Making Sense of the 2016 Elections
A CQ Press Guide
Brian Schaffner
University of Massachusetts Amherst
John A. Clark
Western Michigan University
FOR INFORMATION:
CQ Press
An Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
E-mail: [email protected]
SAGE Publications Ltd.
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP
United Kingdom
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
India
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
3 Church Street
#10-04 Samsung Hub
Singapore 049483
Copyright © 2018 by CQ Press, an imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc. CQ Press is a registered trademark of Congressional Quarterly Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN 978-1-5063-8418-4
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Acquisitions Editor: Matthew Byrnie
Editorial Assistant: Zachary Hoskins
Production Editor: David C. Felts
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Ellen Howard
Cover Designer: Anupama Krishnan
Marketing Manager: Amy Whitaker
Contents
1 IntroductionThe Electoral Landscape in 2016Choosing the Presidential NomineesThe Invisible PrimaryThe Democratic Party Decides on ClintonThe Republican Party Decides Not to DecideThe General Election CampaignThe Case for Thinking the Campaign MatteredThe Case for Thinking the Campaign Was of Minimal ImportanceCampaigns Are Mostly about MobilizationThe OutcomeAnother Electoral College/Popular Vote SplitWhere the Election Was WonHow Key Groups VotedWhy People Voted for TrumpThe Battle for Control of CongressHow Republicans Kept the Senate RedWhy Republicans Retained Their House MajorityDiversity in CongressThe 2016 Elections in the StatesGovernors and State LegislaturesBallot ProposalsPutting the 2016 Election into ContextNotes
Introduction
Donald Trump’s electoral college victory took many by surprise, as demonstrated by these shocked—and, in the case of the Daily News, horrified—cover pages from three New York City newspapers the morning after the general election.
John Moore/Getty Images
The 2016 election will undoubtedly leave a lasting impression on many Americans. A businessman and reality show star with no political experience whatsoever won the presidency despite losing to his opponent—the first ever female major party nominee for president—by over 2.8 million votes nationally. But it was also an election that will leave a lasting impression on political science. The success of Donald Trump’s candidacy challenged many political science theories about the nature of American campaigns, while it simultaneously helped to highlight other important concepts that have long been well understood. In this volume, we revisit this historic election from the perspective of political science to provide important context about the 2016 election itself, and to consider how this election can inform our broader understanding of American politics.
The Electoral Landscape in 2016
Political scientists who study elections in the United States generally focus on a wide array of factors that might influence the outcome. These factors range from the general state of the economy in the months leading up to the election to where the candidates campaigned in the final weeks of the campaign. There are debates among scholars concerning the relative importance of each of these factors.1 Indeed, many believe that the campaign is of minimal importance and that a variety of fundamental factors such as the popularity of the incumbent president and the success of the economy are highly predictive of the eventual outcome of the election.2
Economic measures are thought to be important for understanding election outcomes because the party that holds the presidency is generally held responsible for economic conditions in the country. When the economy is doing well, voters tend to reward the party in control by reelecting their candidates to office; but when the economy is doing poorly, voters tend to punish the incumbent party. For example, in 2008, Republican candidate John McCain faced a very difficult electoral environment largely because an economic crisis had begun earlier that year while another Republican—George W. Bush—still held office. As economic conditions continued to deteriorate during that election, Republicans largely took the blame, and this made McCain’s pursuit of the White House an uphill battle. He ultimately lost the national popular vote to Barack Obama by 7 points, and Obama carried 365 electoral votes on his way to a landslide victory.
In 2012, the nature of economic conditions was not quite as clear. While the economy had been steadily improving since Obama’s first year in office, the unemployment rate was still relatively high at the beginning of that year. Nonetheless, Obama received enough credit for the improvements in the economy to help him edge past Republican nominee Mitt Romney by about 4 percentage points.
By 2016, economic conditions were more clearly improved compared to what they had been in 2012. The unemployment rate had settled around 5 percent, the lowest it had been since early 2008. Other economic measures, such as gross domestic product growth, were also generally strong, if not spectacular. Many in the public also viewed their own economic situations in a favorable light. A Pew Research Center poll conducted in October 2016 found that about half of Americans rated their personal financial situations as either good or excellent.3 This was the highest level of satisfaction with personal finances since early 2008, before the Great Recession began.
Interestingly, political scientists have found that vote choices are generally more influenced by the direction in which economic conditions are heading rather than by the overall