Yesterday, TIME Magazine named President-elect Donald Trump as their ‘Person of the Year’ for 2016, with Trump succeeding German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was given last year’s award.
Typically this led to uproar from some people that a supposedly ‘liberal’ magazine could give an award like this to Trump, with these people complaining that a ‘racist’ or someone who had ‘divided’ a country like Trump, should not be eligible for the title. However, they are completely missing the point of the Person of the Year Award.
As TIME wrote in their 2002 Person of the Year edition, the award recognises whichever person or group that “for better or for worse…has done the most to influence the events of the year.” As you can see from looking at the past winners, which include Adolf Hitler in 1938, Josef Stalin in 1939 and 1942, and Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, you can see that the award is hardly about picking people who have been deemed to have had a positive influence on world events, but rather those who have had the most influence. Similarly, the selection of Vladimir Putin in 2007 could be seen as a divisive one, but whatever your view on him, it was hard to dispute that he’d had the most impact on the world that year. For the same reasons, Trump is the obvious choice for Person of the Year in 2016.
The 2016 Presidential Election was followed around the world more than any election before it, never has their been more international interest in a political candidate than there was in Trump. In addition, Trump completely rewrote the rulebook on political campaigning, and his influence is evident in the continued rise of populist politicians around the world, in particular in Western Europe. Whether it was one of his early campaign appearances at the Iowa State Fair where he spent his time giving children rides in his helicopter whilst the other Republican primary candidates gave formal interviews on the ground, or the Presidential debates where Trump was open about the fact that he had done absolutely no preparation, he clearly did things completely differently to those who went before him, and he could well have totally changed the way politics is done going forward, whilst his rise and electoral success arguably mirrored events around the world as he led a worldwide rebuke to the political elite.
Whatever you opinion on Donald Trump, it is hard to argue that anyone else has had more influence on the 2016 news cycle than him. As such, he is the obvious choice for TIME Person of the Year.
Just under two weeks ago, Nigel Farage and his gang (Arron Banks, Andy Wigmore etc.) received huge publicity for their visit to Trump Tower, New York City, where they met President-Elect Donald J. Trump. Following this visit it was suggested by several misguided individuals that given Farage’s apparent close relationship with Trump (although even this is up for debate) then it would be a good idea for Theresa May to appoint Farage as some sort of intermediary with the Trump administration. Eventually this developed into full-throttled discussion as to whether Nigel Farage should be appointed as the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States, serving in Washington D.C; with Trump himself entering into the debate with the following tweet:
although from looking at his Twitter account it seems as though he has since deleted the tweet, perhaps because he has finally realised what a terrible idea it would be, but who knows?
The main factor which surely disqualifies Farage from serving as ambassador is experience, namely Farage’s lack of any discernible experience of international affairs. Yes, he has been an MEP since 1999, however this won’t have really exposed him to international affairs to the extent that being an ambassador requires. In addition, the experience which he may have gained as an MEP will have little relevance to the role which the US Ambassador is required to carry out in Washington D.C., therefore suggesting again that Farage would not be at all suited to the position. It should also be recognised that Farage’s relationship with Trump could arguably compromise his ability to do the job, as he would be beholden to Trump for having in effect gained him the position, quite rightly former US Ambassdor Sir Christopher Meyer has described the prospect of Farage becoming ambassador as “barking mad”. Overall, Farage is completely unqualified for the role, and should in no way be considered for the position.
However, some have suggested that Farage should not be allowed the position because his would be a political appointment, this is a somewhat erroneous appointment. Although most ambassadors are foreign service veterans, there have been instances in the past where political appointees have become ambassadors. Indeed the UK’s current ambassador to France is Edward Llewellyn who was previously Chief of Staff to Prime Minister David Cameron. Therefore, Farage shouldn’t be disqualified based on his being a political appointee. The difference between Llewellyn and Farage is that in this role as David Cameron’s Chief of Staff, Llewellyn will have been in the room for key international affairs decisions. Farage would have no such experience to draw upon and thus would be unsuited to a similar role.
Secondly, Donald Trump’s claim that “Many people” would like to see Farage named as Ambassador needs scrutiny. There seems to be little evidence from recent UK history that contradicts the view that UK citizens want anything more than for Nigel Farage to retire from frontline politics. Seven times Farage has stood for Parliament, and seven times he has lost. Of those seven elections, only twice has he received a percentage vote share in double figures: in 2010 17.4 per cent of the vote in Buckingham as he challenged Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow (although it must be remebered that the main parties traditionally don’t challenge the Speaker and therefore Farage had minimal opposition: and he still didn’t get elected); and in 2015 he won 32.4 per cent of the vote in South Thanet, losing a race he was widely expected to win to Conservative Party candidate Craig Mackinlay by almost six percent. Although Farage has indeed been elected to the European Parliament on four occasions, this speaks more of the fact that European Elections have typically been used as a way for voters to express dissatisfaction with the main parties, rather than suggesting anything good about Farage’s national popularity. Indeed, a ComRes poll conducted in August gave Farage a net popularity rating of minus twenty-eight.
Farage’s only real electoral success was being on the winning side in June’s EU Referendum. However, it is debatable how much he did to engineer this result. Although a good argument can be made for the theory that the referendum would not have been held if it hadn’t been for pressure from Farage, I’m not sure that much of an argument can be made for Farage being a reason for the Leave win. It said a lot that the official Vote Leave campaign were unwilling to touch Farage with a barge pole during the referendum campaign, with Farage instead having to be a part of the Leave.EU campaign put together by friend Arron Banks. The evidence at the time suggested that Farage was far too divisive to appeal to the undecided voters in Middle England which both campaigns needed in order to win.
So no, contrary to what Donald Trump says, there is not some clamour for Nigel Farage to become the UK’s ambassador to the United States.
Although, having said that, there are probably quite a lot of people who would be quite happy to see Farage shipped off to Washington D.C. and off our television screens for a while.
So I was wrong, Donald Trump has won the Presidency. Going into election day I still felt sure that the trend towards populist candidates would be halted in its tracks, and that normal service would be resumed thanks to the United States somewhat archaic Electoral College system. Before polls began to close, I didn’t really see a path to the White House for Trump. I mean, to win he had to win Florida, and although that would be close high Hispanic turnout would surely allow Clinton to edge the win. Likewise, I fully expected Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to go Clinton’s way. Michigan and Pennsylvania had voted Democrat in every Presidential Election since 1992, Wisconsin in every Presidential Election since 1988. Surely Trump couldn’t take them, could he?
Alas, I was wrong. Trump didn’t just take one of these States, he took all four. Add to his column North Carolina, Ohio (by an astonishing 8.6 percent), and Iowa, and you’ve got the recipe for a comfortable victory in the Electoral College — currently projected to be 306 votes for Trump to 232 for Clinton. Having said this, it looks as though Clinton narrowly won the popular vote. But, as we know only too well (Gore 2000), it’s all about the Electoral College.
So, why did Trump win? Most of the media and political pundits effectively anointed Hillary Clinton as the next President (and the polls also suggested this outcome), and I must admit that I was only too willing to follow suit, and I am sure that I wasn’t the only one.
Prior to the election, all the talk was about how the sleeping giant of the American electorate, the Hispanic population, was going to play a huge part in deciding the winner. But in actual fact, the Hispanic impact was overstated. Yes, it was arguably the Hispanic population which got Clinton over the line in Nevada (mostly as a result of early voting) but it was always going to be Florida which mattered the most. There was somewhat of a surge in Hispanic voters (particularly in the early voting), and more Hispanics did indeed vote in this Presidential Election than in any previous Presidential Election. However, although Hispanics did vote overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, they didn’t vote for Clinton quite overwhelmingly enough. In fact, Trump actually received around 27 percent of the Hispanic vote nationwide. This means that he beat Bob Dole’s 1996 tally of the Hispanic vote (Dole got just 21 percent), and received a similar percentage to Mitt Romney’s 2012 share (Romney also took around 27 percent of the Hispanic vote). All this meant that despite the surge in the number of Hispanic voters, Clinton still couldn’t compete in Florida, undoubtedly the most important State in this election.
And on top of this, Trump had a surge of his own. The surge of the white working class. Similarly to those in the UK who voted to leave the European Union in June, these tended to be voters who felt disillusioned by the political elite and left behind by globalisation. Although the results of recent US elections and the ongoing demographic changes in many of the swing states suggested that the Democrats could win an election despite minimal support amongst working class whites, this view proved to be unfounded. In 2012, President Obama won so comfortably in the Midwest because of his strong showing with white working class voters. His low rating with this group was almost purely due to the result in the Southern safe Republican States.
In short, in the swing states Hillary Clinton did not outperform President Obama with Hispanics to the extent required to counteract the huge support Donald Trump was gaining with white working class voters. The biggest surges in Hispanic support for Clinton came in California and Texas, States which were never going to have any bearing on the result. Yes, she did outperform President Obama slightly in some areas of Florida, with Clinton slightly improving the Democratic margins in heavily Hispanic counties such as Miami-Dade, but she did not improve the margin enough to counteract the white working class voters which Trump was winning — many of whom had voted for Obama in 2012.
The same huge support for Trump amongst white working class voters was evident in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In counties which President Obama had won by twenty points in 2012, Trump was drawing level. In counties which President Obama had won by double figures in 2012, Trump was winning handsomely. In these swing states, the same was true as in Florida, Clinton wasn’t over-performing President Obama in the Democratic strongholds. For example, in Pennsylvania, Clinton was unable to get close to the margin needed in Philadelphia to overturn the white working class vote in over areas of the State. The same was true in Ohio, with Clinton not winning cities like Cleveland by enough to overturn her deficit elsewhere.
In short, Clinton certainly made gains among minority groups and the well educated during this election. However, these gains did not seem to occur in the swing states which needed them the most. Either this, or they were simply overwhelmed by the unexpected huge support Donald Trump had amongst the white working class — a group everyone expected him to win, but very few suggested he would win by as much as he ultimately did.
Perhaps the Clinton campaign’s real failure was to misread which were the actual swing states. Throughout the campaign, Clinton barely visited Wisconsin and Michigan, with the campaign putting out hardly any television advertising in these States. Given that they had voted Democratic in Presidential elections for so many years, they thought that they were absolutely safe. Even in nearby Minnesota, typically an even stronger Democratic State in Presidential Elections, the margin of Clinton’s victory was very, very low.
Given how wrong the polling was about these States it is, in hindsight, no surprise that the Clinton campaign didn’t foresee the problems that they were going to have in these States. The same was true in the Trump campaign, who said that their polling results were much the same as professional pollsters. Very few people saw the surge in Trump support in any of these States, apart from perhaps Ohio — although even there the polls generally only had Trump a point or two ahead, nowhere close to the 8.6 percent margin he ultimately took Ohio by.
It is difficult to now what caused such a huge polling error, but perhaps the most simple explanation was that voters were simply not willing to tell pollsters that they were backing Trump. We saw a similar phenomenon in the recent European Union referendum, where polls before the referendum gave the Remain campaign a surprisingly strong lead, seemingly because many Leave voters were telling pollsters that they planned to vote remain. We also saw a similar thing in the recent referendum in Columbia on the agreement on a peace deal between the Columbian Government and the FARC rebels. Whatever the error is, it will take far a far deeper evaluation of the polls and the methodology used, in order to ascertain what the errors were.
So it was the surge in white voters which took Donald Trump over the line, but that isn’t really an explanation for why Trump was able to win the Presidency.
Was he able to win because of Hillary Clinton’s unpopularity? I’m not sure I buy into this argument, mostly because I think that generally both candidates were disliked, and personality wise Trump probably was disliked more than Clinton. Indeed according to the results of the preliminary exit polls, 54 percent of voters viewed Hillary Clinton unfavourably, whilst 61 percent of voters viewed Donald Trump unfavourably. Therefore, to some extent, I feel that this debunks the argument that Clinton lost because of her national unpopularity — although it was arguably a contributing factor.
Delve more deeply into the exit polls, and I think they shine more light on why Trump won. The exit poll revealed that among Trump supporters, 92 percent felt that the country was on the wrong track, 88 percent were angry with the way the government was working, and 70 percent were voting for a candidate who they felt could bring about change. For Clinton supporters, they were found to generally feel as though the country was on track, and only fourteen percent were voting for a candidate who they felt could bring about change.
So, in short, voters were switching to Trump because they felt that he was the only chance to bring about change. For these voters, many of whom had voted for Obama in 2012, they were willing to vote for Trump despite their misgivings about him purely because he could bring about change, and shake up the Washington establishment. This is much the same as in the EU Referendum, where many people voted Brexit purely to give the Westminster political establishment a bit of a kicking.
Typically, when a single party is in government for an extended period of time (in this case, Obama had been President for eight years) their supporters grow disillusioned, particularly if their ‘champion’ is failing to enact the change that they voted for. This is the main reason why since 1952, there has only been one occasion where the same party has held onto the Presidency for three consecutive terms, with this of course being between 1980 and 1992 when Ronald Reagan was succeeded by George H.W. Bush.
In recent years, gridlock has characterised the workings of Washington D.C., and in his second term President Obama has been able to accomplish little without the use of executive orders. It was here that Clinton’s status as a member of the political establishment counted against her. Throughout his campaign Trump kept saying things along the lines of “she’s been in Washington for thirty years and she hasn’t solved these problems, don’t expect her to solve them now.” Whilst it isn’t true that Clinton had been in Washington D.C. for thirty years, the view that she wouldn’t be able to end the gridlock in government was clearly one shared by many. Indeed, even Clinton’s most ardent supporters would be hard-pressed to support the notion that Clinton would have been able to enact transformative change. It was this reason, that so many voters chose to go for Trump. They simply thought that he was the only chance that they had to change things with regard to healthcare, immigration, manufacturing jobs.
Whether or not he actually has the ability to do, they are not really that bothered. Having exhausted every other avenue for what these voters perceive to be positive change, they are willing to give a complete outsider a go, in the hope that he can shake up the establishment.
This trend in favour of populist and anti-establishment political candidates is one which is replicating itself around the world, on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. Of course we’ve got Trump, and we also had Bernie Sanders during the Democratic Primary. Before that we had the win for Leave in the EU Referendum. Even earlier we had the win for Syriza in Greece. Next year we’ll find out whether the trend continues in the French Presidential Election, where Marine Le Pen continues to look strong.
All over the world, voters are concluding that they want a change from the political establishment who they blame for the poor economic situation which many voters experience in their daily lives. For those who have been more insulated by the economic problems experienced by the developed world over the last eight years, this is perhaps quite hard to comprehend. But the truth is perhaps that voters are willing to vote for anything that they feel will bring about change, and shake up the political establishment.
Overall, Trump won because the voters felt that he was the only candidate who could bring about change. We will soon see whether he manages this task, and if so what changes he brings about.
On 5 July, the Director of the FBI James Comey released his statement regarding the end of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State. Although Comey said that he was not recommending criminal charges, he did rebuke Clinton for being “extremely careless” in her handling of “very sensitive, classified information”.
Given the furore of Clinton’s use of a private email server, it’s hard to argue that her actions were quite careless. By this I mean that you would think that this scenario could have been easily avoided by Clinton and her team. However, given that no criminal charges were recommended by the FBI, then it seems fair to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. Throughout this election, it has seemed that although the email controversy has harmed Clinton’s favourability somewhat, it hasn’t harmed it enough to stop her winning the election. For she has the divisiveness of Republican candidate Donald Trump to thank. Had the Republicans nominated a candidate which the whole party were united around, then it may have been harder for her to prosper under the shadow of the email controversy. However, up to now, she has managed to do just this.
However, on Friday, James Comey intimated in a letter to Congress that he would be re-opening the investigation into Clinton’s use of private email server, after emails deemed to be pertinent to the investigation were found during a separate investigation into former Congressman Anthony Weiner. I would argue that this letter from Comey was just as careless as Clinton using a private email server in the first place, but for rather different reasons.
The real problem with this letter to Congress was the opacity of the statement given by Comey. In his letter Comey wrote the following:
In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.
Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.
From this letter, it is clear that the FBI has little or no idea of the content of the emails found during the investigation into Anthony Weiner — the emails in question are believed to have been exchanged between Hillary Clinton and her closest confidant, Weiner’s estranged wife Huma Abedin.
Indeed, at the time of sending the letter the Justice Department had yet to obtain a warrant to even look at Abedin’s emails (a warrant was only granted yesterday). This means that the FBI hadn’t read the emails, and so had no idea at all of their content.
Given the already extensive investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server, the chances are that the FBI will have already read the emails in question, which would mean that the FBI’s recommendation would once again be that Clinton and her aides face no charges.
The likelihood of this discovery simply comprising emails that the FBI have already seen, means that the public disclosure that the investigation was both unnecessary and careless, especially just eleven days before a Presidential Election. The FBI do not routinely inform Congress about the status of ongoing investigations and so it makes no sense that they should do so now, particularly when the stakes are so high.
It leaves Clinton in a position where she can’t really fight back, because she has no idea what the FBI have discovered. Donald Trump can attack her and claim the new discovery constitutes anything he chooses, and because no one has any idea what the emails contain, Trump can’t face any sort of scrutiny. As for the public, they also naturally have no idea what this new discovery contains. This means that they are extremely vulnerable to the cascade of leaks which have come from the FBI in recent days. When the re-opening of the investigation was announced, it seemed that every news organisation had a different idea of what the new findings comprised. This leaves the public in a very difficult situation, in the absence of any semblance of factual knowledge about the ongoing investigation, where do they go for information?
This shows just how dangerous Comey’s letter was. The sheer opacity of his statement causes real problems. This is because the re-opening the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton could well influence the result of the presidential election. It could then be revealed that the new findings were not at all significant. What it clear is the investigation will not be completed until well after the election is over. Therefore, why reveal now that the investigation has been re-opened?
There is good reason for the Justice Department having a formal policy of avoiding public law-enforcement activity on the eve of elections. In an article for The New Yorker, Jane Mayer states that a Justice Department official has stated that the reason for this is that, “it impugns the integrity and reputation of the candidate, even though there’s no finding by a court, or in this instance even an indictment.” This is clearly true, as we have seen with the ongoing Clinton emails controversy. It was announced back in July that Clinton hadn’t done anything illegal, and although she has clearly been less than transparent, the number of people who retain the view that she is corrupt is astonishing. It seems clear to be that the very public investigation into her affairs, tainted her reputation hugely, and the public re-opening of the investigation threatens to do the same at a time when the stakes are much higher — just a week and a half before election day.
For this reason Comey, to use his own words, was ‘extremely careless’ in writing to Congress in the way he did on Friday. He should have known the effect that this could have had, and should have refrained from doing so in order to avoid influencing the outcome of the election. He should make a public statement as soon as possible in order to clarify the situation, to ensure that the public know exactly what it going on. Failing to do this, could have disastrous effects.
Expect Trump to go on the attack from the beginning, in an attempt to make up some of this ground. It would be no surprise to see Trump continue his claims that the election is being rigged against him by the media. Given that this debate is being moderated by Chris Wallace from FOX News, it is perhaps less likely that Trump calls the moderation biased than he did in previous debates. However, Wallace is a registered Democrat (although he says that this is just so he can vote in the primaries) and he did say earlier this year that he felt the media weren’t hard enough on Donald Trump.Therefore, if Trump feels that he’s losing the momentum, don’t be overly surprised if he decides to claim that everyone is ganging up on him, as did in the first debate when he suggested that it was “three against one”, with Clinton, and moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz all ganging up against him. A repeat of a similar scene would not be unexpected.
In addition, with the continual dumping of John Podesta’s hacked emails by Wikileaks, expect information gleaned from these to make up a large proportion of Trump’s attacks. The emails which suggested Clinton knew CNN debate question in advance during the Democratic Primary feed into his rigged election narrative. In addition, the revelation that the government of Qatar (who have a sketchy human rights record) had donated $1 million to the Clinton Foundation could prove slightly embarrassing to Clinton. Trump claims that these emails have been completely ignored by the media. He is wrong. The media have reported them, and in normal times they would be front page news. However, the recording of Trump’s derogatory remarks on the set of Access Hollywood in 2005, and other reports of sexual misconduct, have drowned out the stories about Clinton. This means that this final debate is the only chance Trump will have to confront Clinton about these allegations.
One thing notable about this debate, is that a full fifteen minute section will be devoted to the topic of immigration. It was surprising how little immigration was discussed during the previous two debates, and it was quite surprising that Trump didn’t look to steer the conversation towards one of his stronger topics. This debate will give Trump the opportunity to talk about one of his keynote policies: the wall on the US-Mexico border. Of course, this debate also gives an opportunity for this policy to be properly scrutinised. It seems pretty obvious that building a wall on the whole border is completely unrealistic. For a start, we’re talking about a full-blown wall, not just a fence. This means that the cost will be completely exorbitant, with it having been estimated that costs could rise at high at $25 billion. In addition, the wall would have to cover a border which is almost 1,900 miles long. Much of this land isn’t owned by the US Government, which would push the cost even higher. All in all, the policy of building a wall on the US-Mexico border is completely unrealistic. This perhaps explains Trump’s reluctance to bring it up in a debate, as he realises that it would be picked apart by Clinton and the moderators. Nonetheless, it seems likely that this debate will force him to discuss it. Whilst the issue will likely further energise his base, it seems unlikely to be one which will gain him any undecided voters. I mean, if you wanted a wall on the US-Mexico border, then surely you’d be supporting Trump already?
These undecided voters, are who Trump chiefly needs to target in this debate. With polling suggesting he is six points behind Clinton, and this being the final televised debate, he is rapidly running out of opportunities to appeal to undecided voters. This is where a debate strategy that involves continuous attacks on Clinton could fall flat. Undecided voters are tired of hearing about this. Instead, they want to hear about policy. With debate topics including: debt and entitlements, the economy, and foreign hot spots; both candidates have a chance to show off their policy ideas, in an attempt to woo some of these undecided voters. If Trump’s policy knowledge is as lacking as it was in the first debate, then he could well seriously struggle with this.
As well as appealing to swing voters, Trump needs to try and persuade the traditional GOP supporters, who are deserting him in droves, to vote for him in November. Polling currently suggests that traditionally safe Republican states such as Arizona, Georgia, Utah, and even Texas, are now considered toss-ups. It is the polling from Texas which will have most alarmed the Trump campaign. Although, there is a growing Hispanic population in Texas, it was still considered to be safe. Indeed, just one month ago Trump had a lead of eleven points in Texas, but this has now fallen to just four points, which is within the margin of error. Trump needs to be clear on his commitment to traditional Republican policies, otherwise he risks losing these kind of states. Given that he is already up against it in the swing states, losing perceived ‘safe’ states would be disastrous.
Equally, Trump has to ensure he appeals to those in the key swing states of Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, and Iowa. All in all, this means that Trump has to carry out an unenviable balancing act, to try and keep voters from many very different constituencies on side.
Given these competing priorities, it would be no surprise to simply see Trump fall back on his usual tactic of insulting the competition, but not actually offering much substance. He has already announced the slightly baffling news that he has invited President Obama’s half-brother, Malik Obama, to attend the debate. Malik has previously said that he supports Trump, but this invite feels just like a publicity stunt, much the same as when Trump invited Bill Clinton’s accusers to the last presidential debate. The stunt didn’t have an impact then, and it isn’t going to work now. Trump has a misguided knack of attacking people who aren’t on the ballot, at the last debate it was Bill Clinton, throughout the past week it has been Paul Ryan, and at this one it looks as though it will be Barack Obama. This isn’t going to do anything to help Trump in this election, and seems totally unnecessary.
Overall, this debate gives Trump one final chance to appeal to undecided voters in the swing states. This is the most important thing for his campaign, and is absolutely what he should be focusing on. However, things like inviting Malik Obama to the debate suggests that Trump is going to fall back on his strategy of getting the odd good soundbite. This hasn’t worked so far as a way of persuading swing voters to back him, therefore there seems no reason that it will work now. For populist actions like this, Trump can use his mass rallies to energise his base. There seems little point in using the final presidential debate to do what he can do in fifteen minutes at one of his mass rallies. Instead he must use his debate to put forward some substantial policy, or his chances in this election are numbered. The indications suggest that once again Trump will avoid actual policy, and as a result the Hillary Clinton campaign must be licking their lips, a result like this couldn’t be more perfect for them, as it further consolidates Clinton’s position as the only candidate in this race who has put forward any real policy.
With Clinton’s poll numbers now pretty good, all she has to do is turn up and perform as competently as she did in the first two debates. For Trump, he must now put forward some proper policy, or he has got no chance.
In recent days, Donald Trump has elaborated further on his claims that the Presidential election is being rigged. Many high-profile Republican politicians spoke out against the claims, with both Mike Pence and Marco Rubio (among others) rejecting Trump’s claims. Although naturally the claims were supported by Trump surrogate in chief, Rudy Giuliani, who said he, “would have to be a moron,” to say that the election in cities like “Philadelphia and Chicago is going to be fair.”
Despite Trump’s claims being denounced by the vast majority of politicians, opinion polling suggests a significant minority of voters actually believe his claims. Polling from Politico and Morning Consult suggests that 41 percent of voters believe that the election could be stolen from Trump.
The danger of this is obvious. If Trump is encouraging his supporters not to accept the result of the vote, then what is going to happen when he loses? There is certainly the potential for disorder unless Trump accepts the result of the election. In addition, if so many voters believe that these elections are not democratic, then what does that mean for the future of democracy all around the world? Especially given that the United States is often held up as a prime example of a working democracy.
However, I want to focus more on what effect this rhetoric could have on Trump’s electoral chances next month.
Trump has been using his ‘rigged election’ rhetoric for some time now, most notably suggesting that Ted Cruz had fraudulently stolen victory in the Iowa Caucus. Throughout the Republican Primary Campaign he used it to his advantage, mobilising his base to turn out in huge numbers to ensure his victory.
However, when it comes to the general election, Trump’s insistence that the election is rigged could have a different effect. I think that it could actually suppress his share of the vote.
There are many factors which influence voter turnout, but chief among these is the perceived competitiveness of the election in question. In the 2012 Presidential Election, voter turnout was 54.87 percent overall. However, this varied greatly depending upon which state you looked at. The turnout ranged from 76.1 percent in Minnesota, down to just 44.5 percent in Hawaii. But what was most notable was that turnout was generally higher in the so-called swing states. Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida all had turnouts above 60 percent. Whereas many of the perceived safe states such as Texas, West Virginia, New York, Oklahoma, and Hawaii were among the states with the lowest turnout. This strongly suggests that voters turn out in much greater numbers of they believe that their vote can truly make an impact upon the final result. This suggestion is corroborated by election data from around the world. In Russia, where election aren’t close to fair, turnout is extremely low. In this year’s legislative elections, turnout was just 47 percent, with turnout in the major cities (where people are generally better educated) being just 28 percent. A lot of this is down to the perceived illegitimacy of Russian elections. The perceived competitiveness of elections also played a part during the EU Referendum, where the Remain campaign chose to release a poll just before the election which showed them with a commanding lead. This was said to have contributed to a lower turnout than expected amongst remain backers (as some felt the result was safe). In contrast, the Leave campaign were able to get out the vote in huge numbers, and defied the polls.
Trump suggesting that the election is rigged could have a similar effect. If the election is rigged, meaning that your vote is irrelevant, then why bother casting a vote at all? You may as well just stay at home rather than venturing out to the polling station. Of course, the opposite could happen. Trump’s claims of a rigged election could persuade more voters to go to the polls in order to try and prevent the election being rigged. But, history suggests that when voters believe an election is a foregone conclusion, they often choose not to vote. If Trump’s base fails to turn out to vote, then he could be on track to receive a disastrous share of the vote. Given the difficulties that Trump already faces, and given that it is already highly unlikely that he can win this election, suppressing his share of the popular vote further would be a big mistake.
If Trump wants to retain any slim chance of winning in November, he should walk back on these claims of a rigged election. But this is Donald Trump we’re talking about, so don’t expect it to happen any time soon.