Bernie Sanders is an Independent/Democratic senator from Vermont. He has been touted as a leading progressive and is currently running for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 Presidential Race. Senator Sanders is a self-promoted “Democratic Socialist”, and has a large growing grassroots movement following his principles. His left-wing views on topics such as wealth inequality, abortion, drug policy, education, environmental issues, gun control, health care, immigration reform, LGBT rights, social security, and tax reform garner him support from a great deal of young voters, minorities, and the working class. These aren’t the views of Cold War era socialism, but instead the current policies in blooming democracies where real success is
…show more content…
by Danny Hayes, Hayes attempts to explain how voting for a person based on their personality is perceived as a norm in the American political atmosphere, but this is not the case even with the advent of television. In the paper Hayes tries to prove his thesis by using polling data from various sources and also by using his own data and conclusions. Hayes argues that candidate personality is small influence when a voter chooses a candidate. He instead insists that people are influenced by other means such as, party identification, ideology and social group characteristics. In the paper, Hayes explains how television exploits a politician 's personality and tries to examine every aspect of it. Today voters have increasingly become more issue-conscience and there has been a surge in partisanship. Hayes also states that the voters that are highly influenced by television regarding politics have lower levels of political information. Hayes concludes that television has transformed how citizens learn about politics but hasn’t changed their own personal thoughts and beliefs. He instead insists that “people tend to vote more for the party than the …show more content…
Tolbert, Daniel A. Smith, and John C. Green, the authors explore political institutional change. They use examples of gerrymandering, reform, and change to demonstrate how effective/ineffective institutional change is in America. The authors show how institutional change is either created by elites, or by the voting masses. The masses of voters can be categorized into two separate categories. Voters are “winners” or they are “losers”. The authors argue change is created by the political losers, whether they may be elites or common people, the losers always attempt change in legislation. The author then go on to explain when given the opportunity to enact change, the masses will vote along with their self-interests. The authors then take surveys to help prove their thesis. Winners and elites are satisfied with their current positions and losers are the actual ones who try to attempt institutional change whether they may be Republicans or Democrats, and it is consistent across state lines as shown in the data from the
by Danny Hayes, Hayes attempts to explain how voting for a person based on their personality is perceived as a norm in the American political atmosphere, but this is not the case even with the advent of television. In the paper Hayes tries to prove his thesis by using polling data from various sources and also by using his own data and conclusions. Hayes argues that candidate personality is small influence when a voter chooses a candidate. He instead insists that people are influenced by other means such as, party identification, ideology and social group characteristics. In the paper, Hayes explains how television exploits a politician 's personality and tries to examine every aspect of it. Today voters have increasingly become more issue-conscience and there has been a surge in partisanship. Hayes also states that the voters that are highly influenced by television regarding politics have lower levels of political information. Hayes concludes that television has transformed how citizens learn about politics but hasn’t changed their own personal thoughts and beliefs. He instead insists that “people tend to vote more for the party than the …show more content…
Tolbert, Daniel A. Smith, and John C. Green, the authors explore political institutional change. They use examples of gerrymandering, reform, and change to demonstrate how effective/ineffective institutional change is in America. The authors show how institutional change is either created by elites, or by the voting masses. The masses of voters can be categorized into two separate categories. Voters are “winners” or they are “losers”. The authors argue change is created by the political losers, whether they may be elites or common people, the losers always attempt change in legislation. The author then go on to explain when given the opportunity to enact change, the masses will vote along with their self-interests. The authors then take surveys to help prove their thesis. Winners and elites are satisfied with their current positions and losers are the actual ones who try to attempt institutional change whether they may be Republicans or Democrats, and it is consistent across state lines as shown in the data from the