Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An individual U.S. state that is perceived as an indicator of trends or patterns in political tendencies, reflecting or predicting the political outlook of the nation as a whole. The term is often used in the context of U.S. presidential elections when the nationwide vote closely matches the ballots cast by voters in a particular state. [2]
The term was printed in a more generalized political context in the Financial Times in 1983 about budget discussions: "The political 'gridlock' in Congress might mean that no budget resolution ...
Inverted totalitarianism reverses things. It is all politics all of the time but politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns.
In his 1920 run for one of Georgia's seats in the United States Senate, Thomas E. Watson was denounced by the Valdosta Times newspaper as a "Democrat in name only.". [3] When William DeWitt Mitchell was appointed United States Attorney General in 1928 by President Herbert Hoover, the Chicago Tribune described Mitchell as a "Democrat in name only," arguing that "his record of the last few years ...
Bellwether. Continuing resolution. Ranked-choice voting. Bound delegate. These are just a few of the terms frequently used in political news coverage. But do you know what they mean?
Wets and dries are British political terms that refer to opposing factions within the Conservative Party.The terms originated in the 1980s during the premiership of Margaret Thatcher: those who opposed some of Thatcher's more hard-line policies were often referred to by their opponents as "wets"; in response, supporters of Thatcher were referred to as "dries".
Political scientists and historians often disagree about which elections are realignments and what defines a realignment, and even whether realignments occur. The terms themselves are somewhat arbitrary, however, and usage among political scientists and historians does vary.
The most substantial cut was made to Johnson’s response to a question about whether he was undermining “confidence in the integrity of the state elections.”