Angry, Passionate, and Divided: Undecided Voters and the 2016 Presidential Election

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (9) ◽  
pp. 1056-1076 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Schill ◽  
Rita Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
General Election ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Campaign Messages ◽  
Election Coverage ◽  
Civil Discourse ◽  
Voter Choice ◽  
Early Primary

During the primary and general election, researchers Schill and Kirk collected focus group insights on how undecided voters came to make choices in the 2016 election. As consultants for CNN’s election coverage, the team researched voters from across the nation—in the early primary states to the conventions and general election. After a review of factors that influence vote choice, this article focuses on the dominant expressions of attitude (pain, loss, joy, nostalgia, pleasure, belonging, and anger) during 2016 election period and explains how voter attitudes toward those themes affected voter choice. Not only were these themes manifested in (un)civil discourse, they were often fueled by the campaigns. Importantly, these assessments come from the voters themselves and provide insights as to how the campaigns unfolded and how campaign messages attempted to influence voters.

Wanting, and Weighting: White Women and Descriptive Representation in the 2016 Presidential Election

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
White Women ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
Descriptive Representation ◽  
Race And Gender ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Group Identities ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Voting Decisions ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThis paper demonstrates that the relationship between wanting a descriptive representative based on gender, and giving that attitude weight in voting decisions, is weakest among White women voters. Among under-represented groups of voters, White women were uniquely positioned going into the 2016 presidential election—they had the option to choose “one of their own” in terms of race and gender. Yet, the majority did not vote for the White woman on the ballot, Hillary Rodham Clinton. This outcome is an opportunity to interrogate how descriptive representation functions in different ways across groups with distinct socio-political positions in American politics. I argue that the relationship between desiring descriptive representation, and giving it weight when deciding for whom to vote for, is different across groups. Using American National Election Survey (ANES) data, I show that this is the case in the 2016 election. Nearly two-thirds of White women who said that electing more women is important, voted for Trump. Moreover, White women's espoused belief in the necessity of electing more women had no significant effect on their ultimate vote choice. In contrast, the same desire for increased descriptive representation based on gender had large, positive, and significant effects on women of color's vote choice. This study bears on extant research considering descriptive representation's importance to voters based only on race, or gender, and on the broader literature linking group identities and voter behavior.

An “Authoritarian Spring?” Authoritarianism and the 2018 Midterm Elections

The Forum ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-545
Author(s):  
Anne M. Cizmar ◽  
John McTague
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Party Identification ◽  
Congressional Elections ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
Midterm Elections ◽  
Campaign Messages ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Election Studies

Abstract This paper examines the role of authoritarianism in the 2018 US congressional elections. In particular, we assess whether the issues that have historically been central to the authoritarian divide in the American electorate were salient in the campaigns of several important Senate races. We demonstrate that authoritarian attitudes played a consistent, significant role on presidential vote choice, party identification, and numerous policy areas in the 2016 presidential election using data from the American National Election Studies. Using case studies of six Senate races in the 2018 midterm elections, we find that authoritarianism was more muted than in 2016, and that the role of authoritarianism varied considerably depending upon the race. States with stronger Trump support in 2016 featured authoritarianism more heavily than states with less Trump support in 2016, but authoritarianism overall was not as prominent in 2018 as in 2016. Overall, Senate candidates relied on traditional campaign messages related to candidate qualifications, personal attacks, the economy, and other messages less central to authoritarianism.

scholarly journals Candidate Ideology and Vote Choice in the 2020 US Presidential Election

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Broockman ◽  
Joshua Kalla
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
General Election ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Primary ◽  
General Elections ◽  
Voter Information ◽  
Us Presidential Election

Canonical theories predict that moderate candidates perform better in general elections, but research emphasizing voters’ partisan loyalties challenges these predictions. The 2020 Democratic Presidential primary represented a unique opportunity to speak to these debates due to relatively high voter information about multiple moderate and extreme candidates running in the same election. We conducted a national survey (n = 40,153) that asked how respondents would choose in a general election between one of the Democratic candidates and Republican Donald Trump. Our evidence is consistent with canonical predictions: respondents are more likely to select Trump when he is against an extreme Democrat than against a moderate Democrat. Republican partisans contribute to moderate candidates’ advantage: ≈2% select Trump against a more extreme Democrat but would not against a more moderate Democrat. One of the extreme candidates, Bernie Sanders, ostensibly challenges canonical predictions by receiving as much support as moderate candidates – but only when assuming (1) young people vote at abnormally high rates and (2) young Democrats who claim they will only vote if Sanders is nominated are answering accurately. These patterns are robust to showing attacks against the candidates and in competitive states. Our findings lend further support to canonical predictions about moderate candidates’ electoral advantages.

The Elusive Persuadable Voter

Bases Loaded ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 29-44
Author(s):  
Costas Panagopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
General Election ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Election Campaign ◽  
Party Support

This chapter investigates the timing of presidential vote choice and the rates of party support and party defection in recent presidential elections. The percentage of voters who are making their decision to support one presidential candidate instead of the other after the general election campaign is shrinking. Campaigns struggle to persuade voters once they’ve reached a decision to vote for a particular candidate. This is an added motivation for campaigns to focus on mobilization instead of persuasion. Not only are voters making up their minds earlier than ever, but they are also more loyal than ever. Partisans, particularly strong partisans, rarely defect from supporting their party’s nominee, which was not the case in presidential election just a few decades ago.

Millennials and Race in the 2016 Election

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Enrique Medenica
Keyword(s):  
Baby Boomers ◽  
Ethnic Diversity ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Ethnically Diverse ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Eligible Population ◽  
Racial Resentment ◽  
2016 Election

AbstractIn addition to being the most racially and ethnically diverse generation, millennials comprised an equal number of the voting-eligible population as baby boomers in 2016 and are projected to become the largest share of the American voting-eligible population by 2018. Drawing from several distinct datasets, this study explores three primary topics: (1) examining how race influenced the vote choice of millennials in the 2016 presidential election; (2) comparing partisanship and vote choice among white millennials to older whites; and (3) identifying differences between white millennials who voted in 2016 to those who did not cast a ballot. The study finds that young whites are the outlier category of their age group; being white is associated with a higher probability of voting for Donald Trump, even when accounting for the effects of racial resentment, partisanship, ideology, and other factors. While white millennials appear conservative relative to their peers of color, however, the preferences of young whites are more Democratic than older whites. Non-voting white millennials are more likely than their voting counterparts to identify as independents and ideological moderates, making them a political swing bloc as white millennials age. While political observers are quick to point to the liberal-leaning preferences of young people as a whole, disaggregating the 18–30 age group by race as this study suggests that the Democratic preferences displayed by millennials in the aggregate are largely driven by the cohort's racial and ethnic diversity.

Understanding the Asian American Vote in the 2016 Election

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Masuoka ◽  
Hahrie Han ◽  
Vivien Leung ◽  
Bang Quan Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Asian Americans ◽  
Asian American ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Democratic Party ◽  
Political Efficacy ◽  
Vote Choice ◽  
Political Incorporation ◽  
Demographic Differences ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Base Of Support

AbstractAs the number of Asian American voters has increased with each election, more research is needed to understand the participation and voting patterns of this diverse electorate. This paper offers an analysis of Asian American political participation and vote choice preferences during the 2016 presidential election. The paper begins by addressing the concerns related to Asian American political incorporation. We disaggregate Asian Americans into three voting types—voters, those who are eligible to vote but are not registered, and those who are ineligible to vote—and compare the demographic differences found across these three groups. The second half of the paper turns to Asian American candidate preferences in the 2016 election. We find that voters who report high levels of media consumption and those with a strong sense of political efficacy were more likely to support Clinton. Our analysis of non-voters suggests that the potential incorporation of these Asian Americans would result in a continued base of support for the Democratic party.

The Electoral Landscape of 2016

2016 ◽  
Vol 667 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Sides ◽  
Michael Tesler ◽  
Lynn Vavreck
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Diversity ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
General Election ◽  
The Other ◽  
The Political ◽  
White House ◽  
Political Landscape ◽  
Presidential Primary ◽  
2016 Election

As 2015 got underway, most Americans were poised for another Bush vs. Clinton presidential election, but by the middle of the year it was clear something unexpected was unfolding in the race for the White House. In this article, we illuminate the political landscape heading into the 2016 election, paying special attention to the public’s mood, their assessments of government, their attitudes about race and members of the other party, and the health of the nation’s economy. Fundamental predictors of election outcomes did not clearly favor either side, but an increasing ethnic diversity in the electorate, alongside a racially polarized electorate, was favorable to Democrats. Ultimately, an ambivalent electorate divided by party and race set the stage for a presidential primary that played directly on these divisions, and for a general election whose outcome initially appeared far from certain.

You’re Fired! Donald Trump and the 2020 Congressional Elections

The Forum ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-650
Author(s):  
Jamie L. Carson ◽  
Spencer Hardin ◽  
Aaron A. Hitefield
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Vice President ◽  
The United States ◽  
Congressional Elections ◽  
General Election ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Modern Era

Abstract The 2020 elections brought to an end one of the most divisive and historic campaigns in the modern era. Former Vice President Joe Biden was elected the 46th President of the United States with the largest number of votes ever cast in a presidential election, defeating incumbent President Donald Trump in the process. The record turnout was especially remarkable in light of the ongoing pandemic surrounding COVID-19 and the roughly 236,000 Americans who had died of the virus prior to the election. This article examines the electoral context of the 2020 elections focusing on elections in both the House and Senate. More specifically, this article examines the candidates, electoral conditions, trends, and outcomes in the primaries as well as the general election. In doing so, we provide a comprehensive descriptive analysis of the climate and outcome of the 2020 congressional elections. Finally, the article closes with a discussion of the broader implications of the election outcomes on both the incoming 117th Congress as well as the upcoming 2022 midterm election.

Disengaged and Uninformed: 2000 Presidential Election Coverage in Consumer Magazines Popular with Young Adults

2003 ◽  
Vol 80 (3) ◽  
pp. 513-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Reichert ◽  
James E. Mueller ◽  
Michael Nitz
Keyword(s):  
Young Adults ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Political System ◽  
Political Information ◽  
The Political ◽  
General Interest ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Men's Magazines ◽  
Election Coverage ◽  
Insight Into

This study examines content and tone of political information in five leading general interest and lifestyle magazines from December 1999 through November 2000. The analysis revealed a low level of political information in the selected magazines. With the exception of Rolling Stone and Glamour, the nature of coverage was strategy oriented and superficial, while the tone was mostly cynical in men's magazines, yet favorable toward Gore. The results provide a glimpse of the political information available for typical young adults and insight into the apathetic attitudes of young adults toward the American political system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document