To say that Trump winning the 2016 was a surprise would be an understatement.  We are finally at the end of this electoral season and the results are shocking, even to some Republicans.  I could not have been more wrong in my pre-election prediction.  Most of my prediction was based on fivethirtyeight.com, and like most polling sites, it also was off by a long shot.  When the results first started to roll in, I still assumed that Clinton would pull ahead eventually, winning Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.  This unprecedented result brings to light many questions regarding the role of the media and how it shapes our perception versus reality.

Many of my predictions were entirely incorrect, especially regarding which states would vote Democrat.  I did not even address Pennsylvania, because I simply assumed it would surely be a blue state, along with Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio.  The unexpected behavior of these states cemented Trump’s lead over Clinton, and acted as a buffer, giving him a solid lead even without key swing states such as Florida.  I stated that North Carolina would vote Democrat, pushing Clinton’s territory south of Virginia.  As we know now, North Carolina was decisively won by Trump, with over 200,000 votes in his favor.  Also, given the number of black and Hispanic voters in Florida who were predicted to win the state for Clinton, Trump surprisingly won by over 100,000 votes.  Florida, Pennsylvania and all the Great Lakes states essentially handed victory over to Trump, against all perceived odds.

Voter turnout in the 2016 election was considerably lower than in past presidential elections.  Turnout was indicated as 55% of eligible voters, or 119,425,696 total votes.  In the 2012 presidential election, turnout was 58.6%, and even higher in the 2008 election at 62.2%. This may be a result of the unsavory candidates this election, causing unmotivated voters to stay at home, rather than pick between two unsatisfactory candidates.  A prediction that I more or less accurately posited was a similar situation to the 2000 presidential election, regarding a disparity in which candidate won the electoral votes and the other winning the majority vote.  I noted that Clinton was predicted to win the majority vote, which she did by over 200,000 votes.  Only the actual results differed from my prediction that Clinton won the popular vote, while Trump reached 270 electoral votes first.

The most fascinating result of this election to me was not that Trump pulled off the win, but that it came as such a surprise.  In one way or another, Trump has shown that despite his substantial lack of political experience, he does possess a resemblance of political instinct.  His radical views and resolute promises clearly resonated with a majority of working-class Americans, motivating them to turn out and vote him into office.  Even taking into consideration all of Trump’s questionable behavior and scandals, voters were unfazed and still believed he was the better candidate. In the last five presidential elections, Pennsylvania voted democrat, therefore Trump truly roused significant support that lay dormant in the traditionally blue state.  This is indicative of the disjointed nature of the media and public perception from reality.  It is likely that because of the dominant liberal perspective in the mainstream media, many Trump supporters simply kept their opinions to themselves, unwilling to be associated with Trump’s unpopular public image.  However, on election day we saw these quiet Trump supporters turn out to vote, shocking the left, and even much of the right (such as myself).  This election has been a wake up call for the public’s perception of the actual state of America’s needs, opinions and beliefs.  Trump’s anti-immigration and pro-American industry stances struck a chord, especially in the Rust Belt, and aligned with the motivations of the majority of blue-collar individuals.  On the other hand, the shock of Trump’s victory still resonates through the bewildered media.  On my Facebook feed, there were perhaps one or two pro-Trump posts among a vast majority of vocal liberal posts, regarding the “fear” and “sadness” regarding his victory and how it will impact America’s future.  Following the election results, dozens of my Facebook friends commented on their distraught feelings and utter disbelief, even suggesting that America is doomed going forward.  Even as I type this post, the media is reporting on anti-Trump protests across the country.  How could Trump have won the presidency if there is such strong, universal opposition reported in the media? Either the media is portraying a skewed perception of reality in order to capitalize on post-election excitement, or the electoral college and democratic process is deeply flawed in the United States of America.

Finally, 24 hours from when I write this post we will (hopefully) know who our next president is.  The popular consensus reflects that this has been a particularly long and painful election season, and we are all anxious to see it end.  According to fivethirtyeight.com, the Democratic party is strongly favored to win.  Hillary Clinton is predicted to win 301.4 electoral votes, while Donald Trump only has 235.8.  This indicates Clinton has a 70.8% chance of winning the election, versus Trump’s 29.2% chance.  It seems like Clinton will win tomorrow by a landslide, with a 6.6% chance of a landslide victory to Trump’s 0.3%, however the popular vote is a closer race.  Trump is predicted to win 45.1% of the popular vote, while Clinton is predicted to hold a 48.6% popular vote.  The closeness of the competition to win the popular vote is not necessarily indicative of what the actual outcome of the election will be, as we saw in the 2000 election between Al Gore and George W. Bush.  Gore narrowly won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, against Bush’s 50,456,002.  However, the deciding factor was that Bush secured 271 electoral votes, beating Gore’s 266.  We see a similar situation developing in the 2016 election, however Clinton’s decisive hold over the majority of the electoral votes gives her a very promising lead over Trump, regardless of if he can manage to win the popular vote.

It is interesting to note the contention in North Carolina, which is currently balanced 54.7% in favor of Clinton, versus 45.4% in favor of Trump.  In the 2012 presidential election, North Carolina contributed its 15 electoral votes to Romney and the Republican party, yet now the state is leaning towards the Democratic party.  A very similar situation is playing out in Florida, a highly competitive swing state which could potentially contribute a hefty 29 electoral votes.  Just like in North Carolina, Florida is just 10% leaning towards Clinton, potentially being a point of contention on election day, similar to the 2000 election.  If Trump is able to win both North Carolina and Florida, he will be boosted to 279 electoral votes, putting him in range of the Presidency.  

On election day, voter turnout will ultimately decide who will head to the White House. Many factors contribute to voter turnout, such as proximity to your voting district, belief in voter efficacy, free time and interest in the election. Graduate-level educated black or white individuals over the age of 45 are the most likely to vote for Clinton in tomorrow’s election, however this demographic is few and far between in the United States.  Therefore we typically see the elderly, comfortably employed and educated investing the most attention in the electoral process and with the highest voter turnout rate. According to the New York Times article, Presidential Election: The Day Before the Storm, Clinton has the strong support of women, young voters, ethnic minorities and the college educated.  All these groups have a high likelihood of showing up at polls tomorrow, with the exception of the youngsters, playing to Clinton’s advantage.  Trump’s supporters are mainly white men, evangelical Christians, and blue-collar workers.  These voters statistically are less likely to vote, however what they lack in turn out, they make up for in numbers.  Whites still make up the vast majority of American demographics at 72.4%, according to the 2010 census, and low-income workers are more numerous than the college educated.  The fracturing of the Republican party that we saw during this election season may prove damaging to voter turnout however, given that not all republicans feel that they can give Trump their vote.

I feel that the debates and vice-presidential candidates will have little impact on the voter turnout on Election Day.  Neither candidate had a particularly moving performance during the debates, with most voters already resolute in their decisions.  The debates and nomination of Vice-Presidential candidates may spur a few individuals who were on the fence regarding showing up to vote, however I do not believe it will have any kind of dramatic impact.  Mike Pence, a well-respected Republican, may have the most influence on republican turnout, because of his marginal ability to rally Republican support.

As far as scandals go, I think Trump did damage the likelihood of women to vote for him on the 8th.  His Access Hollywood scandal did perhaps the most damage to his public appearance and rapport with women, discrediting any attempt to come across as a respectful, dignified gentleman.  Clinton has more success when it comes to presenting a polished, proper and palatable public image.  This being said, there is an understanding that she has her fair share of a scandalous political past, however Clinton has made up for this more effectively than Trump, by making every effort to carefully create an appealing appearance.

Regardless of how this election turns out, I am simply relieved this long campaign process will be finally over.  The next step will be to learning to accept the candidate that makes it to the White House.

Following the third and final presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I felt both relief and disappointment.  This has been an especially painful campaign cycle between two candidates who are widely accepted as undesirable for office by the majority of my peers, friends, family and almost anyone I have discussed the 2016 election with.  The hostile, almost tabloid-esque conduct of the race to the executive office this year has been about as appealing as a race to the dentists office, with an equally uncomfortable outcome to look forward to.  However, after the final debate I feel somewhat disappointed.  Maybe I was waiting for Trump to say something truly jaw-dropping, or for Clinton to faint onstage during debate.  But now that the last debate is over, I realize that I sat through 90 minutes of the same uninspired bickering as the last two debates.  Neither candidate gave an original, fresh performance this time around, and I am still not compelled to support either Trump nor Hillary.

During this debate, the topics of immigration, the economy, military involvement in the Middle East, and personal scandal were predictably highlighted in this debate.  Both candidates played shamelessly to their respective party’s voter base.  Clinton harped on the revitalization of the middle class through vague job creation and education-based entitlements.  Trump played to the right wing, focusing on 2nd amendment and abortion rights. Clinton also seemed to come across as bipartisan in her responses to Trump’s arguments.  This was a smart move in order to seem agreeable on topics such as strengthening boarder security and gun ownership to undecided voters, who will most likely decide the winner of this race.  In my opinion, the most notable part of this debate was Clinton’s accusation that Trump would claim that Clinton somehow rigged the election.  She pointed to past examples where Trump denounced setbacks by claiming that he was cheated out of victory, including an Emmy award for his reality show, The Apprentice.  While Trump’s paranoia of the Clinton campaign machine is pitiful, I found it ironic that Clinton pointed this out after claiming the Russians were using Wikileaks to influence the race.  I felt like this was a familiar tune to what she had just accused Trump of.  As the debate drew to a close, I felt a familiar sensation of disappointment that, yet again, neither candidate has convinced me that they deserve my vote.

As I watched the debate, I was mainly looking for two results.  The first result being a stronger motivation to vote for the republican candidate, Donald Trump, and the second being to see if Trump would behave in an eyebrow-raising manner.  As the debate drew to a close, the first result failed.  Trump still has not bought my full support, although he has my vote due to his place on the republican ticket.  His comments on international trade agreements, such as NAFTA and our business dealings with China, still cause me to doubt his promise to “make America great again.”  How can we bring these long lost manufacturing and industry jobs back to the States and still maintain a high standard of living we enjoy thanks to cheaply produced Mexican and Chinese goods?  There is no good answer; the issue was brought up, but not delved into during the debate.  Trump maintains his quasi-isolationist economic policy beliefs, which leave me unconvinced.  However, he did make agreeable points about our sometimes thankless role in international security.  Our 70% funding of NATO and expensive international presence does not provide a sustainable return on investment, and perhaps we should heed George Washington’s farewell address guidance of avoiding foreign entanglements.

On the other hand, the debate did deliver on heated, eyebrow-raising exchanges between Trump and Clinton.  Trump made repeated jabs at Clinton, often interrupting her and the moderator even by commenting “wrong” or “lies” when they were citing factual information, specifically regarding the discussion on stop and frisk, and Obama’s birth certificate.  He repeatedly criticized Clinton’s lack of producing results in the battle against ISIS and terrorism, as well as predictably bringing up her poor health and email scandal.  Clinton responded by bringing up Trumps history of insensitivity regarding race relations and feminism.  I have trouble trying to determine who I think won this debate.  Hillary Clinton played the role of the astute and careful politician as only she can, while Trump remained prickly, aggressive and sharp-tongued.  The contrast between the businessman and politician was visible during the debate, but neither seemed to distinguish themselves as the superior choice for President of the United States.

1952- Eisenhower vs. Stevenson:  The Man from Abilene, Endorsement Woman

Eisenhower’s Man from Abilene ad briefly mentioned his humble beginnings, then escalated to comment on his wartime achievements and connections from his service in World War II.  Then an abbreviated interview gave a look into his insight to the ongoing Korean War.  All of this information was thrown at the viewer in rapid succession in a very digestible format.  Stevenson’s ad featured a woman speaking on his aims of socioeconomic equality across the country, appealing to female voters and working class Americans.

1964- Johnson vs. Goldwater: Peace Little Girl, Communism

Johnson’s famous ad featuring a little girl picking a daisy followed by a nuclear explosion clearly appealed to the audience’s fear of nuclear war, utilizing the sharp contrast of innocence with death to motivate voters.  Goldwater makes use of a typical female American in his Communism ad to address its spread and his plan to reinvigorate U.S. relations with NATO as a solution.

1976- Carter vs. Ford: Bio (Carter), Peace

Carter uses a lengthy biographical ad to showcase his humble, hard-working farm boy origins, military service and honest personality to connect with voters.  His wife also gives a supportive endorsement of her husband, along with Carter’s endearing parents in order to humanize him before a patriotic speech given as governor of Georgia wraps up the ad.  Ford’s ad features a catchy song played over a slideshow of ethnically-diverse, smiling Americans.  A voice over then  advocates for Ford’s ability to sustain peace in America and his gives a hopeful message for the future.

1984- Reagan vs. Mondale: Bear, Orbiting

Reagan’s brief ad featuring a grizzly bear creates a metaphor for the Soviet Union, advocating for strength to match the bear.  This creates a sense of need for security, suggesting that America should err on the side of caution and have the strength to face the bear.  In an interesting contrast to Reagan’s Bear ad, Mondale’s Orbiting ad attacks Reagan by creating a sense of fear of a nuclear arms race.  This is illustrated through footage of space, warning of the weaponization of outer space.

1996- Clinton vs. Dole: Surgeon, Pants on Fire

Clinton’s Surgeon ad features multiple photogenic American children saying what they aspire to be when they grow up in order to preface his initiatives to make college affordable.  This ad makes the audience sympathetic to the goals of the children and more or less paints Clinton as a champion of the American Dream, while briefly attacking Dole as an opponent of education.  Dole’s Pants on Fire ad is a blatant attack on Clinton, calling him a liar.  Dole backs this claim with footage of Clinton, and a quote of Bob Kerrey calling Clinton an unusually good liar.

2000- Bush vs. Gore: Dangerous World,

In his Dangerous World ad, Bush displays a little girl running around an abandoned airport while his voice over addresses the threat of terrorism and the need for strong foreign policy.  The video ends with a soldier taking the girl by the hand, signifying the protective stance of the military for American security.  Gore’s Bean Counter ad showcases his stance on healthcare, advocating for a “patient’s bill of rights,” to combat the current status of health insurers denying treatments to patients.

2016- Clinton vs. Trump: Who We Are,

Clinton’s ad, Who We Are, is a combination attack ad on Trump and a self promotion.  She contrasts Trump’s irreverent, bullyish public demeanor with footage of her visiting factories and working-class Americans.  Her voice over indirectly criticizes Trump’s behavior while providing an optimistic message for America’s political future.  The NRA’s ad for Trump points a big finger at Clinton for the Benghazi scandal, blaming her for the deaths of military personnel who now cannot vote in the 2016 election. This is a simple attack ad at Clinton, calling republican voters to stop her from winning the presidency, regardless of who they supported in the primaries.

Conclusion:

Over the past six decades, presidential campaign ads have changed substantially, yet remain somewhat singular in their messages.  In the 50s and 60s, fear of communism and war spurred ads to appeal to voter’s security.  Appeals to women and humble American values seemed to be more prevalent, with candidates striving to relate to potential voters.  These early ads feature catchy tunes and a more upbeat tone (with the exception of Peace Little Girl), are easy to follow, to the point and have minimal editing/post-production.  In the 1990s we see attack ads outright defaming the opponent candidate, featuring bold claims and harsh video editing to demonize their target.  This trend continues until today, while the production value and intensity of the ads have increased over time.  All of these advertisements share the appeal to American values of a strong economy, humanization of candidates and the protection of the American Dream.

During the first meeting of the Election of a President class, I voted for Donald Trump in the straw poll.  I align politically with the Republican party, especially regarding immigration, 2nd amendment, military spending, healthcare and economic issues.  However, I sympathize with liberal beliefs on marijuana and abortion.  As far as the 2016 Presidential race goes, I fall in with the majority of my peers regarding how unappealing Clinton and Trump are as candidates.  Trump lacks professionalism and diplomacy, while Clinton has an ugly history of scandal.  While neither are ideal, Trump’s political aims are more in line with the direction I want America to develop in.  Unsurprisingly, I side 85% with Trump, and only 13% with Clinton.