As an historic and historically lengthy election season reaches its frenzied final stages, activism, excitement and outrage have spiked on both sides of the political spectrum...

In the midst of a Democratic trend, one of the few bright spots for Republicans is California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who appears headed for a solid victory in his quest for reelection...

On the heels of an election that shifted political party control of Congress, some observers insist that the nation remains a house divided into "red" states and "blue" states...

Donald Trump has been the center of attention since the first Republican presidential debate last week. But perhaps the most significant policy moment in the debates came when two other GOP frontrunners, Florida senator Marco Rubio and Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, announced their opposition to abortion without any exceptions.

Leslie Rzeznik was excited to vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary, hoping to see America elect its first female president. But this year, when her state’s primary came, the 54-year-old of Canton, Michigan, chose Clinton’s opponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. A key reason among many for her: “I don’t feel like she’s the same candidate she was in 2008,” Rzeznik says. “I really don’t trust Hillary.”

In a political environment of stark partisanship, the understandable tendency in presidential campaigns is to focus on the conflict between candidates. Sometimes these conflicts are around ideas, often they are of a more personal nature. The rapid-fire, continuous loop of digital media amplifies this approach, and obviously voters find it important as well to inform their decisions. But there is another metric for choosing our leaders that can be more predictive of success in the White House, particularly in times of historic challenges that transcend party differences. And that is the combination of leadership skills that make up the alchemy of a transformational presidency.

In 2002, influential political observers John Judis and Ruy Teixeira published a book that helped craft an enduring narrative. “The Emerging Democratic Majority” postulated that ongoing socio-demographic trends worked to the advantage of the Democratic Party. These trends included a growing percentage of ethnic minorities, along with increasing percentages of younger voters, unmarried working women, and the college-educated. 

The consequences of the 2016 elections are assuredly significant, but the causes of the surprising outcome have been widely exaggerated. Post-election commentary includes words such as “autocracy,” “civil war,” “tyranny,” “fascism,” and “doom.” Fortunately for our country, the use of such words reflects a misperception of the American electorate and how it voted in 2016. This erroneous conception stems from a common tendency to assume that a consequential election only results when a major segment of the electorate intends those consequences.