This paper establishes a model to forecast the Presidential election outcomes, particularly the 2016 United States Presidential Election by analyzing two distinctive approaches: predicting election wins through voting function, and using approval ratings as proxy for votes. I examine and replicate previous models for vote share of the Democratic Party and of the government for elections from 1948 to 2012. Then, I construct a model for approval ratings based on economic and non-economic variables. My findings have direct implications for forecasting elections and the political business cycle.

The purpose of this paper is to document and quantify the primary reasons for the gradual erosion of southern Democratic hegemony in presidential elections during the last twenty-four years. The results confirm and reinforce the findings of the historical study, which indicates the primary reason for changing southern allegiance has been the changing philosophy of the Democratic Party in the civil rights field.

Over the past two decades, a surge of interest in the area of forecasting has produced a number of statistical models available for predicting the winners of U.S. presidential elections. While historically the domain of individuals outside the scholarly community - such as political strategists, pollsters, and journalists - presidential election forecasting has become increasingly mainstream, as a number of prominent political scientists entered the forecasting arena. With the goal of making accurate predictions well in advance of the November election, these forecasters examine several important election "fundamentals" previously shown to impact national election outcomes. In general, most models employ some measure of presidential popularity as well as a variety of indicators assessing the economic conditions prior to the election. Advancing beyond the traditional, non-scientific approaches employed by prognosticators, politicos, and pundits, today's scientific models rely on decades of voting behavior research and sophisticated statistical techniques in making accurate point estimates of the incumbent's or his party's percentage of the popular two-party vote. As the latest evolution in presidential forecasting, these models represent the most accurate and reliable method of predicting elections to date. This thesis provides an assessment of forecasting models' underlying epistemological assumptions, theoretical foundations, and methodological approaches. Additionally, this study addresses forecasting's implications for related bodies of literature, particularly its impact on studies of campaign effects. / Master of Arts

The 2016 U.S. presidential election results surprised many, after several groups many believed to be surefire voters for Democrats based on previous elections voted for Republican Donald Trump (Bump, 2016). Whenever a change takes place in voter patterns, one begins to hear phrases like “critical election” and “political realignment.” A critical election is an election where there is a change of at least 10 percent in partisan alignment, but it does not persist in the next election. A partisan realignment is similar to a critical election, but the change is more durable. This research explores whether the 2016 election can be classified as a critical election and whether and how key groupings of Democratic voters voted in the election compared to their votes in the 2012 election. Using data aggregated at the county level, regression analyses suggest that voters’ education, access to health care, union membership, racial/ethnic diversity, and income level all had statistically significant relationships with votes in both elections and with the change in vote between 2016 and 2012, all were substantively significant or in directions consistent with the presence of a critical election when viewed either from the national or even regional viewpoint. Evidence suggests that 2016 was a critical election. / M.A. / If 2016 proved anything about elections, it is that at times they can be difficult to predict. Predicting voter behavior based on past elections is not straightforward, in part because at times voters can make sharp changes in their party alliance over the course of four years. Sometimes those changes are lasting, but they also can fade by the next election cycle. This study examined whether the 2016 U.S. presidential election constituted such a sharp and sudden change from the 2012 election, an event social scientists term a “critical election.” Conducted at the county level, the study examined whether and how voter groupings (based on education, access to health care, union membership, income, and race/ethnicity) changed notably between 2012 and 2016. What was found was that as expected Democrats experienced a negative change in support among union, white, and impoverished voters. What was not expected was the negative change in Black votes for Democrats between 2012 and 2016. Another unexpected, though smaller, change was a drop in Democratic support by the college educated. No significant change in Democratic support was found among Hispanics or those with access to healthcare. Based on these findings 2016 can be considered to have been a critical election for Blacks.

For years political fundraising was structured around who could raise the most to outlast their opponent. The 2016 presidential elections showed that this standard was no longer the case. Fundraising was a core aspect of campaign finance that was further advanced with the introduction of Citizens United. It established new outlets of fundraising known as super PACs that changed the dynamics in campaign finance. This further incentivized presidential candidates to raise as much funds as they could. Former Governor of Florida Jeb Bush embodied this new gold standard in his 2016 campaign run. On the other hand, celebrity mogul Donald Trump completely defied all standards with his self-funded 2016 campaign. Bush’s defeat and Trump’s victory represents a new era of campaign finance for future elections.

This study examines character traits in United States presidential campaign advertisements. It was predicted that Republican and Democratic trait content would be similar in appeal advertisements but would differ in attack and contrast advertisements. Additionally, it was expected that the traits most frequently conveyed in primary election advertisements would differ from those most frequently employed in general election advertisements. The conveyance of traits in conjunction with issues was examined. The hypotheses and research questions were tested on televised campaign ads from the 2008 and 2012 primary and general elections. Overall, both parties appeal to and attack specific character traits with similar frequencies. The traits used in primary election advertisements were much more positive than the traits used in general election advertisements. Campaigns combine issue content with specific traits in their ads. The findings of this study answer questions about how candidates build and shape their images through televised political advertisements.

This thesis examines if and how the Internet viewers of Saturday Night Live skits were influenced by the video skits. the viewers’ online comments were read, categorized and analyzed for content to explore and discuss how the viewers “read” the text of the online video skits. Each video in which candidates John McCain, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appeared is summarized and analyzed through viewers’ comments. a sample of skits including actors’ portrayals of McCain, Palin, Clinton, Obama and Joe Biden is also summarized and analyzed to find and discuss how the viewers’ perceptions were influenced by the portrayals.

No

This thesis is an exploration of affect theory and emotional rhetoric in the 2016 Presidential Election, and specifically in Donald Trump’s candidacy, first through a series of rhetorical readings of Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail and after his election. The first section of this thesis focuses on Donald Trump and the various rhetorical spaces he uses to reach his supporters through affectual means. Next, I will apply affect theory to Trump’s political rhetoric in order to illustrate how affect is intrinsic to his rhetoric and how he communicates to his audience. I find that utilizing texts by cultural rhetoric critics, namely those which discuss affect theory and the culture of emotion such as Sara Ahmed’s The Cultural Politics of Emotion, and culture and rhetorical spaces in Julie Lindquist’s A Place to Stand: Politics and Persuasion in a Working Class Bar, allows us to better understand the underlying cultural impetuses which created the conditions for Donald Trump’s presidency. In the third section, I examine how these theoretical frameworks provide an understanding of how fake news contributed to the current American climate of a post-truth media culture. And in the final section, I explore how satirical rhetoric is employed both as a defense against and as a rhetorical utility for Donald Trump, namely in his use of carnivalesque techniques and rhetoric to appeal to his voter’s sense of rebellion against and cynicism toward the political establishment. In doing so, I argue that Trump’s use of affect, particularly in his targeted approach to appeal to his base’s existential, socio-economic, and racial fears, was essential to his success in the 2016 Presidential election. / Master of Arts / Watching the coverage of Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign and eventual election, one of the most critical aspects not explored in depth by scholarship and academia was his campaign’s use of affect and emotional rhetoric. By appealing to his base’s passions, fueling dissention and anger against the opposition, Trump was able to incite a populist movement that lead him all the way to the White House. This thesis examines Trump’s use of rhetorical spaces such as political rallies and debate stages as avenues to stir up the emotions of his base, as well as becoming a mouthpiece for many on the far right to spread their agenda of isolationism and white nationalism. The use of fake news is also explored, particularly in how it was used to spread a far-right partisan agenda to misinform or mislead Trump supporters to vote against their own interests, and in some cases, even incite violence. Finally, through a brief history of the effects of satire on public opinion post-9/11, I argue that Trump uses carnivalesque techniques to appeal to voters’ sensibilities, particularly their fatigue regarding political correctness and their ire at their perception of being left behind by government insiders. By viewing Trump’s use of affect, I argue that scholars, and the general public, can gain insight as to how not to fall for such emotional rhetorical strategies so that they do not find themselves voting against their own socio-economic and representative interests.

More and more, elections around the world seem to be won or lost on the basis of the candidates’ personal qualities rather than their policies. Despite its prevalence and consequences, we still know very little about what explains such candidate-centered voting, particularly in new democratic contexts. I argue that variation in candidate-centered voting is largely a function of political sophistication: voters with higher levels of political sophistication are better able to process information relating to policy and performance, which tends to be more cognitively demanding than information relating to candidate’s personalities. To test this argument, I estimate models of vote choice and electoral utility using survey data from the 2002 presidential election in Brazil. The results largely support my contention that political sophistication conditions the weight of candidate considerations relative to policy and performance considerations. / text