Presidential elections always act as a gauge of political climate and a trial process for party ideology. In the midst of current economic woes, the political talking points that always characterize the selection of a nominee assume larger-than-life significance and immediacy. The next president holds the fate of the nation in his hand; presidential hopefuls hit the campaign circuit to meet audiences who feel that their jobs and their children's futures hang in the balance.

As the incumbent, Obama's response to public skepticism is quite evident: He must justify his four years in office and convince voters that another four years will bring continued progress. Thus, his State of the Union address on Jan. 24 consisted largely of giving Congress a tremendous amount of homework.

For the Republican Party, times of discontent present a much more open-ended challenge. The beginning of a fourth straight year of recession means an exceptional opportunity for the power of persuasion. It is the kind of advertising opportunity that would spark Don Draper's smoldering eloquence. Candidates rush for the ideological high-ground, claiming to corner the market on true conservatism or American ideals.

This campaign season is one of extremes, not only in the sense that Republican rhetoric continually returns to party ideals, but also in that the candidates seem locked in a competition to frame the most profoundly anti-Washington sound bite.

For those of us who take a casual interest in politics, the field of candidates has been remarkably odd. Those who have dropped out have eliminated themselves through sheer wackiness. Herman Cain's litany of scandals was soap opera-esque, and his tax plan seemed devised solely for its ease of memory. Rick Perry, meanwhile, could not remember his policies. Michelle Bachman never rose beyond being Sarah Palin's less-SNL-ready sequel. Also, who sold Ron Paul his suits? They look like they were new twenty years ago, for someone with twenty pounds more youthful muscle mass.

Mitt Romney has stood out from early on as the front-runner, but his support among Republicans remains lukewarm. I have yet to hear anyone say they are excited about Romney. Much more often, when I poll my Republican friends, they resignedly admit that Mitt will probably get the nomination. "He's electable," is the usual remark, with a clear insinuation that electable is something of a dirty word.

Right-of-center voters tend to view the 2012 election as a watershed. Recent years have been characterized both by tremendous economic hardship and enormous preventative federal spending. It is easy for Republicans to forget that the recession began, and the first bailouts were passed, while one of their own was still in office. When Election Day rolls around, voters in both parties tend to align themselves with candidates based on their perceived ideological affinities. Public policy and voting records are secondary issues.

With three primaries down and three separate winners, it remains to be seen how Republican opinion will coalesce. Romney's sustained predominance seems to mark him as a favorite to win the nomination, but his lack of support among the conservative party base threatens sparse voter turn-out on election day. One potential remedy to Republican apathy is the strategy John McCain employed in 2008: choosing a running-mate who could put the Evangelical and conservative voters at ease. However, McCain's selection of Sarah Palin alienated other constituents; Palin still claims it was the fault of the liberal media elite.

As the incumbent, Obama's support is solid, but not remarkably high. As of yet, none of the Republican candidates have proved themselves to be what Obama was in 2008, an idealist who captured the American imagination and transcended party disparities. Maybe a candidate will step up who resonates with the nation in a similar way.

Rachael Prensner, FCRH ‘14, is an English major from Harrisburg, PA.