As a purely factual matter, younger voters are less likely to vote than are older voters. This is due to a variety of factors—some of them intertwined with other socioeconomic factors that increase voting. Older people, for example, tend to be more educated than an 18 year old (one of the obvious reasons being that, with some exceptions, it’s not possible to be a college graduate at 18) and more educated people vote more often than non-educated people. Additionally, older people are more keyed-in to issues such as Social Security as any change will directly affect them, whereas any change in social security is unlikely to have a direct effect on an 18 year old. 

Negative campaigning involves a candidate targeting his opposition through ‘attack ads’ rather than focusing on why the candidate himself is a good leader. In other words, take the negative ads run against Michael Dukakis when Bush Sr. ran for President; Bush effectively portrayed Dukakis as soft on crime and thus not fit to be President. Thus, in that particular (negative) ad, Bush focused on Dukakis rather than highlighting his own qualities.

While negative campaigning can be both brutal and entertaining, it works. Negative ads focus on flaws in campaigns, on weaknesses that have been voiced by the public as concerns. 

Incumbents enjoy several advantages over challengers—which, combined, explain (at least in part) why incumbents enjoy such high reelection rates. Name recognition is exactly what it sounds like—even though your average citizen often is not involved in politics, she can still generally remember her Senator’s name (or at least recognize the name) when voting. This is an advantage because if a voter knows nothing at ALL about the election or the candidate, she’s more likely to vote for the candidate she’s at least heard of before. “War chest” financing involves candidate taking in money from, say, every election cycle. Even though a candidate may solicit donations, there’s no guarantee that the candidate will use all of the money donated to him (perhaps the challenger is so weak there’s no need to spend quite as much money this year). Thus, the candidate can sit on the money he doesn’t use, and build a so-called “war chest.” In the event that a credible challenger comes along, the incumbent has reserves so that he can massively outspend the challenger. Finally, members of Congress do not have to pay for postage (the “franking” privilege), thus they can send out solicitations for free, whereas other candidates must pay.

On average, the more educated you are, the more likely it is that you will vote. Thus, a college graduate is more likely to vote than a high school dropout, and anyone with a PhD is almost certainly going to vote. Education is one in a series of socioeconomic factors that influence whether and how people vote.

The voter described in this problem is likely to be a Democrat as race, gender, and education all tend to be reliable indicators of political choice. Here, the voter is black, female, and highly educated—all of which indicate that she is more likely than not to be a Democrat. Since this is the case, it is also more likely that the voter would support decreased abortion regulations (that is, increased access to abortions) as the Democratic Party tends to view abortion access and availability more favorably than then Republicans.

Wedge issues are those policy standpoints on which the members and/or voters of a party disagree (important modern wedge issues include abortion and gun control). The lack of consensus caused by wedge issues makes a political party vulnerable because dissenting voters (especially those who feel strongly about the issue at hand) are susceptible to influences from the opposition. An astute opposition politician is sometimes able to take advantage of the divide caused by these wedge issues, using them as leverage to lure dissatisfied or concerned voters away from their preferred party to vote for the opposing side.

These two questions – Do I vote? And if yes, how? – may seem basic, but they are deceptively so. After all, voter turnout has decreased over the past several decades, with many people choosing not to vote at all. So, before any candidate and/or political party can even be considered, the first key question confronting any citizen is whether the act of voting would be rational or helpful. If an individual feels that voting is not likely to have much of an impact on his or her life, then they become much less likely to show up on Election Day.

When it comes to determining voter turnout, several prominent demographic factors can help predict the likelihood of a citizen’s absence or arrival at the polling place on Election Day. Among these key influences are the citizen’s age, gender, and educational level. Older people are much more likely to vote, while younger citizens are less frequently registered and vote much less often. As for gender, in today’s society women show up to vote at a slightly higher rate than their male counterparts. Education also plays a vital role – those citizens with higher-than-average educational qualifications have a much higher rate of voter turnout than those citizens who are less educationally connected.

In order to capture their party’s nomination, a candidate needs to harness and skillfully use 3 big vital factors: money, media attention, and momentum. Adequate funds are necessary to promote a candidate in all the many arenas modern society requires: television and social media advertisements must be produced, adept campaign staff must be found and hired, cross-state and/or cross-country travel expenses are a given – and these are just the beginning. In addition, media attention is crucial for a candidate to deliver his or her message and to communicate their policy stances and suitability to the voting public. Momentum is perhaps the most elusive of these necessitates; a good candidate needs to cleverly pace their campaign course, doling out money and media highlights on a consistent basis so that the candidate will remain constantly relevant and seem increasingly viable in the public eye.

As the first of the nation’s many primaries, the New Hampshire primary is widely seen as the ideal arena to showcase each candidates’ image, with the final vote counts revealing their respective appeal to the voting public. The Iowa caucus is a much more rigid venue; here, candidates are assessed primarily on their ability to earn votes– this serves as a sort of future predictor of how well each might do later on in a hypothetical general presidential election.