In anticipation of the upcoming presidential election, Associate Professor Kenneth Ciboski and Professor Melvin Kahn of the 黑洞社区 Political Science Department offered comments comparing and contrasting the 2016 campaigns with those of the past.
1. How is this presidential election different from past elections?
Ciboski: This presidential election is different from past elections because each of the two major candidates 鈥� Trump and Clinton 鈥� are equally disliked. Also, this is the first time that a woman has been nominated for president.
Kahn: Money has taken a back seat to mastery of the electronic media. Clinton has far outspent Trump, but Trump鈥檚 mastery of the media has provided much more effective messaging than money could buy.
Another difference was that a GOP nominee, Trump, has demonstrated great appeal to working-class Americans, a former bulwark of the Democratic Party.
To my knowledge, while there have been individual candidates with uniquely high negatives, there is no recollection of both major candidates sharing immensely high negatives. Nor has there been a prior instance where either vice presidential candidate would win the presidency if pitted against the other party鈥檚 presidential candidate.
2. How important are candidate endorsements, whether from individuals or media outlets?
Ciboski: Endorsements can help a candidate if they come from individuals who are highly regarded by the voting public. Many voters will pay attention to endorsements if they have a high regard for the person making the endorsement.
On the media side, I think that most of the time endorsements by a newspaper or by an electronic medium will reinforce views already held by readers and viewers who pay attention to their favorite medium regularly. Many Republicans would probably discount / filter out an endorsement by "The New York Times," which would be labeled a liberal newspaper, whereas Democrats would be more likely to accept such an endorsement because it "squares" with their thinking.
Kahn: Campaign endorsements usually do little more than reconfirm prior dispositions. One prominent study found that immensely popular Dwight Eisenhower made less than a 2 percent impact on Congressional candidates he endorsed. While an endorsement is unlikely to impact a candidate鈥檚 standing, a highly respected individual may encourage non-highly motivated voters who slightly favor a candidate to actually turn out. This is more likely to occur among an identifiable interest or ethnic group which highly respects and identifies strongly with a given leader to actually become motivated to vote. Such an example would be a popular group leader like President Obama influencing non-enthusiastic pro-Clinton voters to actually turn out 鈥� especially if a person like Trump had attempted to diminish his presidential effectiveness by questioning his legitimacy as an American citizen.
3. How have the lines between liberal and conservative been blurred through the course of this campaign?
Ciboski: Quite honestly, I think that prospective voters do not have a clear-cut liberal or conservative image of each of the major candidates. The reasons for this are distractions with such matters as Clinton's emails and whether or not she is corrupt with Clinton Foundation activities. Then there is the issue of "Trump University" for Trump and his stance on immigration that clouds the liberal-conservative difference. The voters could be lining up for or against each of the candidates based on whether they think Clinton or Trump has the temperament and the integrity to be president instead of evaluating the political stance of each. Also, many prospective voters could well think that Clinton is more qualified than Trump because she has experience in government that Trump does not. Some Republicans think that Trump is a liberal, and I tend to think that if he is elected he will turn out to be a kind of Franklin Roosevelt New Dealer; that is, he will want to engage in significant public spending if he is to meet even some of the goals / promises that he talks about.
Kahn: Normally, highly educated Republicans favor their party鈥檚 nominee and working-class Americans favor the Democratic candidate. Both candidates, however, have made significant inroads into the other party鈥檚 traditional supporters in this election.
4. Why do candidates run negative campaigns when the general public seems to dislike them?
Ciboski: Candidates run negative campaigns because they work. We can expect Trump, for example, to attack Hillary Clinton on her record as Secretary of State. Likewise, Clinton is likely to attack Trump in regard to some of the things he has said and even to point to Trump's seeming fascination with dictators such as Putin and Kim Jong-un. In addition, she could attack Trump's lack of experience in governing and that the country could be at risk if he were president. One of the major reasons that negative campaigning works is because people are attracted to the drama of political attacks and find many advertisements attacking a candidate entertaining.
Kahn: Negative campaigns attract more attention, and studies have shown they have more impact. Basically, they are successful, especially when they bring out credible weaknesses against the opposition. A good example was the negative propaganda campaign of Thomas Paine鈥檚 negative pamphlets and Jefferson鈥檚 Declaration of Independence bill of particulars against the British. Non-credible and exaggerated negative charges are also effective, particularly if containing vivid imagery, such as the case with Willie Horton in 1988. Despite the public鈥檚 professed objections 鈥� negative ads usually work!
5. Will this presidential campaign hit an all-time low in negativity? If so, is it because of a culture shift or more disputable candidates?
Ciboski: According to political pundits and commentators, this was supposed to be the year of the emergence of a governor and even a senator for the Republican nomination. Most of the pundits discounted Trump from the beginning with his speech announcing his candidacy for president. One reason for the low in negativity is that the candidacies of Clinton and Trump have generated lots of controversy. Is Hillary Clinton corrupt and a liar? Is Donald Trump too inexperienced and not qualified to be president? Does he have personality traits and a temperament that make him dangerous in a leadership position?
Kahn: Historically, this campaign does not register a new low in negativity. Adams v. Jefferson in 1800, Jackson v. John Quincy Adams in 1828 and Blaine v. Cleveland reached lower depths. If anyone wants specific substantiation, I will gladly provide it.
6. Do you think this election may lead to the growth of third parties or independent bids?
Ciboski: There may be a brief "spurt" of third parties. I think that what we are likely to see is that the parties will work over time to adjust to a changing political environment. If they do not do so, one or both could be displaced by another kind of party.
Kahn: Third parties and independent candidates have long been part of American history and should continue to participate. This is an atypical election and I see no reason this should create an uptick in third parties-independents. Our two-party tradition, lack of proportional representation, the Electoral College obstacles and state laws plus electoral biases against non-major parties provide no realistic chance of independent or third-party success. Almost all citizens are reluctant to waste their votes and almost invariably, as we get closer to Election Day, third parties and independent candidates lose support to the major parties. A good example is 1988 when early on Perot led both Clinton and Bush, but as the race unfolded he continuously lost supporters to the major candidates.
7. Will people be voting in favor of a presidential candidate or in opposition to the other candidate?
Ciboski: In spite of all the talk about voting for or against a candidate, I think that the voters will think about the immigration problem, the possibility of the next president making several Supreme Court appointments and the question of war and terrorism, and vote accordingly.
Kahn: 2016 is definitely a 鈥渓esser of the evils鈥� voting contest.
8. Do you expect voter turnout to be higher or lower this November?
Ciboski: I will go out on a limb and say that in spite of all the talk about low voter turnout, it will be higher than expected. I expect lots of prospective voters have intense feelings about each of the candidates. The more intense they feel about candidates or issues, the more likely they will go to the polls.
Kahn: Total numbers voting will likely be lower, despite the dropping of some voting barriers, but sheer population increase might create slightly more voters. However, the percentage of actual eligible voters is highly likely to decrease because of the high negatives of both candidates.
9. What does the rest of the world think about U.S. politics and this year鈥檚 presidential election?
Ciboski: People in the world have always viewed our political system and our elections as "peculiar" and radically different from other systems in the world. I think that some people in the world are fearful that America might pull back from working to have a more stable world.
Kahn: The rest of the world is more appalled that a uniquely unqualified candidate like Trump could be nominated by a major party, let alone be in serious contention for the presidency. Unlike most Americans, it is not as bothered by Clinton鈥檚 lack of honesty.
10. What impact, if any, will this year鈥檚 presidential election have on Congressional and gubernatorial races?
Ciboski: On the Congressional side, I think that we can expect the Democrats to pick up some Senate seats and some in the House. The Democrats may gain some gubernatorial seats. We need to remember, though, that Congressional and gubernatorial elections are more local and do not necessarily follow the national pattern of a presidential election. Also, I put little stock in the role or notion of political "coattails."
Kahn: There has always been a drop off in down ballot races. Since several major population states permit voters to make one mark that casts a vote for a party鈥檚 entire ticket, with less people likely favoring the presidential top of either ticket, this likely diminished turnout will probably cause a lower turnout that consequently decreases voting for the lesser offices.
11. Role of presidential debates:
Ciboski: These are not real debates; instead, they are a confrontation of images. I think that more than at any time in our modern campaigns, these so-called debates could be decisive. Can Hillary Clinton cause a misstep for Donald Trump? Can she make him look weak and not knowledgeable enough to be president? In turn, can Trump turn charges of corruption against Clinton and create a perception of a candidate who is not honest and has been "reckless" and abused her position as Secretary of State?
Kahn: Polls represent a snapshot in time. There will likely occur more twists and turns the rest of the way. More attacks in both the U.S. and abroad will undoubtedly help Trump, and if Hillary dominates the debates this could make a significant difference. The media often downplays the impact of debates, but the debates in 1960, 1980, 1988 and 2000 all permitted one candidate to gain a decisive advantage. Serious blunders 鈥� especially in debates, which are often covered and emphasized 鈥� might seriously affect sharp changes in public opinion. Examples are Blaine鈥檚 鈥淒emocrats are the party of Rum, Romanism and Rebellion,鈥� Carter鈥檚 use of the Misery index which Reagan later turned against him, Romney鈥檚 use of the 47 percent who are takers, Hillary鈥檚 use of deplorables and Trump鈥檚 referring to icon Robert Gates as dopey. The key factor is how much persistence the media demonstrates in staying on it and how late in the campaign the blunder occurs.