Order #10123
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Ontario Institute of Technology *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
6900G
Subject
Political Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
10
Uploaded by AmbassadorMoleMaster435
Analysis of the 2016 United States Election
Based on an Understanding of Insurgent vs. Clarifying Candidates
Student Name
Institution Name
Course Code: Course Name
Professor Name
September 6, 2023
Analysis of the 2016 United States Election
Based on an Understanding of Insurgent vs. Clarifying Candidates
The 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was a defining
moment in American politics. According to Vavreck's (2009) theory, Trump was the insurgent
candidate, while Clinton was the clarifying candidate. This theory suggests that the insurgent
candidate is the one who is disadvantaged by the economic conditions but can overcome this
disadvantage by running the right campaign. In contrast, the clarifying candidate is the one who
is favored by the economic conditions and focuses on emphasizing those conditions during the
campaign (Vavreck, 2009).
During the election, the U.S. economy was still recovering from the 2008 financial crisis,
and many voters were feeling the effects of economic stagnation and job losses. Trump
capitalized on this dissatisfaction by running a campaign focused on economic nationalism,
promising to bring back jobs and revitalize the economy (Kurtzleben, 2016). Clinton, on the
other hand, emphasized her experience and the continuation of the economic policies of the
Obama administration, which were slowly improving the economy (Kurtzleben, 2016).
Ultimately, Trump's insurgent campaign successfully resonated with voters who were
dissatisfied with the economic conditions, leading to his victory in the 2016 presidential election.
Against this backdrop, this essay will explore the economic factors that contributed to Trump's
victory and the implications of his presidency on the U.S. economy.
Campaign Analysis
Campaign Rhetoric and Messaging
Donald Trump's campaign was characterized by a populist and unconventional rhetoric
that resonated with many disaffected voters. His messages were often delivered in a
straightforward and provocative manner. He positioned himself as an outsider, railing against the
"establishment" and promising to “Make America Great Again” (Petitt, 2019). Trump's speeches
and ads were filled with memorable catchphrases, such as “Build the Wall"” and “America
First”, each of which tapped into the anxieties and frustrations of a significant portion of the
electorate (Petitt, 2019).
In his speeches and campaign events, Trump frequently discussed issues related to
immigration, national security, and the decline of American manufacturing. He used fiery
language to address these concerns, promising to crack down on illegal immigration and
renegotiate trade deals to protect American jobs (Miao, 2020). Social media played a pivotal role
in Trump's campaign, allowing him to communicate directly with his supporters and disseminate
his unfiltered messages, often in a more confrontational and untraditional manner (Petitt, 2019).
In contrast, Hillary Clinton's campaign was more conventional and measured in its
rhetoric. She emphasized her extensive political experience, often presenting herself as the
steady and knowledgeable choice for the presidency (Gunawan, 2017). Clinton's messaging
revolved around themes of unity, inclusivity, and progress. Her slogan, "Stronger Together,"
underscored her commitment to bringing Americans together to address the country's challenges
(Gunawan, 2017).
Throughout her campaign, Hillary Clinton addressed a wide range of issues, including
healthcare, climate change, and gun control. She advocated for comprehensive immigration
reform and stressed the importance of diversity and tolerance. Clinton also used social media to
connect with her supporters, although her approach was generally more policy-oriented and less
combative compared to Trump (Petitt, 2019).
Key Issues
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
One of the central themes in Donald Trump's campaign was immigration, particularly
illegal immigration. He argued that it posed a threat to national security and the American
economy (Miao, 2020). Trump's promise to "Build the Wall" along the U.S.-Mexico border
became a symbol of his commitment to border security. He also called for a temporary ban on
Muslim immigration to the United States, citing concerns about terrorism (Miao, 2020).
Economic issues were also prominent in Trump's campaign. He highlighted the decline of
American manufacturing jobs and the negative impact of international trade agreements on the
U.S. economy. Trump's commitment to renegotiating trade deals, such as NAFTA and the Trans-
Pacific Partnership (TPP), resonated with voters in regions that had experienced economic
downturns (Kurtzleben, 2016).
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's campaign placed a strong emphasis on healthcare reform.
She advocated for building upon the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and expanding access to
healthcare for all Americans (Carroll, 2016). Clinton's approach was rooted in the belief that
access to affordable healthcare was a fundamental right and a cornerstone of a just society.
Climate change was another major issue in Clinton's campaign. She stressed the
importance of addressing environmental challenges and investing in clean energy (Carroll,
2016). Clinton's position on climate change aligned with the scientific consensus, and she framed
it as a global issue that required international cooperation (Carroll, 2016).
Treatment of the Economy
Donald Trump's economic perspective during the 2016 campaign was characterized by a
pro-business and deregulatory stance. He argued that excessive government regulations were
stifling economic growth and promised to roll back regulations in various sectors, including
finance and energy (Flitter, 2015). Trump also proposed tax cuts for both individuals and
businesses, believing that lower taxes would stimulate economic activity and job creation. In his
campaign, Trump often cited GDP growth rates as a measure of the country's economic health. In
particular, he highlighted the need for stronger economic growth and suggested that his policies
would lead to a significant increase in GDP growth (Flitter, 2015).
Hillary Clinton's economic approach was more focused on addressing income inequality
and supporting the middle class. She proposed raising taxes on the wealthy and increasing the
minimum wage to create a fairer distribution of wealth (Chozick, 2015). Clinton also emphasized
the importance of investing in infrastructure and education to spur economic growth. Notably,
unlike Trump, Clinton did not prioritize significant deregulation but rather advocated for
responsible financial oversight to prevent another economic crisis (Wessel, 2016).. She framed
her economic policies as a means to ensure economic stability and opportunity for all Americans
(Wessel, 2016).
Importance of the Economy to the Candidates
For Donald Trump, the economy was a central issue throughout his campaign. He
presented himself as a successful businessman who could bring his economic expertise to the
presidency (Flitter, 2015). Trump argued that his economic policies, including tax cuts and
deregulation, would lead to robust economic growth, job creation, and higher wages for
American workers (Flitter, 2015). He often cited GDP growth as evidence of his commitment to
revitalizing the economy, making it a cornerstone of his candidacy (Flitter, 2015).
While Hillary Clinton also recognized the importance of the economy, her approach
differed significantly from Trump's. She framed economic issues within a broader context of
social and economic justice (Wessel, 2016). Clinton argued that her policies aimed to address
income inequality, create opportunities for disadvantaged communities, and ensure that
economic benefits were distributed more equitably (Wessel, 2016). While she discussed GDP
growth, her emphasis was on the quality of growth and its impact on individuals and families.
Analysis of Insurgent and Clarifying Candidate Roles
Donald Trump's campaign aligns with the characteristics of an insurgent candidate as
outlined by Vavreck's theory. He employed an unconventional and disruptive campaign style,
marked by provocative rhetoric, an "outsider" image, and a willingness to challenge established
political norms (Rutledge & Rackaway, 2021). Trump's speeches, social media presence, and
campaign events were often confrontational and unfiltered, which stood in stark contrast to
traditional political decorum.
Voters responded to Trump's insurgent campaign tactics in many ways. His
unconventional communication style resonated with a segment of the electorate that felt
alienated by the political establishment (Rutledge & Rackaway, 2021). Trump's emphasis on
issues like immigration and economic revitalization appealed to many working-class voters in
key battleground states (Miao, 2020). However, his approach also generated controversy and
polarized voters, leading to both enthusiastic support and vehement opposition.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's campaign largely adhered to the characteristics of a
clarifying candidate. She portrayed herself as the experienced and steady choice for the
presidency, emphasizing her qualifications and commitment to maintaining stability and
continuity (Gunawan, 2017). Clinton's campaign messaging focused on unity, inclusivity, and a
measured approach to addressing the country's challenges, which is seemingly consistent with
the clarifying candidate's role.
Voters' responses to Clinton's clarifying campaign tactics were mixed. While her message
of experience and stability resonated with some voters seeking a reassuring and predictable
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
leader, it also reinforced the perception among some that she represented the political
establishment (Bryant, 2016; Gunawan, 2017). Additionally, her measured and policy-oriented
communication style was seen by some as less inspiring compared to Trump's more emotionally
charged speeches.
Election Outcome and Campaign Impact
The 2016 U.S. presidential election resulted in a surprising victory for Donald Trump, the
insurgent candidate, over Hillary Clinton, the clarifying candidate. This was a surprising
outcome because it defied the polling predictions (Bryant, 2016). One of the main reasons for
this is Trump’s populist appeal. His promise to "Make America Great Again" and his focus on
issues such as immigration and economic revitalization resonated strongly with voters in Rust
Belt states and rural areas (Petitt, 2019). This appeal led to Trump's victory in key swing states
like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Prokop, 2016). In addition, Trump's ability to
energize his base and turnout among rural, working-class, and conservative voters was a critical
factor in his victory (Petitt, 2019). His campaign's unconventional style and relentless use of
social media helped him maintain a strong connection with his supporters and mobilize them on
Election Day (Petitt, 2019). This was arguably something that Clinton’s campaign lacked.
Lastly, Hillary Clinton faced ongoing controversy surrounding her private email server
during her tenure as Secretary of State (Lewis-Beck & Quinlan, 2019). This issue eroded trust in
her candidacy and fueled perceptions of her as a member of the political elite. Moreover, the
FBI's reopening of the investigation into her emails shortly before the election further damaged
her campaign (Lewis-Beck & Quinlan, 2019). It then follows that these events contributed to
Trump’s victory, particularly in light of his campaign’s emphasis on being an outsider to politics
and “shaking things up”. In other words, him being an outsider and rebelling against what he
deemed the “corrupt” political establishment, such as Clinton, was eminently appealing to many
Americans in 2016.
Did the Campaign Make a Difference?
The 2016 presidential campaign unquestionably made a significant difference in the
election's outcome. The contrast between Donald Trump's insurgent campaign and Hillary
Clinton's clarifying campaign strategies played a crucial role in shaping voter perceptions and
preferences. Trump's appeal to disaffected voters, his unorthodox communication style, and his
ability to generate enthusiasm among his base were seemingly instrumental in securing his
victory.
References
Bryant, N. (2016).
Hillary Clinton and the US election: What went wrong for her?
BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37922959
Carroll, L. (2016).
Hillary Clinton's top 10 campaign promises.
Politifact.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/jul/22/hillary-clintons-top-10-campaign-
promises/
Chozick, A. (2015).
Economic plan is a quandary for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
The New York
Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/us/politics/economic-plan-is-a-quandary-
for-hillary-clintons-campaign.html
Flitter, E. (2015).
Trump plan cuts corporate taxes, promises sweeping reform.
Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN0RS1X420150928
Gunawan, S. (2017). Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign rhetoric: Making America whole
again.
Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38
(1), 50-55. doi:10.1016/j.kjss.2016.11.002
Kurtzleben, D. (2016).
How did Trump’s and Clinton’s economic speeches compare?
NPR.
https://www.npr.org/2016/08/13/489761605/how-did-trumps-and-clintons-economic-
policy-speeches-compare
Lewis-Beck, M.S., & Quinlan, S. (2019). The Hillary hypotheses: Testing candidate views of
loss.
Perspectives on Politics, 17
(3), 646-665. doi:10.1017/S153759271800347X
Miao, H. (2020).
Immigration was a dominant issue in the 2016 election, but not this time.
CNBC.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/13/immigration-was-a-dominant-i.html
Petitt, S. (2019).
The rise of populism: An examination into the conditions that allow for the rise
of populist parties in Europe and the United States
. (Master’s thesis, University of
Oregon).
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Prokop, A. (2016).
Why Trump won, explained in 727 words.
Vox.
https://www.vox.com/policy-
and-politics/2016/11/9/13573638/why-trump-won-results
Rutledge, P.E., & Rackaway, C. (2021).
The unorthodox presidency of Donald J. Trump.
University Press of Kansas. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1vg7nzn
Wessel, D. (2016).
What would Clintonomics bring? Breaking down Hillary Clinton’s economic
policy.
Brookings Institute.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-would-clintonomics-
bring-breaking-down-hillary-clintons-economic-policy/
Vavreck, L. (2009).
The message matters: The economy and presidential campaigns.
Princeton
University Press.