https://www.businessinsider.com/presidential-election-photography-over-the-years-2016-9
This interesting article from Business Insider outlines the evolution of photographing Presidential campaigns and events from 1960 to the present day. It covers debates, public relations events, media interactions, and more.
https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2019/11/13/should-columbus-bid-to-host-the-dnc-or-rnc.html
Determining the location of a party convention is a key strategic decision for both the Democratic and Republican parties. Considerations often include city size (whether a city has the capacity to host a convention) and strategic political location (often in swing states or states with shifting voting tendencies).
Columbus, Ohio is considering hosting either of the Democratic or Republican conventions in 2024. Ohio’s historical position as a swing state with many electoral votes positions it well to exert influence on the decision-making processes of both parties. Examining the decision from the city’s perspective (as opposed to a party’s perspective) is an interesting and important analysis – Columbus estimates it would take $60 million to lure one of the parties to the city for a convention. Putting such a large sum of money towards a political event may detract from other community needs, say some officials. On the flip side, a convention could bring an economic boom to a city (with many people requiring lodging, food, etc.)
This database from the University of Indiana houses political cartoons related to Presidential elections from 1789 to 1976. A particularly interesting set came from the 1832 election, where Henry Clay and his supporters depicted Andrew Jackson as a king abusing his veto power. The famous “King Andrew the First” cartoon came from this election, as well as the first depiction of Uncle Sam in a political cartoon.
https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/docs/Resolution_Platform_2020.pdf
As Professor Martin mentioned in class, for the 2020 Republican Convention, the Republican National Committee did not adopt a new platform as compared to their 2016 platform. In fact, it appears the only change the party made from 2016 to 2020 was the addition of a one-page resolution that outlined why they were not adopting a new, or even revised, platform. The RNC says that the body voted unanimously to forego the Convention Committee on Platform “in appreciation of the fact that it did not want a small contingent of delegates formulating a new platform without the breadth of perspectives within the ever-growing Republican movement.” The Platform Committee also unanimously reaffirmed their support for President Donald Trump and his “America-first agenda.” The attached document shows the resolution adopted by the party, and the subsequent 2016 platform the party reused for 2020. **Resolution_Platform_2020**
https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/11/us/the-1992-campaign-iowa-harkin-dominates-state-s-caucuses.html
Another interesting note from the 1992 election cycle included major Democratic candidates ceding the Iowa caucuses to Iowa Senator Tom Harkin (who was the presumed frontrunner in the state, and ended up winning all 49 of Iowa’s pledged delegates). I would imagine this withdrawal from the Iowa caucuses was highly unusual for the time period. Considering that Iowa must conduct the first caucus of the primary season, according to its own state constitution, I wonder if public perception diluted the value placed on the Iowa caucus in this election cycle.
A chart of the 1992 Democratic primary election results can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
1992 election: https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1992
This article gives a great overview of the 1992 election and emphasizes several important points we’ve covered in class. Bill Clinton (Democrat) defeated George HW Bush (Republican incumbent), as well as Ross Perot (third party independent candidate). While Clinton won the electoral college fairly handily (370 electors against 168 for Bush and 0 for Perot), this election was notable for the popularity of third-party candidate Ross Perot. Despite clearly winning a majority of electors, Clinton only won 43% of the popular vote (compared to Bush’s 37.4% and Perot’s 18.9%). Some may argue these election results reinforce support for the electoral college – in the event a Presidential candidate only garners a plurality of the popular vote (and not a majority), the electoral college provides a method of measurement that lends a majority of support to a candidate. While this election method may reinforce a two-party system, and prevent third-party candidates from having a viable chance at winning the Presidency, there may be value in maintaining a system that prevents a candidate from winning election based on a mere plurality of the popular electorate.