Write a 350 word essay that addresses ONE of the following questions: Does the r

Question

Write a 350 word essay that addresses ONE of the following questions:

Does the rise of outsiders Trump and Sanders foretell a crumbling of the two political parties in America—and why? For instance, will this give rise to the splitting of the parties into third parties that more effectively represent different groups? Or

Is the popularity of outsiders just another event to which the parties will adapt and realign, thereby continuing the dominance of the Republican and Democratic parties—and why?

Cite at least one reference to support your conclusion

Explanation / Answer

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, two maverick candidates from opposite ends of the spectrum, turned the political world on its head by winning key votes in the US presidential race.

Both men rode a wave of anger against traditional politicians and the Washington establishment to record decisive victories in New Hampshire.It was the second US state to vote, after Iowa, and made clear the level of enthusiasm for figures who want to bring radical change to America.

Mr Trump, the billionaire who aims to ban foreign Muslims from the country and build a "great wall" on the Mexican border, scored double the support of his nearest Republican rival.

In the Democratic race Mr Sanders, a self-described socialist, won an equally clear victory by 20 percentage points over his rival Hillary Clinton .

There was a record turnout of an estimated 550,000 voters in a state with a population of just 1.3 million.An exit poll of Republicans showed 90 per cent of them were "dissatisfied" with the government, and 40 per cent said they were "angry" with politicians.

Bernie Sanders gave a triumphant victory speech after defeating Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire's Democratic presidential primary, saying the win showed that voters were seeking "real change."

"What the people here have said is that given the enormous crises facing our country, it is just too late for the same old, same old establishment politics and establishment economics.

Individual primaries are relatively unpredictable. That's why everyone agrees that parties often fail to control nominations in congressional or gubernatorial races. Sometimes a candidate catches fire at the right time, and even a fairly unified party is unable to overcome the publicity that can generate. And that can happen in individual presidential primaries, too. The difference at the presidential level is that the sequential process -- week after week after week of primaries and caucuses -- allows the party time to regroup and recover. For example, Pat Buchanan won in New Hampshire in 1996, Jerry Brown upset Bill Clinton in Connecticut in 1992, and Newt Gingrich won in South Carolina in 2012, but none came close to being nominated.

Indeed, this theory about parties isn’t mainly a tool to predict which candidate will win a nomination. More than anything, it describes how political parties control political institutions, including the presidency, with nominations being one important way that parties constrain politicians. From the point of view of party actors, which candidate is nominated isn't as important as ensuring that any plausible nominee is firmly attached to the party, its people and its policy program. That any nominee will produce what Richard Skinner calls a "Partisan Presidency" like those of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

That’s why Drezner also is wrong to point to Republicans seemingly warming to Trump this month as proof that a Trump nomination would be “not fatal” to the theory. There’s no reason to believe that Trump, if elected, would have any loyalty to the Republican Party. If he wins the nomination, it will be entirely on his own, with a campaign organization almost entirely staffed with loyalists, not the usual Republican campaign professionals. He really is, even more than Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders, a total (party) outsider. His nomination would signal complete failure for “The Party Decides,” although exactly what kind of failure, and what party scholars would take from it, is a complicated question.

Whatever a Trump nomination would say about political science theories, however, the far more important point is that it would be a failure of the Republican Party, signaling unpredictable but potentially very serious changes to what that party has been for the last 40 years or more.

Including at least one of the authors of “The Party Decides.” And I should clarify: I’m speaking here of party scholars who are sympathetic to the basic idea that what I call“expanded” parties made up of both formal party institutions and larger informal networks are the key players in presidential nominations. Not all party scholars agree.

Multicandidate primary elections are especially unstable. One reason the sequential process in presidential nominations "works" for parties is by winnowing out most candidates, often leaving a more predictable, and easier to influence, two-candidate contest.

And one I will certainly revisit if it happens, or perhaps it will be worth speculating about anyway. In part, the answer depends on some of the details of how the campaign actually unfolds, including some things we probably won't know until well after the conventions.

They divide along a line seldom acknowledged in US discourse: class. Sanders draws strong support from graduates and students, whereas most of Trump’s followers are on low incomes and did not go to university. One hammers Wall Street, the other demonises immigrants, but both are perceived as authentic and unspun, right down to their oddball hair. They are two sides of the same coin.

Donald Trump is running one of the best campaigns ever seen. He is doing a great job of using fear and hate speech so people will vote for him. It’s kind of scary.”

But the establishment elders are not taking the parallel rebellions lying down. Clinton, who has husband Bill on her side and remains popular among African Americans and Hispanics, has unleashed a series of attacks on Sanders in the past week. Bush has denounced Trump as “a jerk” and on Friday the National Review magazine published essays by 22 prominent conservative thinkers in opposition to the tycoon’s candidacy. Former governor Sarah Palin, whose stream-of-consciousness endorsement of Trump last week entertained more than it informed, nevertheless hit the mark when she warned: “Our own GOP [Grand Old Party] machine, the establishment, they who would assemble the political landscape? They’re attacking their own frontrunner!”

Some predict the Republican party could split in two if Trump prevails. But Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator whose own campaign for the presidency crashed and burned, refuses to panic, insisting the widespread frustration will not last. “In the Bernie world, big banks are out to get you and the rich guy’s screwing you over,” he said. “In Trump’s world, the illegal immigrants are going to sell your kids drugs and rape your wife, and foreigners are going to take your jobs.

“This has happened before when people had economic anxiety but it never pans out. We always reject this. It will level out. Polling is just ether right now. When people go into the voting booth and they’re quiet, nobody there but them, New Hampshire particularly and South Carolina are going to take seriously the job of picking the next president. That’s why I think Jeb is very viable.”

Graham added: “This is a fad that will pass. The anger is real but the solutions make no sense. We can’t have 90% tax rates and, on the Republican side, we can’t insult everybody in the world and become president of the United States.” Therefore this will give rise to splitting of the parties into third parties and lead to more effective different groups.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.