Why this year’s US election campaign was different

9. November 2016 | categories: Politics

The initial situation was actually clear. The politician-experienced Hillary Clinton competed against political newcomer Donald Trump. And yet it turned out differently than many expected. An analysis of the US presidential elections.

Money rules the world. Hillary Clinton was the clear leader in donations to the candidates. She was donated 497.8 million dollars, and Donald Trump received just 247.5 million dollars until October 19. Trump also spent less money on advertising than Clinton. For example, Clinton spent 400 million dollars on advertising in September, while Trump spent just 190 million. The money didn’t decide the US presidential election.

Clinton was the second most unpopular person in the history of the US presidential election. Just 40 percent believed she was a good president. 57 percent didn’t want her to be president. So actually without a chance from the very beginning – but she was lucky enough to compete against the most unpopular candidate. At Trump, only 35 percent thought he was a good president. 62 percent didn’t want him as president. An extremely unfavorable position to become president.

The election campaign then consisted mainly of negative campaigns against the other candidates to highlight their unpopularity. None of the candidates have an interest in attracting attention and being in the headlines themselves. That’s why Clinton also tried to distract attention when the FBI President James Comey came back with the email affair shortly before the election. But even the e-mail affair did not completely change the survey results before the elections. Most surveys tended to favour Clinton – only a little less trust in Trump. The clear result for Donald Trump is now all the more astonishing. The problem of social desirability could have played a role here. However, the primary elections showed that this was not the case. It doesn’t seem plausible that it was different now. Rather, it is assumed that the polls were weighted incorrectly because Trump was able to mobilise many non-voters who had never voted before. This group was underestimated in most surveys.

Even the campaign machinery would have spoken in favour of Clinton. So the Democrats have a huge database and have gone from door to door so that really everyone of their followers went to vote for Clinton. The mobilization measures were gigantic.

But how did it happen that Donald Trump was elected as president of the United States anyway and only quite clearly? It was anger at the establishment. The majority of Americans wanted a change. Clinton is part of the establishment. Trump, on the other hand, was not a politician but a successful businessman. He gave them the hope of change – “Make America Great Again”. Many voters – including former non-voters – wanted something to change. I guess that’s what made them decide for Trump.