Burnham Argument Analysis

This quote interested me greatly, and I also find this quote to be very logical. I am curious as to what Burnham means by “political stimuli”. I am not sure if by “political stimuli” he means the current status of the United States regarding its economy and foreign affairs, such as if the United States is at war, or if he means the characteristics of the nominees. For example, the 2008 presidential election was marked by an increase in voter turnout rates for African Americans and younger voters. I am curious if Burnham would argue that an example of the “political stimuli” which caused an increase in voter turnout for this election is that it is the first election where an African-American was nominated by a major party for the first
Burnham states that the elections of 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, and 1932 are the presidential elections which mark significant long-term changes in the social and economic direction of the United States. This quote made me extremely curious as to what the prominent presidential elections say about each generation. I wonder if each generation has specific characteristics or values they are focused on, or if each generation has a specific “agenda”, meaning that each generation is focused on a different set of issues plaguing the nation. I think that Burnham could have strengthened his argument by further explaining why these elections were so critical, and what makes these elections such incredible turning points as compared to other elections. The election of 1800 marked the first peaceful transfer of power between parties via the electoral process in history. Is this what made this election a realigning election, or was it how the voting behavior of the electorate
I understand Burnham’s viewpoint, but I agree with him for slightly different reasons. Although I do agree with Burnham that there is little motivation on the part of political parties to change how they run elections after “successful routines” are established for winning office, I believe that political parties are always searching for different methods to gain credibility in the eyes of the electorate. I think that political parties are more focused on gaining control over the other major parties, rather than control of offices of government. I have a more pessimistic view of the parties, viewing them as power hungry conglomerates who just want control of offices of government to say that they are in control. I do not believe they solely want to be in control because they want a greater advantage in influencing policy. Political parties remind me of cliques of mean teenage girls, who want to show that they are tough and are better than all of the other