ESSAY-A-DAY #6
by
6th June 2018
Revision & Exam Practice for the “legacy” A Level qualifications including:
- Edexcel (Unit 3C – Representative Processes in the USA, Unit 4C – Governing the USA)
- AQA (Unit 3A – The Politics of the USA, Unit 4A – The Government of the USA)
- OCR (F855 – US Government & Politics)
How to use these questions for revision and exam practice:
- For long-answer or essay questions, plan a 4 paragraph response using the PEEACH paragraph structure (P=point, E=evidence, E=explain, A=argument, C=counter argument, H=how does this answer the question?)
- Once you have completed your question, read the indicative content.
- Using the essay criteria, colour code each criteria to show how successful you were at including this in your essay (red, amber or green)
- There is also a space for you to add additional notes and/or examples that don’t appear in the indicative content, or add better explanations, or include additional, points from the indicative content.
‘The record of the incumbent is decisive in determining the outcome of presidential elections.’ Discuss. (45)
Introduction
|
|||
P
E
E
A
C
H
|
P
E
E
A
C
H
|
||
P
E
E
A
C
H
|
P
E
E
A
C
H
|
||
Conclusion
|
Indicative Content
Evidence that the record of the incumbent is a significant factor in the outcome of presidential elections includes:
- there is a strong correlation between the incumbent’s approval rating and the outcome of the election, even in elections when the incumbent cannot run, e.g. it would have been impossible for almost any Republican candidate in 2008 to overcome the association with the presidency of George W. Bush; many voters will have views on the evidence of the previous four or eight years, which the campaign has only limited power to change; voting is often more a retrospective judgment than based on promises for the future
- the incumbent’s record on the economy is often held to be particularly significant, and is credited with the defeat of President Bush in 1992; in some elections such as 2004, the incumbent’s record in foreign policy may be important
- the incumbent’s record may be viewed by his own party so unfavourably that a serious primary challenger emerges; the evidence of 1968, 1976, 1980 and 1992 is that it is almost always terminal for his prospects
Evidence that other factors may be significant
- quality of the opponent – if an opponent does not present a compelling case for his or her election, many voters will be inclined to stick with an incumbent, even though he may not be particularly compelling himself; Bob Dole, for example, was seen by many in 1996 as an uninspiring alternative to President Clinton; in 2012 Mitt Romney’s weaknesses, such as the ‘47%’ recording, outweighed those of the president, such as persistently high unemployment, the unpopularity of ‘Obamacare’ and his failure to keep the campaign promises to close Guantanamo Bay and initiate immigration reform
- party – may be an asset or drag the candidate down, e.g. the pronouncements in 2012 of prominent Republicans such as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock reinforced an image of the party as being in the control of extremists
- campaign strategy e.g. the Obama campaign’s heavy investment early in 2012 in negative advertisements succeeded in defining Mitt Romney as the ‘outsourcer in chief’, an image which he struggled to shed
- ‘events’ such as the arrival of storm Sandy on the east coast a week before the election
- presidential debates – in a very close election such as 1960, the presidential debates may play a critical role, though appeared not to in 2012
- candidates’ image – in 2008, the unflustered and youthful persona of Barack Obama played well against the quite often flustered and more elderly persona of John McCain; the controversy over the release of his tax returns, and the publicity surrounding his wife’s horse and his dog on his car roof, all served to undermine Mitt Romney
- campaign finance – in 2008, Barack Obama raised in the region of $700M, whereas John McCain’s campaign was limited to the federal grant of $84.1M
- running mate – John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin in 2008 was a gamble which didn’t ultimately come off but quite possibly could have
Essay Part | Criteria | RAG | ||
Introduction | Clear and detailed knowledge of the premise of the question | |||
Clear outline of overall argument of the extent of agreement with the statement in the question | ||||
Agreement with the statement | PEAACH paragraph 1 | |||
PEAACH paragraph 2 | ||||
(PEAACH paragraph 3) | ||||
Disagreement with the statement | PEAACH paragraph 1 | |||
PEAACH paragraph 2 | ||||
(PEAACH paragraph 3) | ||||
Conclusion | Clear and detailed re-statement of extent of support (sustained argument) | |||
Relative analysis of extent of support for each argument (evaluation of argument) | ||||
RED | AMBER | GREEN | ||
Argument stated, little to no explanation, lacking example and analysis of this | Argument is explained clearly and supported with a relevant example, may lack analysis of this and development of explanation | Argument is fully explained and developed and supported with a precise and detailed example, clear analysis of this in relation to the question |
0 Comments