant funding. • Therefore, only rich, large and powerful PGs can take advantage of them and thus influence policy; for example, in 2012 at least 50 oil companies, business trade organisation, unions and political groups put together a combined $178 million, compared to only $5mil from the dozen groups opposing them. • Even the ACLU, which seeks to represent civil liberties in general rather than a specific interest, has over 1.2 million members and an annual budget of $100 million, thus further demonstrating that only powerful PGs can influence the branches of government. • Indeed, the use of direct action only further demonstrates this elitism, as smaller PGs are forced to resort to extra-governmental means without the requisite funding to have true influence. • Therefore, although the many access points of the US system enable PGs to influence government at multiple levels, ultimately only rich, large and powerful PGs are able to have any influence and exploit these access points.

What is the McCain-Feingold Act?

It prohibits political parties Federal officeholders and federal candidates from raising soft money

What is the Republican Study Committee?

Largest conservative faction with 150 congressional members

legislative failures/successes shows that incumbency gives presidential candidates an advantage

Legislative failures/success: • Recent incumbent presidents have lost because of their failures in office - they have a 4-year track record, and therefore it is easier to criticise them. • Ford's reputation was damaged by him granting a pardon to Nixon and his foreign policy in Vietnam. • Similarly, the end of Carter's presidential tenure was marred by the 1979-1981 Iran Hostage Crisis, which was a foreign policy debacle. • Moreover, Bush's electoral defeat was also in large part to his track record as president - he broke his 1988 campaign promise to not raise taxes and was heavily criticised as a result. • More significantly, all three presided over a failing and stagnant economy, which was a major factor in their defeat. • However, only 3 recent incumbent presidents have lost, as most presidents secure their biggest victories within their first terms, and this gains them enormous support among the electorate and helps them win a second term. • For example, Clinton passed the Brady Bill, ended the ban on lesbian and gay soldiers serving in the military in 1994 and reduced the budget deficit, which was particularly significant given the Democrats' less economically competent image - as a result he won 5% more of the population in the 1996 election than in 1992. • Similarly, Bush implemented major tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy, and passed the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), which imposed federal standards of education, and the USA Patriot Act, which increased governmental security powers, which had bipartisan support and was widely backed by the public - he gained an extra 3% in the 2004 election compared to 2000. • Moreover, as a president with a 4-year track record, an incumbent candidate doesn't need to try and explain what ideological position they hold or what significant reforms should be introduced - instead, they represent stability and continuity. • For example, in 2012, the public knew Obama would protect Obamacare, DACA and generally continue the status quo - in contrast, Romney wanted to 'Repeal and Replace' Obamacare and introduce a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. • Therefore, if economy is good and no major failures, incumbency helps.

Strands of thought in the Republican party

Libertarians - individual liberty, reduce role of federal governemnt and support progession legislation Moderates- aka RINO. Support welfare state and taxation as well as conservative economic policies Conservatives - reduction of role of government in economy, want strong defence and security Evangelicals - conservative christian views, hardline line with muslim countries

Party factions in the Republican Party

Libertarians: House Liberty Caucus Moderates: Maine Street Partnership The Freedom of Liberty Caucasus Conservatives: Republican Study Committee Freedom Caucus Evangelicals: no organised group Cruz (2016 presidential primary)

current legislation on campaign finance

McCain-Feingold reforms (2002) and Citizens United vs FEC (2010)

What is the Third Way Faction?

Moderate faction that dominated for around 20 years since late 1980s

What is the Freedom of Liberty Caucuses?

Object to high government expenditure Achieve goals through compromise

open shows that US presidential elections are democratic

Open: • It could be argued that US presidential elections are entirely open, and thus are to a certain extent democratic. • There are almost no restrictions on who can stand for president, as the Constitution only states that you must be 35, a 'natural-born' citizen and must have lived in the US for at least 14 years. • Furthermore, presidential elections are open not only for candidates, but also for voters, due to universal suffrage. • As a result, every US citizen over 18 can vote, including those who live abroad thanks to absentee voting. • Indeed, US elections are in fact more open now than ever before, due to reforms combatting voter suppression such as the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which outlawed unequal application of voter registration requirements and the 24th amendment, which banned the poll tax. • However, despite these changes, US presidential elections remain closed off to some due to voting requirements. • For example, in 2012, Florida disenfranchised 1.5 million felons within the state, which totalled just under 10% of its voting age population, while other states such as Kansas require a voting ID card. • Both of these limitations non-proportionally affect black voters, and thus make elections less open for this particular demographic. • Furthermore, voter suppression also had an impact on the 2016 election in Georgia, where an 'Exact match' process held back voter registration applications where the information did not match social security and state driver records. • This disproportionally affected black voters from urban areas, and prevented over 37,000 such voters from participating in the election. • In addition, in 11 states both parties hold closed primaries, with only registered voters for that party allowed to participate, thus further rendering elections less open.

Parties moving apart is causing polarisation

Party dislike - 27% of Democrats believe the Republican Party to be a threat to the nation's wellbeing 36% of Republicans felt the same about Democrats President dislike - Obama was the most divisive president ever at 14% approval rating President is blocking the other parties' agenda Clinton's era of big government was divisive Ideologies - democrats 23% to 4% Republicans 17% - 5% (1994 - 2014) Overlap has shrunken

Why is there polarisation?

People and parties moving apart

Congress being ineffective is causing polarisation

People blame the other party for Congress and President being ineffective Media acts as an echo chamber that just reiterated what you believe

Electoral system is causing polarisation

Primaries reinforce the polarisation as basically only hardliners vote in primaries picking divisive candidates

primaries shows that incumbency gives presidential candidates an advantage

Primaries: • Stiff challenge in a primary can significantly weaken a president. • In 1976, Ford faced a challenge from Ronald Reagan, while Carter had to defeat Senator Edward Kennedy in 1980 in the Democratic primaries - Kennedy won 12 state contests including the primaries in New York and California, two hubs of Democrat support. • Similarly, in 1992, GHWB had to fight off conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, and Buchanan's 37% in the New Hampshire primary was an embarrassment for Bush. • This opposition can seriously damage a president's reputation - all three of these presidents lost the general election, despite winning the primary. • Moreover, a stiff primary challenge provides material for the opponent in the general election; for example, Bill Clinton adopted Buchanan's slogan: 'Read our lips: no second term,' which was a parody of Bush's broken pledge not to raise taxes - 'Read my lips: no new taxes.' • In contrast, a wave of support in the primaries can energise the base of a party and carry a candidate to victory - Obama won the 2008 primary despite being an underdog, and rode the momentum from this to a 52.9% majority in the general election. • However, the president is rarely faced with a serious challenge in the primary, and they are often not even held - in 2012 Virginia, South Carolina, Florida, New York and other states didn't even hold a Democratic presidential primary. • Reagan, Obama and GWB all won over 90% of the primary vote in their election. • This is because the incumbent candidate is backed by the party establishment - shown by how the entire RNC and traditional Reps such as Jack Oliver, a campaign expert who helped GWB, are all now behind Trump, whereas they vehemently opposed him in 2016. • In addition, the difficulty of winning in the primary against an incumbent can discourage better-known and stronger candidates from competing, as they instead attempt to encourage party unity; e.g., Clinton not running again to challenge Obama in 2012.

Party factions in the Democrat Party

Progressives - no organised group Moderates - Third Way Faction New Democrat Coalition Libertarians - no organised group Conservatives - Blue Dog Democrats

Strands of thoughts in the Democrat Party

Progressives/Liberal - oppose war, more social equality, in favour of welfare state Moderates - economically liberal Libertarians - oppose government intervention, oppose war on drugs Conservative - relatively conservative views

redistricting is important in determining the results of Congressional elections

Redistricting: • Redistricting means that there are very few competitive seats, so the same party stays in control, regardless of whether there is an incumbent or not. • Every ten years there is a census, and one of the two parties gets to redraw the district lines for the House, thus enabling them to create districts that favour their party and lead to fewer competitive seats, such as the Democrats grouping together older white voters that are less likely to vote for them into one district to minimise their losses. • As a result of such redistricting, there are far fewer competitive seats; for example, in 1992 there were 111 competitive House districts, i.e. those that were won by less than 10% at the previous election; however, by 2014, there were only 31. • As a result, it is far harder to incumbents to be defeated, as there are more 'safe' seats where the opposition party is weak; for example, in 2016 the Democrats needed to gain 30 seats to win back control of the House, but as only 43 seats were competitive, they struggled to defeat Republicans and only gained 6 seats. • However, redistricting can in fact result in several incumbents being put together into the same district, and thus result in some losing; for example, 13 House incumbents lost in 2012, the first election following redistricting in 2010. • Moreover, there are still many swing seats where the incumbent party can face a still challenge; for example, Ballotpedia identified 82 swing districts in the House in 2018, and 46 of them were won by the opposition party, thus suggesting that redistricting has not ensured that all states are safe. • In addition, this only further illustrates the advantages that incumbents hold, as most seats are not competitive - therefore, as soon as they win the initial race, an incumbent will continue to win in their 'safe' district. • Indeed, this incumbency advantage is evidenced by how years that saw lower incumbency rates were primarily due to politicians losing in primaries, rather than being defeated in the general election. • For example, in 2010, 32% of Tea Party-backed candidates won primaries against establishment Republican representatives, further illustrating that due to redistricting, incumbents that win their primary will likely hold onto their seat.

Key ideas and ideas of Democrats

Regulation by the federal government to make society fairer Socially progressive Taxation for social welfare Tolerance of diversity

Representation, accountability, and participation shows that PGs promote pluralist democracy/can influence the three branches of government and public policy

Representation, accountability, and participation: • PGs enhance representation, accountability and participation, as they provide a way for people remain politically involved between elections. • For example, PGs such as Black Lives Matter often ask members to participate in postal 'blitzes,' which pressure politicians and allow the people to influence and even hold accountable their representatives outside of elections. • Moreover, PGs at a grassroots level also often educate people to achieve their agenda, thus making the population better aware of societal problems and solutions. • Indeed, Mothers Against Drunk Driving spent $34 million in 2013 on campaigns to educate people on the dangers of drunk driving. • (This grassroots engagement indirectly places pressure on the legislature by raising awareness of the issue among the general population). • Yet, while this grassroots action increase both participation and accountability, PGs themselves are more effective in holding government accountable due to their greater influence and power. • For example, after the McCain-Feingold Act, campaign finance reform in 2002, the Campaign Finance Institute commissioned several experts to report on its impact, while the ACLU brought the first legal challenges to Trump's Muslim ban EO. • Indeed, the ability of PGs to hold government accountable also demonstrates their capability of representing their members by acting as a force multiplier for shared agendas. • However, this focus on free speech, participation and representation can in fact lead to atomisation. • By attempting to represent everyone's opinion on every issue, many PGs often end up campaigning for interest groups that are relatively small compared to the rest of society. • For example, there are, 21 PGs which seek to represent Native Americans, including the Women empowering Women for Indian Nations - yet Native Americans only make up 1.7% of the population. • Indeed, by representing such specific demographics within America, pressure group work towards their specific interest rather than the public interest, which can lead to group stereotyping and a lack of consideration for society as a whole. • Moreover, as there are so many competing PGs, any single group struggles to gain influence and have a real impact. • Therefore, PGs do not promote pluralist democracy, as although they hold government accountable and place pressure on government and the legislature to combat issues by raising grassroots awareness, this in fact leads to atomisation, group stereotyping and many small, weak groups unable to effectively take action or exert influence.

Libertarians in Democrat Party

Senators Ron Wyden, Kirsten Gilibrand and Cory Booker have worked with Libertarian Republicans to stop government overreach.

The role and size of government shows differences in policy between the Republican and Democrat parties

The role and size of government: • The policy of the Republican and Democrats disagree to a large extent over the role of government, particularly over the environment and healthcare • Republicans broadly believe that there is no direct priority to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies, and in the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy. • They also are far more skeptical about global warming • This stems from a core belief that there should be less government intervention in general, and thus less regulation on the economy. • This can be seen in Trump's roll-back of Obama-era policies- he cut spending to the EPA by 31% in his 2018 budget, and took America out of the Paris Peace Accors in June 2017. • Furthermore, the Republicans also believe that it is not the role of the government to provide healthcare, as the free market will drive down costs, foster competition, and make the system more efficient. • They believe strongly in free choice, so argue the government should not force people to buy insurance, or force companies to pay for their employee's insurance. • Thus, the Republicans vehemently oppose Obama's 2010 Affordable Care Act, and attempted to repeal and replace it in March 2017 with the American Health Care Act which hugely cut funding to Obamacare (although this failed), while also repealing the individual mandate in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017. • In contrast, the Democrats believe in far more government intervention, and that it is the role of the state to both regulate the environment and provide healthcare. • They believe that America must be running entirely on clean energy by mid-century, and promote renewable energy sources. • Obama established tax credits for environmentally-conscious homeowners, and in September 2014, Obama expanded the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (PRIMNM) to encompass more than 490,000 square miles, 6x its original size • Obama included several environmental provisions in his 2009 $787bn Stimlus package, including: over $90bn in subsidies for green energy; funding for 180 advanced energy manufacturing projects; and the creation or expansion of 100,000 renewable energy projects across the country • Similarly, the Democrats believe all Americans should have access to high quality healthcare, regardless of their financial situation. • They are strong supporters of Medicare and Medicaid, and advocate for healthcare reform, even if they don't always agree on to what extent. • This could be seen with Obamacare in 2010 - it reformed the insurance market, placing greater obligations on insurance companies and introducing the individual mandate, while also supporting those with incomes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty line. • It also sought to expand Medicare, forcing States to fund it; however, this was declared unconstitutional in 2012.

timing is important in determining the results of Congressional elections

Timing: • The timing and year of a Congressional election can also have a significant impact on its result. • For example, a coattails effect occurs when a strong candidate for a party at the top of the ticket, such as for president or in midterm elections for state governor, can help other party candidates get elected at the same time. • For example, Reagan helped his party gain 33 seats in the House and a staggering 12 seats in the Senate, thus resulting in nine incumbent Democrat senators being defeated. • Similarly, Trump's stronger than expected showing in some states helped some Republican senators gain re-election who had been thought to be facing near certain defeat, such as Pat Toomey, Richard Burr and Ron Johnson, who all won their races despite their Democratic opponents leading in the polls, thus demonstrating that the success of a candidate is not due only to their status as an incumbent but also due to support for a presidential candidate of their party. • Indeed, the decline in split-ticket voting, when people vote for candidates of different political parties for different offices at the same election, further suggests the coattails effect is significant. • For example, in 2004, 4 states voted for Republican GWB but elected a Democrat to the Senate; however, in 2016, all 34 states voted the same way in both the presidential and senatorial races, thus suggesting that people will vote the same way in Congressional elections as they do for the presidency. • Similarly, in 1984 there were 196 congressional districts that voted for a presidential candidate from one party but a House member from the other party, compared to only 35 such districts in 2016. • In addition, in midterm elections, the president's party tends to lose seats in both houses; for example, in the six midterm elections between 1994 and 2014, the president's party has lost an average of 25 House seats and between four and five Senate seats. • This means that incumbents of the opposition party are far more likely to hold their seat, while those of the same party, including representatives who benefited from presidential coattails two years earlier, are less likely to hold their seat. • However, there was been little evidence of presidential coattails under Clinton, GWB or Obama. • Moreover, of the 21 winning Republican Senate candidates in 2016, 16 won a higher share of the vote in their state than Trump did, suggesting that his coattails had a limited effect on the success of these incumbents. • Similarly, despite the slump that the president's party often experiences in midterm elections, the majority of incumbents retain their seats; for example, although 31 incumbent Republicans were defeated in 2018 in the House, 91.2% of incumbents seeking re-election still kept their seats, illustrating that incumbents almost always win regardless of timing.

traditional functions shows that the parties are in decline

Traditional functions: • The traditional functions of the political party in America are being replaced, thus suggesting their decline. • This is partly due to the increasingly role of the media in political communication. • Traditionally, parties acted as the communicator between politicians and voters, as they organised functions such as rallies and Q&As. • Yet, politicians today communicate through television and social media, and receive feedback from the people via social media, email and opinion polls. • As a result, the party is cut out; for example, Trump's use of Twitter provides the electorate with a direct line of communication to him, and distances the president from the larger Republican party. • Similarly, the role of the party in "get out the vote" campaigns during elections has been superseded by Super PACs and soft money. • Moreover, there is an increasing connotation of corruption and ineffectiveness around the two major parties. • Indeed, the support for the Tea Party and Occupy movements suggest that many Americans are more likely to join a movement or pressure group than a traditional party, which is supported by a 2010 Gallup poll finding that 73% of people felt the Tea Party had energised part of the electorate to get involved in politics. • As a result, candidates have intentionally attempted to distance themselves from the party established; for example, Trump promised to "drain the swamp," while both he and Sanders referred to their campaigns as "movements" rather than as part of the parties whose nomination they were seeking, thus further illustrating the decline of the party's traditional functions. • However, the role of the party during elections is still extremely important, as demonstrated by the nationalising of election campaigns. • One of the earliest examples of this was in the 1994 mid-terms, as the Republicans campaigned on a national level around Congressman Newt Gingrich's ten-point policy programme called the Contract with America. • This approach was hugely successful - there was a 54-seat swing from Democrats to Republicans in the House, resulting in the first Republican House majority since 1952. • Furthermore, in recent years there has been increasing co-ordination between candidates from the same party, with significant success. • For example, in 2018 there was a national Democrat commitment to avoiding Trump and focussing on healthcare, - 44% of adverts for House Democrats emphasised this issue - leading to a gain of 40 seats in the House and a Democrat majority. • In addition, the party establishment still retains power over the electoral process; for example, the DNC penalised Michigan and Florida delegates for moving their caucuses and primaries before 5th February 2008. • Although they were both allowed to attend the Convention, they were only given half a vote each.

it's undemocratic showing that the process of selecting presidential candidates is flawed

Undemocratic: • It could be argued that the system is not flawed as recent reforms have made it more democratic. • The McGovern-Fraser commission was created in 1968 and introduced reforms to increase the democracy and transparency of the process, thus stopping candidates being chosen in 'smoke-filled rooms' by senior party members. • Indeed, prior to this, parties often controlled candidate selection through state party conventions only open to selected party members; for example, in 1968, neither party selected the winner of their primaries for nomination, with Dems picking VP Hubert Humphrey, who was not even entered in any of the primaries. • Similarly, in 2018 the Democrats voted to prevent superdelegates from voting at the Convention if it is not clear who will win, although they can vote in subsequent rounds, thus decreasing the importance of this undemocratic position. • In addition, primaries, which are more democratic than caucuses and had an average turnout 20 points higher than the average caucus in 2016, are being used more - in 1968 there were only 16 primaries, compared to 37 today. • Indeed, turnout has increased in recent years - in 2016, 28.5% of eligible voters voted in the primaries, close to the 30.4% record of 2008. • However, turnout is on the whole very poor in primaries, as NH set a record with only 52%, while Hawaii had a turnout of 4.6%. • Moreover, it is even worse in caucses; for example, in 2008 IA had a record year with only 18% turnout, thus demonstrating that a small minority of the people are involved in the selection process. • In addition, unpledged Democrat 'superdelegates' (around 15% of delegates) don't have to obey the results of primaries and caucuses and tend to favour establishment candidates - in 2016, 572 out of 712 superdelegates voted for Clinton. • Moreover, 8 Republican states, including Florida and Ohio, use winner-takes-all primaries, which result in many wasted votes for alternative candidates and are therefore undemocratic. • Furthermore, party crashing is frequent, as anyone can participate in open primaries so members of an opposition party can vote for an extreme candidate that they believe in unelectable in the general election. • In addition, the selection process becomes essentially pointless with incumbent presidents - in 2012, Virginia, SC, FL and NY all didn't hold primaries, while in 1984 Reagan received 99% of the primary vote.

it's Unrepresentative/only appeals to certain parts of electorate that the process of selecting presidential candidates is flawed

Unrepresentative/only appeals to certain parts of electorate: • It could be argued that the primary process does not only appeal to ideologues and certain parts of the electorate, as there are regulations against frontloading that favours certain states. • For example, in 2012 New Hampshire, Arizona, South Carolina and Florida all scheduled their primaries before the allotted first four (Iowa, NH, SC and Nevada) and faced a penalty of losing half their delegates for doing so. • The importance of early-voting states such as New Hampshire and Iowa has decreased in recent years - only one of the last four presidents won the NH primary, while Iowa has only a 50% (Rep) and 43% (Dem) success rate of predicting the candidate. • Similarly, states often group together, which reduces the importance of any 1 state and effectively creates a regional primary. • For example, on 'Super Tuesday' in 2016, 11 states held primaries on 1st March, which included around half of Rep delegates and a third of Dem. • In addition, the first states that hold primaries are forced to award delegates proportionally by both Democrats and Republicans, while in 2016 the GOP introduced the Growth and Opportunity Project, which allowed the Convention to be held in June, the earliest since 1948. • These reforms mean later states still get a say in the process, and the contest is not ended early by a candidate winning multiple early winner-takes-all states. • However, early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire are extremely important and, despite being older and whiter than America on average having only 2% of the population, have disproportionate influence over the process as the first caucus and primary. • This is because they can bring increased media coverage, money and opinion poll boosts. • For example, Obama raised over $50mil. In the month after the IA caucuses, an all-time one-month record, while in 2016 Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina and Jim Gilmore all dropped out after picking up no NH delegates. • In addition, only those who are ideological and interested in politics participate in primaries and caucuses in particular. • Indeed, better educated, higher income and older voters all turn out - in 2016, 50% of Rep voters had a college degree and 75% were 45 or over. • As a result, candidates have to appeal to this smaller, extremer minority before then trying to appeal to the majority of Americans if they win; for example, many 2020 Democrat candidates are supporting reparations despite the radicalism of this policy. • This means candidates often do not have consistent policies and change them after the primary - one of Romney's campaign team likened the move to an etch-a-sketch: 'you just shake it up and start again.'

What is the electoral college?

a group of people selected from each state who cast votes in the presidential election

What is the House Liberty Caucus?

chaired by Justin Amash Opposed Budget Act (May 2017) Major overlap with Freedom caucus

Demographics/social factors was the main influence on the result of the 2016 presidential election

• Demographics and other social factors also played a somewhat influential role in the 2016 election. • Trump won over uneducated white voters by 37%, an enormous margin, especially considering Romney won among this same demographic by only 26% in 2012. • Indeed, traditionally the Democrats had a slim leader over the Republicans among uneducated white voters, winning their votes in 1992 and 1996. • Thus, Trump's victory here, which was perhaps due to his nationalist and anti-Washington/establishment approach winning blue-collar support in industrial states, was vital to his overall victory in the election. • Similarly, Trump won white voters by 58%, which several commentators attributed to a 'white-lash' - a backlash from white voters who want the government to take a harsher stance on law and order and immigration and who oppose political correctness. • In addition, Trump was also highly successful in winning over the evangelical vote, as he won it by the biggest margin of any candidate in recent history, with a 65% lead over Clinton. • This victory has been attributed to Trump's socially conservative stance on abortion, and his repeated promises to appoint SCJs who would reverse Roe and Wade. • In addition, Clinton failed to win over the minority vote, falling by 5 points among black voters, 6 among Hispanics and 8 among Asians, all of which suggests that demographics such as ethnicity played a major role. • However, although Trump was somewhat successful in winning over certain demographics, Clinton's failure to dominate among female voters suggesting that voters were convinced by other, seemingly more important factors rather than those specifically affecting their demographic. • Clinton was expected to win women by an enormous margin, given Trump's blatant sexism and the Hollywood bus recording, as well as the possibility of her being the first female • However, she only won 54% of the female vote, which was actually down one point from Obama in 2012, thus suggesting that gender did not motivate people's voting. • Furthermore, regardless of the specific numbers and percentages of demographics, Clinton still managing to win the American people as a whole, gaining over 2m more votes than Trump, therefore demonstrating she was successful in winning over key groups as well as widespread support within the electorate. • Yet, despite this vote majority, she did not win the election due to the college.

The System: The Electoral College was the main influence on the result of the 2016 presidential election

• Instead, the primary reason for Trump being elected president was the structure and system of presidential elections in the USA, and specifically the Electoral College. • The primaries initially hurt Clinton and helped Trump, as he rose from nowhere and gained lots of momentum whereas Hilary was expected to easily win and faced a challenge from Bernie. • Furthermore, Clinton won almost 3m more votes than Trump, and over 2% more of the American population; however, the winner-takes-all system of the Electoral College in every state but Maine and Nebraska resulted in Trump gaining 74 more College votes. • Rather than valuing votes across the country, all of the College votes for each state simply go to whichever candidate wins the greatest proportion of the vote there. • As a result, there are inevitably an enormous number of wasted votes, especially in contentious swing states. • For example, in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Trump won by an average of only 0.73% of the vote, yet gained 46 College votes from these states. • Indeed, had Clinton won there, she would have received 278 electoral votes, enough to win the election. • Thus, the 101,018 votes that won Trump these three states effectively won him the election, while individual votes in other, less contentious states, such as in California, meant very little to the overall result. • Furthermore, the votes in smaller states are overvalued compared to larger states - this can be seen in California, which has one college vote per 713,000 people, compared to Wyoming, with one per 195,000. • This favours Republican candidates such as Trump, as they normally have more rural support and therefore benefit from the overvaluation of smaller states. • Therefore, although campaign finance is significant, and Trump's spending in these swing states was vital to him winning there, without the Electoral College he would not have won the 2016 presidential election.

Economy and Free Trade shows that the two main US parties are internally divided

• It could be argued that Republicans in general want to address the deficit by cutting public spending, while also reducing taxes, thus shrinking the size and cost of the state • Indeed, this could be seen in their 2016 platform, which promised to extend the Bush tax cuts, stop taxes rising on income, interest, dividends and capital gains, and simply the tax system to only three brackets on income ranging from 33% to 12%. • In contrast, the Democrats support more taxation, planned to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest to expire in their 2016 platform and in general want to regulate free trade. • These party line differences could be seen with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017, Trump's economic reform bill. • This bill reduced tax rates for business and individuals and increased the standard deduction and family tax credits. • It passed the House 227 - 203, with all Democrats voting against and all but 12 Republicans voting for, and then passed the Senate 51 - 48 along party lines. • Indeed, the Democrats' united desire for more government intervention could be seen in their support for the Dodd-Frank reforms in 2010, which regulated financial markets and protected consumers in the wake of the 2008 stock market crash - in the Senate only 1 Democrat voted against it (3 Reps for) and in the House only 19 out of 234 opposed it (3 Reps voted for). • However, the parties are in fact extremely divided over the economy. • Conservative republicans such as those in the Tea Party are far more committed to reducing the national deficit than establishment republicans - they want substantial cuts including the termination of entire government departments and agencies, such as the EPA. • They are also far more determined to get this - Tea Party Republicans such as Ted Cruz shut the government down for the first time in 17 years in September 2013 after the Democrats refused to pass substantial spending cuts, such as the complete defunding of Obamacare. • More moderate Republicans eventually compromised with the Democrats to reopen the government, while the Tea Party remained in opposition - clear internal divides. • These differences in opposition have continued in government for the Republicans • Although Trump agreed to sizable spending cuts, such as cutting the budget of the EPA by 31%, he also introduced $1.4bn to be spent on the construction of a wall with Mexico, and a $54bn increase in defense spending, to appease those within the Republican party who believe spending is vital for defense. • In addition, divisions within the Republican Party have also been exposed by Trump's protectionist trade policies. • Trump has introduced tariffs on steel and aluminum, and has entered a trade war with China, placing tariffs on soy beans, the main Chinese import to the US. • This has provoked a reaction from Republicans who believe strongly in free trade, including Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, as demonstrated by the Senate passing a non-binding resolution in July 2018 calling for greater oversight into Trump's trade polices. • Moreover, Democrats are also very divided over the economy, and in particular the issue of free trade. • The New Democrats, a faction that emerged after the victory of GHWB in the 1988 presidential election, were far more supportive of free trade than the party had been in the past. • In 1994, President Clinton signed the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico; however, over 150 Democrats in the House voted against the bill, 60% of the total Democratic House Caucus. • Many of the party's supporters, especially trade unions, feared that the trade deal would lead to businesses to close factories based in America and move them to Mexico, where wage costs would be lower. • Moreover, President Obama also suffered from the same divisions within the Democratic party over free trade; when he asked Congress to grant him fast track authority to negotiate that Trans-Pacific Partnership, only 28 House Democrats supported him, mainly from the New Democrat Coalition, out of a total of 188. • Moreover, the Democratic were unsuccessful in passing any significant economic reform bills during the Obama administration - although they passed the $787bn Economic Stimulus Act, this was only achieved due to support from three Republicans, including Susan Collins. • Therefore, Democrats more divided.

Party campaigning was the main influence on the result of the 2016 presidential election

• It could be argued that campaign strategy and the campaign itself also played a role in Trump's victory. • Since the election, the Clinton campaign has been criticised for its approach, including its focus on Clinton's experience in comparison to Trump's lack thereof. • Rather than emphasising her own policy agenda, Clinton stressed the difference between her and Trump, which was not very successful; for example, her comment calling Trump supporters 'deplorable' only alienated swing voters. • Moreover, the Democrat have come under fire for failing to win over the white working-class males that Obama won yet Trump dominated among. • The Democrats also trusted the so-called 'Firewall' states, (Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire) too much, and devoted resources to other swing states. • This allowed Trump to dominate the Rust Belt states, and take advantage of their economic and industrial decline with his anti-free trade, nationalist approach, resulting in electoral victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. • Furthermore, the Clinton campaign was never truly able to recover from their "October Surprise," as James Comey announced that the FBI was re-opening its investigation into Clinton in October 2016. • However, at the time the Clinton campaign was praised for its strategy and efficiency in comparison to the Trump one, therefore demonstrating the relative unimportance of campaign strategy in the election's result. • Clinton had far more volunteers and offices in the field, with thousands more paid staff to help get-out-the-vote. • The Clinton campaign was also praised for its advanced databases, enabling them to target voters with specific messages, while Trump was ridiculed for spending more on 'MAGA' hats than polling. • Furthermore, Trump faced his own "October Surprise" in the form of the Access Hollywood tape, which was released on 7th October 2016 and included Trump claiming he could sexually grope women and get away with it; however, this damaging tape did not prevent him from winning the election. • Therefore, although Clinton did make several campaign missteps, so did Trump, while she was also commended at the time for her campaign, thus demonstrating that it was not her campaign that lost the election.

Evaluate the extent to which the two main US parties are internally divided

• It depends - parties are far more united in opposition, as shown by Trump and his struggles to pass legislation in contrast to the largely united Dems. Economy and Free Trade: • It could be argued that Republicans in general want to address the deficit by cutting public spending, while also reducing taxes, thus shrinking the size and cost of the state • Indeed, this could be seen in their 2016 platform, which promised to extend the Bush tax cuts, stop taxes rising on income, interest, dividends and capital gains, and simply the tax system to only three brackets on income ranging from 33% to 12%. • In contrast, the Democrats support more taxation, planned to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest to expire in their 2016 platform and in general want to regulate free trade. • These party line differences could be seen with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017, Trump's economic reform bill. • This bill reduced tax rates for business and individuals and increased the standard deduction and family tax credits. • It passed the House 227 - 203, with all Democrats voting against and all but 12 Republicans voting for, and then passed the Senate 51 - 48 along party lines. • Indeed, the Democrats' united desire for more government intervention could be seen in their support for the Dodd-Frank reforms in 2010, which regulated financial markets and protected consumers in the wake of the 2008 stock market crash - in the Senate only 1 Democrat voted against it (3 Reps for) and in the House only 19 out of 234 opposed it (3 Reps voted for). • However, the parties are in fact extremely divided over the economy. • Conservative republicans such as those in the Tea Party are far more committed to reducing the national deficit than establishment republicans - they want substantial cuts including the termination of entire government departments and agencies, such as the EPA. • They are also far more determined to get this - Tea Party Republicans such as Ted Cruz shut the government down for the first time in 17 years in September 2013 after the Democrats refused to pass substantial spending cuts, such as the complete defunding of Obamacare. • More moderate Republicans eventually compromised with the Democrats to reopen the government, while the Tea Party remained in opposition - clear internal divides. • These differences in opposition have continued in government for the Republicans • Although Trump agreed to sizable spending cuts, such as cutting the budget of the EPA by 31%, he also introduced $1.4bn to be spent on the construction of a wall with Mexico, and a $54bn increase in defense spending, to appease those within the Republican party who believe spending is vital for defense. • In addition, divisions within the Republican Party have also been exposed by Trump's protectionist trade policies. • Trump has introduced tariffs on steel and aluminum, and has entered a trade war with China, placing tariffs on soy beans, the main Chinese import to the US. • This has provoked a reaction from Republicans who believe strongly in free trade, including Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, as demonstrated by the Senate passing a non-binding resolution in July 2018 calling for greater oversight into Trump's trade polices. • Moreover, Democrats are also very divided over the economy, and in particular the issue of free trade. • The New Democrats, a faction that emerged after the victory of GHWB in the 1988 presidential election, were far more supportive of free trade than the party had been in the past. • In 1994, President Clinton signed the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico; however, over 150 Democrats in the House voted against the bill, 60% of the total Democratic House Caucus. • Many of the party's supporters, especially trade unions, feared that the trade deal would lead to businesses to close factories based in America and move them to Mexico, where wage costs would be lower. • Moreover, President Obama also suffered from the same divisions within the Democratic party over free trade; when he asked Congress to grant him fast track authority to negotiate that Trans-Pacific Partnership, only 28 House Democrats supported him, mainly from the New Democrat Coalition, out of a total of 188. • Moreover, the Democratic were unsuccessful in passing any significant economic reform bills during the Obama administration - although they passed the $787bn Economic Stimulus Act, this was only achieved due to support from three Republicans, including Susan Collins. • Therefore, Democrats more divided. Healthcare reform: • On the whole, the Democrats are united over healthcare, as all Democrats want to protect Obamacare, as well as supporting Medicare and Medicaid. • In contrast, the Republicans are opposed to Obamacare, and any form of universal healthcare in general, and the individual mandate in particular. • These clear party divisions could be seen with the ACA in 2010, as all 60 Democrats in the Senate voted for it, while the 39 Republicans present (Jim Bunning was not there) voted against. • Moreover, the Republicans are clearly united against the individual mandate, and repealed it as part of the aforementioned Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. • The Democrats are divided over healthcare policy - although the majority support reforms to the system, progressive Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren advocate a universal healthcare system, like the NHS in the UK, as does Bernie Sanders, who caucused with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. • However, more moderate, 'Blue Dog' Democrats, who mostly represent southern states, have long been critical of such plans • These differences could be seen in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which modified, rather than replaced, reforming the insurance market and introduced the controversial 'individual mandate' • Furthermore, divisions over Obamacare were also apparent during the 2016 presidential primary race - Berne Sanders took the progressive stance of introducing universal health care, whilst Hillary Clinton argued that this was financially unachievable and pledged to continue to support Obamacare. • Moreover, there is clearly widespread support in the party for both positions, as Sanders won 44% of the vote while Clinton gained 55% and won the nomination, further exposing this division. • In addition, disagreement over potential healthcare reform will continue to divide Democrats in 2020, as Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, all of whom have announced their candidacy, support Sanders' Medicare-for-all, while other more centrist candidates such as Joe Biden and billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who have not announced yet but are considering runs, are likely to oppose such an extension of Obamacare. • Similarly, although all Republicans are opposed to Obamacare, the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus were particularly against its increase in the size, role and cost of the federal government. • Moreover, Libertarians within the Republican party such as Rand Paul, while opposing Obamacare, did so on different grounds - they believe the government should not force people to buy health insurance with the individual mandate, nor should it require larger businesses to pay for health insurance for their employees. • These divisions over healthcare were exposed in March 2017, when House Republicans announced their Obamacare replacement, the American Health Care Act. • Right-wing members of the House Freedom Caucus argued that the bill's cuts to healthcare did not go far enough, while more moderate members, such as those in the Main Street Partnership, argued that the bill went too far, particularly after the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 24 million people could lose their insurance by 2026. • Although the Republicans managed to pass the bill through the House in May 2017, this was by a slim margin of 217 - 213, with 20 Republicans voting against it, 15 of whom were in the moderate Main Street Partnership. • However, the bill failed in the Senate 49 - 51, after moderate Republican Senators John McCain, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted against it, on the grounds that it defunded Planned Parenthood and did not provide a satisfactory replacement to Obamacare. • Therefore, despite divisions in Democrats, they were able to pass Obamacare, while Republicans couldn't repeal it. • Moreover, their divisions over healthcare have been masked recently as they're in opposition - united in their opposition to Trump AHCA, with all Senate and House Dems voting against it. Immigration: • Republicans want to crack down on illegal immigration and improve border security. • Can be seen in the 2018 $1.3 trillion budget, which gave $1.6 Billion towards limiting immigration and building a wall. • Democrats tend to be more support of immigration reform and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, particularly the children of immigrants who moved to the US illegally. • Indeed, Sanders and Clinton had fairly similar stances on immigration during the 2016 Democrat primaries, with both aiming to reform current immigration laws and make a path to citizenship easier. • Furthermore, the Democrats have been united in their immigration policy during Trump's presidency both in opposition and in control of the House, as they have in fact caused two shutdowns over it, one in January 2018 when Dems refused to pass a spending bill without DACA funding as well as the longest shutdown in history, lasting from December 2018 - January 2019, in resistance to Trump's funding of a wall. • However, Blue Dog Democrats and those who come from southern states where illegal immigration is a much more controversial issue are more likely to take a firmer stance on immigration reform, supporting stronger border controls. • Indeed, Obama's actions towards immigration while president reflected these divisions within the Democrat party. • In 2012, he introduced DAPA and DACA which allowed 800,000 children who had arrived illegally to stay in the country. • However, he also deported 2.5mil illegal immigrants during his time in office, more than all the other 20th century presidents put together, and 20% of America's illegal immigrants (according to FAIR's estimates). • Moreover, Democrats disagree on the extent of potential immigration reform, as moderates simply want to pass bills such as the Dream Act and the American Promise Act, which provide pathways to citizenships for DACA recipients and TPS (Temporary Status Holders) respectively. • However, progressives within the party want to attempt more comprehensive reforms that change how the nation enforces its immigration laws; for example, during the 2016 campaign, some progressive Democrats such as Representative Mack Pocan of Wisconsin, called for the abolition of ICE, the Department of Homeland Security's enforcement wing. • The Republican party is divided to an even greater extent over immigration reform. • Moderate Republicans recognize that the party is performing badly among Hispanic voters and desire a change in stance to win them over, while more business-minded Reps believe that immigration is beneficial for the economy. • However, Tea Party Republicans are concerned that providing a path to citizenship will reward illegal immigration, and that by granting amnesty, more people will be encouraged to enter the country illegal; thus, they support greater investment in border controls. • These divisions were evident in June 2013, with the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Bill. • This bill included plans to allow many of America's undocumented immigrants to gain legal status, and also increased the number of border patrol agents. • It passed the Senate 68 - 32, with 14 Republicans voting for it, including moderate Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain. • However, it was not even brought to the House floor after House Speaker John Boehner invoked the Hastert Rule, thus showing that the divide even among establishment Republicans. • In office, Trump has taken a very harsh stance on immigration, ordering the construction of a physical wall along the Mexican border, threatening to remove funding from sanctuary cities and signing the so-called 'Travel Ban' • However, this has provoked criticism from members in the Republican party, including moderate Republican senators Susan Collins, Bob Corker and Lindsay Graham, as well as House Republicans such as Justin Amash, chair of the House Liberty Caucus. • Overall, more divisions among the Republicans than Democrats, as Obama's deportation is not much compared to the 12.5mil immigrants currently in the US, while Trump's approach has created far more controversy within his party than Obama's did. • Also, the masking of immigration as an issue - Dem far more united in opposition to Trump's radical policies. • Moreover, the Blue Dog wield very little power within the party, as they have only a few members, and thus do not demonstrate real divisions.

Healthcare reform show that the two main US parties are internally divided

• On the whole, the Democrats are united over healthcare, as all Democrats want to protect Obamacare, as well as supporting Medicare and Medicaid. • In contrast, the Republicans are opposed to Obamacare, and any form of universal healthcare in general, and the individual mandate in particular. • These clear party divisions could be seen with the ACA in 2010, as all 60 Democrats in the Senate voted for it, while the 39 Republicans present (Jim Bunning was not there) voted against. • Moreover, the Republicans are clearly united against the individual mandate, and repealed it as part of the aforementioned Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017. • The Democrats are divided over healthcare policy - although the majority support reforms to the system, progressive Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren advocate a universal healthcare system, like the NHS in the UK, as does Bernie Sanders, who caucused with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. • However, more moderate, 'Blue Dog' Democrats, who mostly represent southern states, have long been critical of such plans • These differences could be seen in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which modified, rather than replaced, reforming the insurance market and introduced the controversial 'individual mandate' • Furthermore, divisions over Obamacare were also apparent during the 2016 presidential primary race - Berne Sanders took the progressive stance of introducing universal health care, whilst Hillary Clinton argued that this was financially unachievable and pledged to continue to support Obamacare. • Moreover, there is clearly widespread support in the party for both positions, as Sanders won 44% of the vote while Clinton gained 55% and won the nomination, further exposing this division. • In addition, disagreement over potential healthcare reform will continue to divide Democrats in 2020, as Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, all of whom have announced their candidacy, support Sanders' Medicare-for-all, while other more centrist candidates such as Joe Biden and billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who have not announced yet but are considering runs, are likely to oppose such an extension of Obamacare. • Similarly, although all Republicans are opposed to Obamacare, the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus were particularly against its increase in the size, role and cost of the federal government. • Moreover, Libertarians within the Republican party such as Rand Paul, while opposing Obamacare, did so on different grounds - they believe the government should not force people to buy health insurance with the individual mandate, nor should it require larger businesses to pay for health insurance for their employees. • These divisions over healthcare were exposed in March 2017, when House Republicans announced their Obamacare replacement, the American Health Care Act. • Right-wing members of the House Freedom Caucus argued that the bill's cuts to healthcare did not go far enough, while more moderate members, such as those in the Main Street Partnership, argued that the bill went too far, particularly after the Congressional Budget Office estimated that 24 million people could lose their insurance by 2026. • Although the Republicans managed to pass the bill through the House in May 2017, this was by a slim margin of 217 - 213, with 20 Republicans voting against it, 15 of whom were in the moderate Main Street Partnership. • However, the bill failed in the Senate 49 - 51, after moderate Republican Senators John McCain, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted against it, on the grounds that it defunded Planned Parenthood and did not provide a satisfactory replacement to Obamacare. • Therefore, despite divisions in Democrats, they were able to pass Obamacare, while Republicans couldn't repeal it. • Moreover, their divisions over healthcare have been masked recently as they're in opposition - united in their opposition to Trump AHCA, with all Senate and House Dems voting against it.

Immigration shows that the two main US parties are internally divided

• Republicans want to crack down on illegal immigration and improve border security. • Can be seen in the 2018 $1.3 trillion budget, which gave $1.6 Billion towards limiting immigration and building a wall. • Democrats tend to be more support of immigration reform and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, particularly the children of immigrants who moved to the US illegally. • Indeed, Sanders and Clinton had fairly similar stances on immigration during the 2016 Democrat primaries, with both aiming to reform current immigration laws and make a path to citizenship easier. • Furthermore, the Democrats have been united in their immigration policy during Trump's presidency both in opposition and in control of the House, as they have in fact caused two shutdowns over it, one in January 2018 when Dems refused to pass a spending bill without DACA funding as well as the longest shutdown in history, lasting from December 2018 - January 2019, in resistance to Trump's funding of a wall. • However, Blue Dog Democrats and those who come from southern states where illegal immigration is a much more controversial issue are more likely to take a firmer stance on immigration reform, supporting stronger border controls. • Indeed, Obama's actions towards immigration while president reflected these divisions within the Democrat party. • In 2012, he introduced DAPA and DACA which allowed 800,000 children who had arrived illegally to stay in the country. • However, he also deported 2.5mil illegal immigrants during his time in office, more than all the other 20th century presidents put together, and 20% of America's illegal immigrants (according to FAIR's estimates). • Moreover, Democrats disagree on the extent of potential immigration reform, as moderates simply want to pass bills such as the Dream Act and the American Promise Act, which provide pathways to citizenships for DACA recipients and TPS (Temporary Status Holders) respectively. • However, progressives within the party want to attempt more comprehensive reforms that change how the nation enforces its immigration laws; for example, during the 2016 campaign, some progressive Democrats such as Representative Mack Pocan of Wisconsin, called for the abolition of ICE, the Department of Homeland Security's enforcement wing. • The Republican party is divided to an even greater extent over immigration reform. • Moderate Republicans recognize that the party is performing badly among Hispanic voters and desire a change in stance to win them over, while more business-minded Reps believe that immigration is beneficial for the economy. • However, Tea Party Republicans are concerned that providing a path to citizenship will reward illegal immigration, and that by granting amnesty, more people will be encouraged to enter the country illegal; thus, they support greater investment in border controls. • These divisions were evident in June 2013, with the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Bill. • This bill included plans to allow many of America's undocumented immigrants to gain legal status, and also increased the number of border patrol agents. • It passed the Senate 68 - 32, with 14 Republicans voting for it, including moderate Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain. • However, it was not even brought to the House floor after House Speaker John Boehner invoked the Hastert Rule, thus showing that the divide even among establishment Republicans. • In office, Trump has taken a very harsh stance on immigration, ordering the construction of a physical wall along the Mexican border, threatening to remove funding from sanctuary cities and signing the so-called 'Travel Ban' • However, this has provoked criticism from members in the Republican party, including moderate Republican senators Susan Collins, Bob Corker and Lindsay Graham, as well as House Republicans such as Justin Amash, chair of the House Liberty Caucus. • Overall, more divisions among the Republicans than Democrats, as Obama's deportation is not much compared to the 12.5mil immigrants currently in the US, while Trump's approach has created far more controversy within his party than Obama's did. • Also, the masking of immigration as an issue - Dem far more united in opposition to Trump's radical policies. • Moreover, the Blue Dog wield very little power within the party, as they have only a few members, and thus do not demonstrate real divisions.