Almost immediately after beginning to read Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, I realized it would be difficult to relate to modern politics due to the vast differences in campaign strategy. Currently, delivery of the speech is not as crucial as the substance, since most voters read the highlights of speeches rather than listen to them in person. Would a different candidate have won in modern times? I believe Chase would have gained more support due to his strong arguments, but would it have made enough of a difference to change the turnout? I was surprised at Chase’s strength and ambition, regarding the horrible loses in his life, and with modern day recognition of mental health, he may have been able to recover more than
…show more content…
Kearns Goodwin wrote that Frances Seward had an important role in William Seward’s success, yet we as the audience were only given a page or two of information on her. How did she help Seward’s campaign? What were her feelings about the loss of the nomination? Another example of this are the few pages dedicated to Kate Chase. She was her father’s sole support for the majority of his life, and aided his campaign, yet again we received very little information on her. What were her ideals? I believe had she been born in a less sexist time period, she could have achieved much more than her …show more content…
In both cases, we have the expected winner, well-educated and experienced William H. Seward, who in similar in both experience and views to Hillary Clinton. They both maintained liberal- but not quite radical, views, and had much more prior political experience than their opponent. On the other hand, we have the candidates almost new to politics, Abraham Lincoln and Donald Trump. Both Lincoln and Trump gained support through captivating speeches (albeit Trump’s more aggressive personality). While Lincoln’s views were not nearly as conservative as Trump’s, they both maintained less liberal views than their opponent, and won by a miniscule margin- in Trump’s case, not even winning the majority. The major difference between these two campaigns, were the prominence of the other candidates. Chase and Bates garnered much more support than the third-party presidential candidates of 2016. This shows how in very similar situations, the smallest difference can have an immense
Kearns Goodwin wrote that Frances Seward had an important role in William Seward’s success, yet we as the audience were only given a page or two of information on her. How did she help Seward’s campaign? What were her feelings about the loss of the nomination? Another example of this are the few pages dedicated to Kate Chase. She was her father’s sole support for the majority of his life, and aided his campaign, yet again we received very little information on her. What were her ideals? I believe had she been born in a less sexist time period, she could have achieved much more than her …show more content…
In both cases, we have the expected winner, well-educated and experienced William H. Seward, who in similar in both experience and views to Hillary Clinton. They both maintained liberal- but not quite radical, views, and had much more prior political experience than their opponent. On the other hand, we have the candidates almost new to politics, Abraham Lincoln and Donald Trump. Both Lincoln and Trump gained support through captivating speeches (albeit Trump’s more aggressive personality). While Lincoln’s views were not nearly as conservative as Trump’s, they both maintained less liberal views than their opponent, and won by a miniscule margin- in Trump’s case, not even winning the majority. The major difference between these two campaigns, were the prominence of the other candidates. Chase and Bates garnered much more support than the third-party presidential candidates of 2016. This shows how in very similar situations, the smallest difference can have an immense