Describe campaign methods and strategies

Exam #2 Directions: Respond to 3 of the following questions in a full paragraph (5-7 sentences @ least). Support your claim using evidence, examples, quotes, etc. Make sure to provide a topic sentenceand stick to material discussed in class/ textbookKey Terms: incumbents/ bicameral legislature/ speaker of the house/ bill/ interest group /PAC (political action committee)/ campaign strategy/ national party convention/ party platform/ presidential primaries Determine the significance of party identification in America today.Describe campaign methods and strategies.Identify the factors that influence whether people vote.Evaluate the fairness of the Electoral College system for choosing the president. Why was it established? What are the benefits and negative effects? Identify the major factors influencing the outcome of congressional elections.

Explain to Michael Dell how HR will aid in regaining its pre-eminent position

Based on your research, write succinct discussions of each of these items. Present your work as a 2–3-page report in a Microsoft Word document formatted in APA style. Support your responses with examples. Cite sources in APA format. Discuss major competitive and strategic challenges for Dell to regain position of strength within the Industry? Summarize what HR could do to assist Dell re-establish their position in PC’s. Explain to Michael Dell how HR will aid in regaining its pre-eminent position

What are the implications of representing the history of the Americas as a vision, as opposed to representing it as a more traditional history of either the age of exploration or of colonization?

For your Week 3 Response Paper, answer one of the questions below: Mercy Otis Warren In the preface to his book The Politics of History, Arthur Shaffer explains that, although diverse and often distinguished by their regional loyalties or by personal idiosyncrasies, the historians of the Early Republic were themselves united in their “almost obsessive preoccupation with union” (3). It was not long after the ratification of the US constitution that fears of disunion and the inevitable decay of the Republic set in, fears that were fueled by the French Revolution and its demonstration of the apparent dangers of liberty. Although most considered partisanship to be inimical to the healthy functioning of the Republic, two distinct political parties emerged, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, who remained at odds on the issue of a strong, centralized government. Meanwhile, a growing rift was developing between the North and the South on the issue of slavery. Authors in the Early Republic, according to Shaffer, turned to writing histories of the Revolutionary War and the founding of the United States in part because of nostalgia—they turned away from the divisiveness of their age to a time when the English colonists had appeared united. But they also saw their writings as “weapons in the battle against the centrifugal forces that threatened to divide society” (3). They sought to create a unified past to overcome present-day divisions. To what extent is that true of Warren? In her introductory chapter, what kind of past does she construct for the nation, and in doing so how does she try to combat the “centrifugal forces” of her own time? In other words, how are Warren’s anxieties over the condition of the Republic expressed in her history of the English colonies? And how do her values imbue her interpretation of the origins of the United States?   Joel Barlow Barlow explains in the introduction to The Vision of Columbus that he chose not to write a traditional epic poem documenting the origins of America, in the vein of, say, Virgil’s The Aeneid. Instead of putting Columbus’s life to verse, Barlow chose to begin his poem at the end of Columbus’s life, with the aged Columbus in chains and wasting away. Hearing Columbus’s laments, the Seraph arrives from Heaven to “sooth” him by showing him a “Vision” of the future, the “consequences of the discovery” Columbus made years before. What are the implications of representing the history of the Americas as a vision, as opposed to representing it as a more traditional history of either the age of exploration or of colonization? Mercy Otis Warren all but disregards the founding of Jamestown (not to mention the Spanish colonies of Florida, New Spain, and Peru; or the French colony of New France) and locates the origin of the American Revolution and thus the United States in the Puritans’ arrival to Plymouth and the subsequent founding of the colonies of New England. In doing so, she creates a complicated relationship between America and England, suggesting continuity as well as rupture. Warren stresses the English colonists’ love of liberty and their hatred of tyranny and thus sets up a line of ideological descent that leads directly to the Revolution and the founding of the nation. Contrast that approach with Barlow’s. What values appear important to him, based on how he constructs his narrative of America’s origins? If, as Arthur Shaffer writes, the historiographical writers of the Early Republic were novel in their “subjugation of history to the service of nationalism,” in their “preoccupation” with articulating a “distinctly national experience,” that is, with distinguishing America as unique among nations, how does Barlow go about doing that, or does he?   John Marrant In the introductory chapter to her history of the Revolutionary War, Warren stresses the dangers of partisanship. Likewise, Marrant, in his 1789 sermon at the African Masonic Lodge in Boston, warns of the “party spirit in masonry.” What “party spirit” is he referring to, and how does it compare or contrast to that which preoccupied Warren? What is at stake for Marrant in combatting that partisanship, and how does he go about doing that in his sermon? How does he use historiography (or historiographical revision) to challenge that partisanship? Warren traces the nation’s origins to the Puritans of seventeenth-century New England; Barlow goes further, tracing those origins to Columbus. Marrant’s genealogy probes yet further back in time than either Warren or Barlow do, to the Creation; however, whereas Warren and Barlow construct genealogies of the United States, or of America broadly conceived, Marrant simultaneously constructs a genealogy for the Freemasons (a transnational organization) and for African Americans (a diasporic nation within a nation). Denied full citizenship in the United States, Marrant and other free Africans living in the states sought (or often created) membership in alternative communities. How can Marrant’s dual genealogy be explained by appealing to the racial dynamics of his age? Marrant’s sermon, as Joana Brooks explains, is full of reversals and revisions. According to Brooks, Marrant (and his collaborator, Prince Hall) uses biblical exegesis and draws upon the already existing Egyptian symbology of the Freemasons to rewrite Masonic history as being African in origins. Given that Marrant credits the Freemasons with maintaining and dispersing knowledge around the world, from the time of Adam down to his present day, is it possible to view Marrant as likewise rewriting the history of the Enlightenment and thus of the Revolution? In answering that question, consider how Warren and especially Barlow depict the origins and development of reason and knowledge in America. Previous Next