Answer:
Kennedy played a role in revolutionizing American politics. Television began to have a real impact on voters and long, drawn-out election campaigns became the norm, and style became an essential complement to substance.
Explanation:
This is a big impact since it started the change that makes tv what it is today and changed polotics forever.
<span>When people make assumptions about other people, such as in the case of Gladys, this is known as implicit personality theory or automatic assumption. This is often what happens when one person forms certain opinions about another person when they actually have very little knowledge about that person. One theory is that we are often not even aware that these assumptions are taking place in our minds.</span>
a) The winner-take-all feature is a rule for the Electoral College. It basically says that out of the 48 states that participate, whichever candidate has the majority or popular vote takes all of the state’s Electoral votes.
(b) Presidential candidates will be affected by the electoral college because one of their main focuses is media and money, on states where a lot of people vote based on their own theories. Not leaning towards being Democrat or Republican. Being able to change their thoughts would have a big advantage for them. Another reason effecting presidential candidates is picking Vice Presidents. They will choose a candidate that is on the same party and to bring more appeal to the campaign.
(c) One example, to explain why winner-takes-all can relate to third party candidates, is because it is difficult to win electoral college meaning for third party candidates it’s harder to raise or gain funds.
(d) The Electoral College has been around for so long that to abolish it would require a change in a constitutional amendment. Also it gives confidence and fairness to small states because each elector represents fewer people than in the larger states.
A careful reading of the history of the “idea” of family preservation as well as an appraisal of the recent policy context for its adoption—as illuminated by Berry (1997), Schorr (1997), McCroskey and Meezan (1997), and others—suggests that all three explanations—dissensus on values, practice lacunae, and organizational complexities—may to a degree be valid. At a minimum, these and other trenchant commentaries such as those provided recently by Littell and Schuerman (1999) and Halpern (1999) suggest that any discussion of the “practice” of family preservation absent its historical/valuative roots and current organizational and policy context will be incomplete.
That said, this present paper will focus on some of the most vexing challenges of implementing family preservation practice, some of its enduring legacies as a practice modality, and some of the longer range problems in developing practice theory and application that it has illuminated
