Abstract
The surprising election of Donald Trump to the presidency calls for a comprehensive assessment of what motivated voters to opt for a controversial political novice rather than a provocative but experienced political veteran. Our study provides a novel exploration of the Trump victory through the prism of the defeated candidate—Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC). Losing candidates’ perceptions are usually not subject to academic analyses. Nevertheless, these people often hold substantial sway in their parties and thus understanding their views on the loss is essential, especially as a party regroups after defeat. Using HRC’s memoir What Happened, we devise the Hillary Hypotheses, her rationale for her electoral defeat. Using the 2016 American National Election Study (ANES), we provide the first systematic test of a losing candidate’s rationale for their defeat. We show that more often than not, HRC’s assumptions are supported. However, we find little evidence to support HRC’s most crucial assertion, namely that the e-mail scandal and specifically James Comey’s intervention ten days before Election Day cost her the presidency. Our findings have implications for understanding why Donald Trump won, but more broadly the contribution explores an understudied aspect of elections—a defeated candidate’s impression of their loss.
Highlights
The surprising election of Donald Trump to the presidency calls for a comprehensive assessment of what motivated voters to opt for a controversial political novice rather than a provocative but experienced political veteran
Using the 2016 American National Election Study (ANES), we provide the first systematic test of a losing candidate’s rationale for their defeat
We looked at the ANES positional economics question on the hot-button issue of free trade, a position Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) clung to, and Donald Trump (DT) rallied against
Summary
The surprising election of Donald Trump to the presidency calls for a comprehensive assessment of what motivated voters to opt for a controversial political novice rather than a provocative but experienced political veteran. They are the ones driven by their despair to seek ways to triumph: they are, the inventors” (Shepsle 2003, 310) As they can transform political competition, we can gain a lot from studying their thoughts about loss. . And Democrats are engaged in a vital debate about the future of our party, which turns in no small part on the question of what went wrong in 2016 and how to fix it” (Clinton 2017, 392–393) Another relevant point concerns whether losing candidates accurately identify the reasons for their defeat. To test the Hillary Hypotheses, we follow her cue, using what she calls “the gold standard” American National Election Studies (ANES) (Clinton 2017, 412; ANES 2017) In addition to her stamp of approval, the ANES offers an objective and comprehensive baseline. We conclude with an assessment of the overall accuracy of her perceptions, and what they can tell us about the 2016 election and candidate views of loss
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
