“It’s Largely a Rigged System”: Voter Confidence and the Winner Effect in 2016

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 854-868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betsy Sinclair ◽  
Steven S. Smith ◽  
Patrick D. Tucker

The 2016 presidential election provided a unique opportunity to revisit two competing hypotheses for how voters establish their perceptions of electoral integrity. First, mass public opinion is believed to derive from elite messages. In the 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Donald Trump maintained that the election system was “rigged,” while election administration experts and officials received considerable media coverage in their efforts to counter Trump’s claims. Second, literature on voter confidence has established a “winner effect”—voters who cast ballots for winners are more likely than voters on the losing side to believe their vote was counted correctly. Thus, voters were exposed to two theoretically opposite effects. In this paper, we find that the “winner” effect mitigates the effects from strong pre-election cues from elites. We also show the effect of pre-election attention to the rigging issue, find a symmetry of the election outcome effect for winners and losers, and reconsider our explanations of the winner effect. Finally, we go beyond the existing studies of the winner effect to consider the kind of citizens who are most susceptible to that effect.

2021 ◽  
pp. 000276422110112
Author(s):  
Meredith Neville-Shepard

This essay illustrates how Donald Trump engaged in what I call “populist crisis rhetoric” throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and coinciding 2020 U.S. presidential campaign cycle. By performing a critical rhetorical analysis of textual fragments surrounding how Trump addressed the preventative measure of mask-wearing, I show how he rejected the role of comforter-in-chief and instead opted for the role of victim-in-chief. Specifically, turning the bare face into a litmus test of Trump loyalism, his rhetoric suggested that masks threatened masculinity and functioned as a form of anti-choice bodily oppression.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick A. Stewart ◽  
Elena Svetieva

The 2016 United States presidential election was exceptional for many reasons; most notably the extreme division between supporters of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In an election that turned more upon the character traits of the candidates than their policy positions, there is reason to believe that the non-verbal performances of the candidates influenced attitudes toward the candidates. Two studies, before Election Day, experimentally tested the influence of Trump’s micro-expressions of fear during his Republican National Convention nomination acceptance speech on how viewers evaluated his key leadership traits of competence and trustworthiness. Results from Study 1, conducted 3 weeks prior to the election, indicated generally positive effects of Trump’s fear micro-expressions on his trait evaluations, particularly when viewers were first exposed to his opponent, Clinton. In contrast, Study 2, conducted 4 days before Election Day, suggests participants had at that point largely established their trait perceptions and were unaffected by the micro-expressions.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1532673X2110413
Author(s):  
Jason S. Byers ◽  
Laine P. Shay

President Donald Trump has made various decisions, many controversial, to manage the coronavirus pandemic. The reaction to President Trump’s leadership has been met with a mixed response from the public. This raises an important question; what factors influence a citizen’s evaluation of President Trump’s response to the pandemic? We develop a theory that links a citizen knowing someone diagnosed with COVID-19 with their evaluation of President Trump’s management of the pandemic, with the expectation that this relationship is conditioned by a citizen’s ideology. Using data from two surveys, we find that knowing someone diagnosed with COVID-19 diminishes the effect ideology has on a citizen’s evaluation. Additionally, we find that a citizen’s evaluation of President Trump’s leadership on COVID-19 is associated with their vote choice in the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. Overall, this article contributes to our understanding of public opinion on COVID-19 and its political ramifications.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn Evelyn ◽  
Sautma Ronni Basana

The U.S. Presidential election was an event that received widespread attention across the globe. In the 2008 presidential campaign, Barrack Obama nominated to be the first black President. In 2016, Hillary Clinton poten­tially becomes the first woman President in American history, while the other can­di­da­te, Donald Trump, ma­de some unpopular and controversial proposals. The purpose of this paper is to ana­­­lyse whether the 2008 and 2016 election were considered as the rele­vant information in the Indonesian Stock Market (IDX). The daily closing prices of all all share listed in IDX wo­uld be examined used event stu­­­dy method. The results provide insight about the res­pon­si­­­veness of IDX parti­ci­pants to the U.S. Pre­si­den­­tial election event that could be used in decision making.


2020 ◽  
pp. 209-240
Author(s):  
Melissa Ames

The final study presented in this book focuses on one of the most impactful events of the 21st century: the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, which likely ended as it did in part due to a combination of the cultural fears discussed throughout the previous chapters. For example, the presidential campaign run by Donald Trump played on post-9/11 insecurities about homeland security and employed fear-based, divisive rhetoric about race, gender, class, and sexuality. The acceptance of this rhetoric -- and his ultimate victory -- may be explained by the process of phobic construction highlighted in this text. Chapter 10 analyzes the final months of the election cycle, in particular the televised presidential debates between Trump and Hillary Clinton and the ways in which they stimulated conversation among viewers during the live broadcast and ongoing dialogue and activism beyond it.


2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-94
Author(s):  
Quinn Galbraith ◽  
Adam Callister

Donald Trump was particularly vocal in shaping his presidential campaign around policies perceived as being anti-immigration. Consequently, many were shocked that Hispanic support for the Republican Party did not drop in the 2016 presidential election. In fact, our survey, which consisted of 1,080 people of Hispanic descent living in the United States, found that 74% of Hispanic Trump voters were in favor of generally deporting all illegal immigrants. Our results suggest that the population of Hispanics who voted in the 2016 presidential election was, on average, more conservative than the overall population of Hispanics living in the United States. Furthermore, our analysis suggests that issues such as the economy, health care, and education were more important to Hispanic voters than were issues related to immigration.


1996 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 657-671 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Johnson ◽  
Timothy Boudreau ◽  
Chris Glowaki

This study examined how two leading newspapers and three television networks covered the media in the 1992 presidential campaign. The main topic of media coverage was general media stories, although considerable attention was also given to candidates' use of media. Tone of coverage was different for different media themes with coverage of media performance being the most negative. How the press covered the media changed as the campaign progressed; coverage became more positive after the primaries. Newspapers tended to cover different media themes than the networks, and newspaper coverage was also more positive.


2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 456-468 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Morris

In the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, both the traditional media and social media platforms, like Twitter, were critical in attempts to influence voters. Prior to the 2016 presidential election, the assumption was that campaign messages sent through the traditional media are perceived as more effectual by the public than those sent via Twitter. But after the election of Donald Trump, there is now a sense that things may have changed. In this new era of American politics and campaign discourse, do campaign messages sent via Twitter resonate equally with messages sent through the traditional media? This study attempts to address this question by utilizing a survey experiment to test whether campaign messages sent using USA Today headlines were perceived as more believable and persuasive by potential voters than messages sent via Twitter. The results suggest that campaign messages about candidates sent via Twitter—regardless of the candidate of focus—resonate just as strongly with potential voters as those sent via the traditional media. This provides a potential partial explanation for the shocking rise of Donald Trump’s political fortunes.


1997 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 718-737 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Domke ◽  
David P. Fan ◽  
Michael Fibison ◽  
Dhavan V. Shah ◽  
Steven S. Smith ◽  
...  

There are two primary goals with this research. First, we examine whether news media were biased in coverage of the candidates or issues during the 1996 U.S. presidential campaign, as Republican Party candidate Bob Dole and others claimed. Second, we use an ideodynamic model of media effects to examine whether the quantity of positive and negative news coverage of the candidates was related to the public's preference of either Bill Clinton or Dole. The model posits that a candidate's level of support at any time is a function of the level of previous support (as measured in recent polls) plus changes in voters' preferences due to media coverage in the interim. This model allows exploration of whether news media coverage, alone, could predict the public's presidential preference in 1996. Using a computer content analysis program, 12,215 randomly sampled newspaper stories and television transcripts were examined from forty-three major media outlets from 10 March to 6 November 1996. Findings reveal both remarkably balanced media coverage of the two principal candidates, Clinton and Dole, and a powerful relationship between media coverage and public opinion.


The Forum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
David E. Campbell ◽  
James R. G. Kirk ◽  
Geoffrey C. Layman

Abstract Religion played a prominent role in the 2020 presidential campaign. Donald Trump overtly courted white evangelical Protestants and Catholics, while Joe Biden emphasized his Catholicism far more than any Catholic candidate in American history. Did religion play as important a role in electoral behavior in 2020? If so, how and why did religion affect Americans’ voting decisions? We take up those questions by analyzing the religious vote in 2020 and the reasons why particular religious and non-religious groups voted as they did. We find that the religious divisions in the 2020 electorate were quite deep, but they were mostly unchanged from those present in 2016. Moreover, some electoral differences between religious groups are based in factors such as racial resentment, support for limited government, and anti-immigration attitudes that are not typically associated with religion. However, a key explanation for religious voting in 2020 was an old standby: the abortion issue. The religion gap in American electoral politics represents an enduring divide. The only changes were at the margins—but where elections are close, margins matter.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document