Earthquake and Aftershock: [302771]

Earthquake and Aftershock:

The 2008 and 2016 US Presidential Elections

Student: [anonimizat]:

Andreea-Cristina Truica PhD. Octavian Roske

Table of Contents

Introduction ………………………………………………………………3

The Election Process in the U.S ………………………..…..…..5

US Presidential Elections in 2008: Obama vs. McCain ………..14

US Presidential Elections in 2016: Trump vs. Clinton.…………28

The 2008 electoral earthquake and 2016 aftershock victory…….42

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………..50

Appendix.………………………………………………………………..53

Bibliography ……………………………………………………………..57

Introduction

Presidential campaigns in the United States of America are very complex and in this thesis, I [anonimizat], the communication strategy and the final voting decision. [anonimizat], [anonimizat] 2008 and 2016 presidential campaigns.

In the first chapter, “The Election Process in the US”, I [anonimizat], party conventions and the media attempting to persuade voters. [anonimizat], because they elect the upcoming architects of their society. I [anonimizat], the influence of social networks and how the presidential elections are funded.

In the second chapter, “US Presidential Elections in 2008: Obama vs. McCain” I will discuss the 56th quadrennial presidential election held in 2008. [anonimizat], defeated Republican Party nominees John McCain and Sarah Palin. [anonimizat]. I will present a [anonimizat] a fundraising means for the candidat: [anonimizat]. [anonimizat].

In the third chapter, “US Presidential Elections in 2016: Trump vs. Clinton”, I will analyze the 58th quadrennial presidential election held in 2016. [anonimizat], [anonimizat]: Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. Each candidate offered a unique dimension to the campaign; Hillary Clinton was a [anonimizat], whereas Donald Trump introduced himself as an “ultimate political outsider”. In this chapter, I will review the background of both candidat: [anonimizat], [anonimizat] I examine their campaign themes and strategies.

In the last chapter, “The 2008 electoral earthquake and 2016 aftershock victory”, I [anonimizat]. I will emphasize how the main differences between the victories of the 2008 and 2016 campaigns are best reflected in the covers from newspapers and magazines from around the world. In this chapter, I will also focus on the political and social contexts in 2008 and respectively 2016, as a catalyst that generated the outcome of these elections. In addition, I will give an overview of the different campaign strategies employed by Obama and Trump and present the effect of social media upon the collective mentality in choosing one candidate or another.

I should highlight that the United States of America is a global reference in all its aspects: political power, economy, industry, global influence, military power, exports, financial capacity, to name just a few. Consequently, all the wise decisions and mistakes in choosing a president, will have ulterior repercussions in the rest of the world. The objective of this thesis is to point out the most important aspects of two political campaigns that influenced voters and led to the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and Donald Trump in 2016.

One of the most important characteristics analyzed, with a high influence upon the results, is represented by the US society. The existence of a very rich, poor and middle class, generated inequality and this aspect was taken into consideration when both Obama and Trump planned their campaign strategy and the messages for the electorate. Also, it is important to mention the desire of the voters to choose someone different from the previous administration, as they rarely look for the replica of the outgoing incumbent.

A second aspect examined is the rhetoric of Obama and Trump, in comparison with their opponents’ speeches. The country’s present outlook identifies current issues, while the future vision attempts to offer a credible solution to those problems. Consequently, candidates’ rhetoric during a presidential campaign strives to influence voters to see why a certain candidate would be the most eligible to elect.

Another topic analyzed is the use of social media as a new means of political communication and fundraising. With Obama’s 2008 campaign, the Internet created a revolutionary method for electoral propaganda. Obama set a new trend that was also followed by Trump, in which the online communication becomes crucial and the message transmitted manages to reach a large public.

Chapter I

The Election Process in the U.S.

The United States presidential election is one of the most important events in American politics. It is a complicated and interesting process that starts directly after the preceding election and does not end until voters make their choice. What occurs during this prolonged campaign is “a quest not just for votes, but also for political contributions, favorable media coverage, Internet attention, endorsements, and all the other makings of a winning candidacy for the highest elected office in America.” (LWV, 1).

Key events comprise the primaries and caucuses, the party conventions and the debates – needless to say all the speeches, poll and the media trying to persuade or dissuade voters. Free and fair elections are essential to any democracy. They guarantee that “that power passes in a peaceful, orderly manner from citizens to their elected representatives—and from one elected official to his or her successor.” (Friedman, 1)

When voters elect their leaders, they elect the future shapers of their society and this is the reason why ordinary citizens are empowered. They can have an impact on their own future by influencing the policies of their government. The United States has been a representative democracy since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788— “although the electoral tradition began during the colonial era and had its roots in British history”. (Friedman, 1)

While it is difficult to imagine today “disagreement over the adoption of the Constitution, there were interested parties in every state who opposed it at the time it was written. After the framers approved the document and submitted it for ratification, proponents and opponents emerged to point out its strengths and weaknesses”. (Adkins, 11)

George Washington was elected as the first president of the United States in 1789 and back then only 6% of the USA population had the right to vote. Only landowning men over the age of 21 had the right to vote. Today, this right is granted by the United States Constitution to all its citizens over the age of 18.

The key players in the United States elections process, apart from the candidates, are the people. According to the League of Women Voters’ Guide to the Election Process: “Voting is the great equalizer in American society. No matter how much money you have or who your friends are or whether or not you contributed to a particular candidate, you have one vote—the same as everybody else. And with that one vote, you have the power to influence decisions that will affect your life. Your job, your taxes, your health care, your Social Security, whether the nation goes to war, you name it—they are all at stake.” (LWV, 3)

Elections occur in “every even-numbered year for Congress and some state and local government offices in the US. Other states and local jurisdictions hold elections in odd-numbered years. Every four years, Americans elect a president and vice president. Every 2 years, Americans elect all 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and approximately one third of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate. Senators serve terms of six years each.” (Friedman, 3)

The U.S have a complex federal system of government, with a central national government. However, state and local governments overrule over matters that are not reserved for the federal government. Local and state governments have different grades of independence regarding the way elections are organized within their jurisdiction.

The Constitution established five categories of Federal elected officer: “the first two, Senators and Representatives, comprise the membership of bicameral Unites States Congress. The third, electors, are charged with the election of the President and Vice President, which comprise the fourth and fifth categories of elected officials established by the Constitution." (Coleman, 9)

Each of the 50 states has its own constitution and rules for state offices. Depending on the states, governors can serve two or four-year terms. In some states, judges are elected by the voters, whereas in other states, they are appointed to office. Thousands of public officials are elected – from governors to school board members. The only federal officials elected are the President and Vice President and the members of Congress (435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives + 100 Senators).

On the one hand, candidates for U.S House of Representatives must be at least 25 years old, have 7 years of U.S citizenship and be legal residents of the state they want to represent in Congress. On the other hand, U.S. Senate candidates must be at least 30, have 9 years of U.S citizenship and also be legal residents of the state they want to represent.

Types of U.S. elections

In the United States there are two types of elections: primary and general. Primary elections take place before the general election in order to determine who will be the party candidates for the general election. The winning candidates in the primary elections will represent the party in the general election. (Friedman, 4)

A candidate who wins a primary election is nominated by the political party he represents, for the general elections. However, in some few states, party candidates can be elected in local nominating conventions or in state, instead of primaries. This can be the option of the political parties or it is just tradition. As soon as the primary elections or conventions conclude, a general election takes place to determine the elected candidate to hold office. During the general elections, voters take the final decision by choosing from among the party candidates listed on the ballot.

The general election ballot “may also include independent candidates (who are not affiliated with a major political party) who gain access to the ballot by submitting a specified number of petition signatures, rather than by the traditional primary method.” (Friedman, 5)

In the U.S, elections are much more than just electing a candidate for public office. In some states, questions regarding public policy can be introduced on the ballot for either the approval or disapproval of the voter. Referendums (“measures referred to voters by state legislatures”) and initiatives (“placed on the ballot by citizen petition”) generally regard bond issues – “approving the borrowing of money for public projects” (Friedman, 6). Such ballot measures, have had significant impacts, in the recent decades, especially upon policies and state budgets.

The presidential elections are held every four years, in even-numbered years and take place on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. The requirements for holding an elected federal office are established by the U.S. Constitution. To serve as president, “one must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. A vice president must meet the same criteria” (US Department of State, 8).

In 1951, “the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified, which prohibits anyone from being elected president of the United States more than twice”. (US Department of State, 11) Also, under the 12th Amendment, the vice president cannot have served as president for two terms and cannot be from the same state as the president. The White House, located in Washington D.C. has been the official office and residence of the president, since 1800.

The role of political parties

The Founders of the American Republic did not envision a role for political parties when they drafted and ratified the U.S Constitution. “Indeed, they sought through various constitutional arrangements—such as separation of powers among the executive, legislative and judicial branches; federalism; and indirect election of the president by an Electoral College to insulate the new republic from parties and factions.” (Friedman, 15)

In its developmental period, American politics was highly influenced by the British model, familiar to the Founding Fathers, “in which a tradition of contending political factions developed as early as the late 17th century. By the time of the American Revolution, parliamentary politics in Britain was moving toward a two party system.” (Coleman, 28)

Based on their knowledge of the British system, the drafters of the U.S Constitution considered that parties created “counterproductive divisions within a nation” and candidates should not be judged on their party affiliations, but on their merits. However, political parties emerged with the westward expansion of the nation and the broadening of voting rights. Consequently, two major parties: Democrats and Whigs “became firmly established and powerful by the 1830s”. (US Department of State, 16)

Politics, fundamentally can be regarded as “a basic social process involving (1) the acquisition, retention and exercise of power; (2) the expression and management of conflicts; and (3) collective action. In each of these aspects of politics, political parties play a central role. Parties help determine who governs, who wins or loses public policy disputes, and the extent of the win or loss.” (Schaffner, 4)

Nowadays, the Republican and Democratic parties dominate the political scene and control the presidency, the Congress and state legislatures. Since 1852, every president has been either a Democrat or a Republican. The number of independent third-party members of Congress or of state legislatures is very low.

Nevertheless, the number of individual voters, who tag themselves as “independent” has increased in recent decades, but actually “lean toward one of the major parties and demonstrate considerable party loyalty in their voting.” (Schaffner, 2)

The “single-member” district system represents the standard arrangement for electing national and state legislators in the U.S. This means the candidate “who received a plurality of the vote (that is, the greatest number of votes in the given voting district) wins the election”. (Friedman, 19)

Most officeholders can be chosen with a simple plurality, even though a few states demand a majority of votes for election. This arrangement allows only one party to win in any given district. Under such a system, third-party candidates or parties with minimal financial resources have no chance to win any representation at all.

The Electoral College

Presidential electors are “collectively referred to as the electoral college, although this terminology does not appear in the Constitution." (Coleman, 12) They are the ones who actually elect the President and Vice President and this is their only function.

Almost all of the states grant their electoral votes on a “winner-take-all basis”, meaning that the candidate who wins the most popular votes in a state, receives all of the state’s electoral votes. “After the nationwide presidential election is held in November, the Electoral College meets in December. In most states, electors cast their votes based on how the majority of voters in their state voted. The electors vote in their states on December 15, and Congress officially counts the results in January”. (US Department of State, 33)

Every state is allocated a number of electors “equal to the number in a state’s congressional delegation, i.e., the number of representatives and senators from that state”. (Friedman, 21) This number is determined by a census that takes place every 10 years, when votes are redistributed among the states, based on population.

An important aspect is that “there is no limitation on the number of times a person can serve as an elector. The electoral college has no continuing existence, and it ceases to exist once it has performed its function.” (Coleman, 12) The District of Columbia has three Electoral College votes, although it is not a state and has no voting representation in Congress.

There are 538 electors in the Electoral College and 270 electoral votes are needed to win the presidential election. However, not always does the presidential candidate with most votes, wins the election. The most recent example is Hillary Clinton who won the popular vote, but lost the election.

The Media and Internet

Broadcast television, radio news, online newspapers and the mainstream print have a tremendous influence upon the presidential election process. Although they represent a traditional media, they are still reliable sources for the majority of Americans who get most of their information and news about the candidates from these sources. Television provides a medium through which people have access to political campaigns, by seeing and hearing the political debates. Television exposure is used by the candidates for presidency as a means to demonstrate their “popular appeal”. (Friedman, 41)

In recent years, however, candidates and their supporters are using the Internet as a campaign tool. It has turned out to be an efficient way to request funds from potential supporters and a great means to promote one’s policies and experience. According to Friedman: “emails and blogs we prominent in the 2008 presidential election. Social media such as Facebook and Twitter are playing a larger role in the 2012 election”. (Friedman, 52) Needles to say that the role of social media has increased even more in the 2016 presidential election.

Campaign organizations are exploiting the rising power of social networks and mobile devices in order to promote the candidates. Over the last decade, taking advantage of the technology, has changed the definition of “media” by “democratizing the process and allowing every-day citizens to shape the making of the news. Increasingly, candidates, supporters, voters and the media from all over the world are able to respond instantaneously to events as they happen”. (LWV, 5)

A debate is an event when candidates meet face to face with the purpose of answering questions. This represents the chance of a candidate to express his point of view and right of reply. A debate also gives viewers the possibility to compare the candidates and their positions. Debates generally take place in front of a live audience and can also be televised or broadcast.

According to The League of Women Voters, the most common formats for a debate are:

“• Single moderator: one moderator asks the questions;

• Panel: a panel of journalists or experts question the candidates;

• Town hall: questions are submitted by members of the audience or randomly selected voters, in person or by phone or email.” (LWV, 12)

How are presidential elections funded?

Friedman indicates that federal law dictates how candidates for the federal offices of president, senator and representative “may raise funds, from whom and in what amount”. (Friedman, 69) In the Unites States, presidential candidates raise enormous amounts – hundreds of millions of dollars – for their campaigns directed at a nation of more than 100 million voters.

First, fundraising is essential during a campaign because candidates can use these resources either to pay the wages for campaign staffers or for advertising. Second, “campaign money indirectly serves as a marker of viability that has the potential to influence other important actors, such as political elites, mass media, and primary voters, and their willingness to consider a presidential bid as legitimate.” (Mitchell, 28)

Although they can fundraise money from private sources, this process is highly regulated. “A candidate for president must establish a campaign organization, called a political committee. The political committee must have a treasurer and must register with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that only supervises and enforces campaign finance laws.” (Friedman 69)

Political committees, once registered, may begin raising funds for the campaign. Both funds and expenses are subsequently reported to the FEC on a quarterly or monthly basis. The federal law ensures transparency, the press and citizens have access to the names of the contributors of a given candidate. Those who raise their own funds must find thousands of contributors.

In 2010, a controversial Supreme Court ruling radically amended campaign finance law. Before the ruling, the law did not allow corporations and labor unions to spend directly to sustain or oppose candidates for president and Congress. “Groups of individuals were allowed to establish separate segregated funds in what are called political action committees (PACs) to make contributions to political parties or candidates’ campaigns without using corporate or union treasury funds. After the ruling, corporations and unions directly can spend unlimited amounts of money to elect or defeat candidates as long as they do not do so in coordination with the candidates’ campaign organization.” (Friedman 71-72)

The explanation why US presidential campaigns cost so much is that it is expensive to communicate for twelve or more months to a nation of 100 million voters. This requires hiring stuff, conducting research, arranging for office space and travel, advertising on radio, television and on the Internet, organize fundraising events and coordinate public appearances.

Candidates for president have the overwhelming task of coordinating their primary campaigns state by state and then, if designated, “their general election campaign throughout the nation”. Candidates in every presidential election since 1976 have been entitled to obtain public funds to ensure some of the costs of their campaigns. The reason behind public funding of presidential elections is “to make candidates less dependent on contributions from special interests and wealthy donors. Public money for presidential elections comes from a fund supported by the “taxpayer check-off” on individual tax returns.” (LWV 7)

Individuals may contribute up to $2,500 to a presidential candidate during the primary election campaign and another $2,500 for the general election, if the candidate refuses public financing for the general election. When a presidential candidate does not accept public funds, only the sky is the limit. According to author Joshua Mitchell, campaign donations are very important in the electoral process and they “serve as a barometer of citizen enthusiasm and trust; however, they also serve as a benchmark for the strength and cohesion of the political parties.” (Mitchell, 77)

According to author Elizabeth Drew: “with each election come innovations in ways that the very rich donate and the candidates collect and spend increasingly large amounts of money on campaigns. We are now at the point where, practically speaking, there are no limits on how much money an individual, a corporation, or a labor union can give to a candidate for federal office (though the unions can hardly compete).” (Drew)

How do Americans vote?

The contemporary political world is multifaceted and the diversity of subjects and candidates upon which a citizen should be informed, during a general election, is overwhelming. Consequently, “the voter is expected to make informed choices for officials at all levels and in several branches of government. There are choices for offices from president to county registrar of deeds, and issues from combating terrorism to the administration of county courts”. (Schaffner, 11)

At present, very few Americans use the traditional voting method: marking paper ballots by putting an “X” next to a candidate’s name. Now, optical systems that scan paper ballots on “which voters fill in circles or connect lines” are used. In recent years, the procedure adopted by various states is making ballots available to voters before the election. This trend began with provisions for absentee voters, who on the Election Day anticipated that they would not be present at their voting place.

Some states and local jurisdictions allowed their citizens to register as “permanent absentee voters” and receive the ballots mailed to their residence address. These voters usually send back their completed ballots via mail. In some states, citizens can vote up to 3 weeks before Election Day using the voting machines located in shopping malls or other public places.

Chapter II

US Presidential Elections in 2008: Obama vs. McCain

Background

The United States presidential election of 2008 was the 56th quadrennial presidential election and it was held on the 4th of November 2008. Democratic Party nominees Barack Obama (Illinois Senator) and his running mate Joe Biden (Delaware Senator) defeated Republican Party nominees John McCain (Senator from Arizona) and Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska). Barack Obama became the first African American president of the United States and also the first sitting US senator to win presidential election since John F. Kennedy (1960). Joe Biden, became the first Roman Catholic vice president ever elected. With the highest voter turnout rate in the last four decades, Obama/ Biden won 53% of the vote. (see Appendix – Figure 1)

John McCain

John McCain, the Republican nominee for the 2008 president election has a 50-year remarkable career as a naval officer, member of Congress and U.S. senator. McCain’s life story has been described by consistent fundamental traits, such as: “a willingness to speak his mind, an adherence to deeply held values and principles, a devotion to duty, and a fiercely guarded streak of independence.” (eJournal USA, 4) These traits have won him the admiration and support of millions of Americans.

The Almanac of American Politics describes him as “the closest thing our politics has to a national hero” – distinguished with Purple Heart, Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Cross, to name a few. He is considered to be one of the most prominent figure in the Republican Party and one of the most respected voices in the US Senate.

As a prisoner of war in Vietnam (POW), the concept of personal honor has been fundamental to McCain’s public and private persona. “In prison, where my cherished independence was mocked and assaulted, I found my self-respect in a shared fidelity to my country,” McCain wrote in his autobiography Faith of My Fathers. “All honor comes with obligations. I and the men with whom I served had accepted ours, and we were grateful for the privilege.” (eJournal USA, 4-5)

Running for President

McCain was reelected to the Senate in 2004, for a fourth term and was regarded as one of the strongest nominees for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. However, a large number of Republican contenders entered the race and started to organize in 2007 “for the year’s marathon of primaries and caucuses, the McCain campaign began to implode”, due to financial issues and problems with staff. Nevertheless, his firmness became fundamental to help him get through this difficult period. McCain followed the strategy recommended by one of his advisors “Stay in the race until you’re the last man standing”.

John McCain concentrated his efforts on the 8th of January in New Hampshire where he spent months and held 101 town hall meetings with the famous independent voters of this state. The result was a key victory over his major Republican rivals. Even though victories in other states were split between McCain, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, McCain strengthened his position as front-runner in the February 5 “Super Tuesday” primary election that took place at the same time in more than 20 states.

McCain won in populated states such as New York, California and Illinois, gathering a lead in delegates, unequaled by any of his rivals. On March 4, 2008 McCain crossed the threshold of 1,191 delegates by victories in Ohio and Texas, which secured his Republican presidential nomination.

Barack Obama

The first African-American candidate to presidency, Barack Obama, won the nomination of the Democratic US political party. With a life story different from that of any other nominee, by being the son of a Kenyan father and a white American woman, he came into public attention with a keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Obama was elected to the U.S Senate from the state of Illinois in 2004 and merely four years later, the Democrats nominated him for the White House.

Barack Obama stood out with a “polished speaking style, a command of eloquent and uplifting rhetoric, the ability to inspire the enthusiasm of young voters, and the sophisticated use of the Internet as a campaign tool”. He also demonstrated the ability to “wage old-fashioned political trench warfare as he ground through a long and sometimes divisive five-month primary season to defeat his chief opponent, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton”. (eJournal USA, 16)

Obama’s campaign emphasized two all-encompassing themes: the union for a common ground invoking Americans of different racial, social and ideological backgrounds and also replacing Washington’s traditional way of leading the nation’s business.

Obama said in his address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention: “There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America — there’s the United States of America,”; “There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. … We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”

Barack Obama attended Harvard Law School where he was elected the first black president of the famous Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude in 1991. He was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago and practiced civil rights law. “In 1992 he married Michelle Robinson, another Harvard Law graduate, and worked on voter registration in Chicago to help Democratic candidates such as Bill Clinton.” (eJournal USA, 18). In 1996, Obama won a seat in the Illinois state senate.

Running for President

The 2008 Democratic primary election campaign was a historic one, with a woman and an African American as the two front-runners for presidency. As Obama and 7 other candidates for the Democratic nomination started to organize in 2007, Obama constantly appeared second in the opinion polls, behind the apparent favorite, New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Nevertheless, Barack Obama was extremely popular in this early stage of the campaign at enlisting many supporters, mostly among youth, setting a nationwide campaign organization and getting funds through the Internet.

Due to the fact that Hillary Clinton had a “well-oiled campaign machine” and she took advantage of her famous name and also from the support of prominent Democrats, Obama’s camp developed an original strategy by focusing upon the states that used caucuses to elect delegates and targeted smaller states that by tradition voted Republican in the general election.

This strategy was successful and Obama scored a victory over Clinton at the Iowa caucuses on January 3, 2008. The Iowa win was a game-changer; as the Washington Post put it, “Beating Clinton … altered the course of the race by establishing Obama as her chief rival — the only candidate with the message, organizational muscle, and financial resources to challenge her front-runner status.” (eJournal USA, 18)

All the efforts were rewarded on the “Super Tuesday” (February 5) – when elections were held simultaneously in 22 states – and Obama battled Clinton to a tie and “swept” rural states in South and West. Moreover, Obama went to win 10 more consecutive contests in February, obtaining a lead in delegates never equaled again by Clinton.

On June 3, the exhausting race was over and the increasing support from previously super-delegates who were uncommitted by that time and a combination of a victory in Montana, ensured Obama the majority of delegates needed to settle the presidential nomination.

According to Erik Jones and Salvatore Vasallo, “the Clintons’ sway among Democrats, the historic nature of Senator Clinton’s candidacy, and the infrastructure her family had developed over two decades in national politics should have been impossible to beat” (16). However, Obama, the message he transmitted and his campaign machine overcame the Clintons in a heroic primary battle that became the political key event in 2008. The primary campaign meant more than earning the nomination for Obama, since the issues debated, the strategies developed and the arguments tackled during the primary brought Obama the victory in the general election.

At a victory rally in St. Paul, Minnesota, Obama told his supporters: “Because you chose not to listen to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another.”

Social Media

The 2008 U.S. presidential campaign gave an insight upon the applicability and influence of social media in the political environment of the United States. The role of social media managed to change the political landscape. Politics was changed and shaped by technology, using Facebook as a vehicle in the presidential campaign.

A candidate is able to mobilize youth voters and get closer to them. Internet allows a self-identification, everyone you link up to on Facebook, by knowing their location, their district, makes it is easier to identify where key supporters are, to mobilize them to get their own friends and do their type of social networking that Facebook facilitates. Mobilizing the votes becomes a much easier measure, but also leveraging mostly young people and also anyone using Facebook and other tool.

Social media such as Twitter, MySpace, YouTube and Facebook played a crucial role in the unfolding of the 2008 election. The Pew Internet and American Life Project reports that “a record breaking 46% of Americans used the Internet, email or cell phone text messaging to get news about the campaign, share their views and mobilize others”. (Journal of New Communication Research, 141). The same study indicated that 10% of Americans learned more about the race using social networks, such as Facebook and MySpace, while 35% of Americans watched political videos online. Comparing the previous campaign of 2004, in 2008 there was an important increase in the number of Americans who used social media as a part of the election campaign.

Peter Daou, Internet advisor for Hillary Clinton, writing about the 2008 campaign, observed, that “Virtually every online venue that played a role in the ’08 race provided a platform for public dialogue. Blogs, boards, news sites, YouTube, Twitter, and social networks large and small were inundated with millions of individual comments, the aggregate effect of which was to determine how voters viewed the candidates and the race.”

Traditionally it was about one to many, using big speeches with big key words, but now it is about intimacy, connecting with the candidate and making them feel that is a one on one. For many years, mass media used the model source-message-channel- receiver, model where “message originates with a source, is transmitted through a given channel, and is translated and distributed via a receiver with only limited opportunity for feedback.” (Journal of New Communication Research, 144)

This is how U.S. political campaigns operated, but this one-way model of media, in which the message was broadcast to the masses who received it incontestably, is vanishing with the beginning of the social media era that allows the audience to be freelance campaigners, more active and vocal.

As Delli Carpini indicates, “A democratically engaged citizen is one who participates in civic and political life, and who has the values, attitudes, opinions, skills and resources to do so effectively” (Delli Carpini, 397). Taking a look at statistics from the day before the general election, reveals that the Obama campaign was more active on the social media, compared to McCain’s campaign. On Facebook, Obama had 2,379,102 supporters, while McCain had only 620,359. On YouTube, Obama had 18 million channel views, in comparison with 2 million channel views for McCain. On Twitter, Obama had 112,474 followers to McCain’s 4,603.

Another study done after the election revealed that 37% of the young voters, aged 18-24, got election news from social networking sites and almost 25% of Americans watched something regarding the election in an online video. The Republican Party was even criticized for not using properly social media to reach young voters.

Apart from that, social media allowed voters to share their voting experience, by posting a notification on Facebook that they had voted, simply by ticking a box. Consequently, social media can be a cost-effective and highly relevant campaign vehicle if used properly and equally, the failure to take advantage of such a powerful resource can have serious and negative results.

Campaign fundraising and costs

Apart from its main propagandistic role, social media is also a means of raising funds for the candidates. Fundraising plays a dominant role in presidential campaigns and is a crucial element in determining the sustainability of candidates.

The money raised are used for the wages of non-volunteers in the campaign, media advertisements, campaign materials, transportation, etc. Candidates have the obligation to file campaign finance details with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) at the end of every calendar quarter, as per the United States law. Summaries of these reports are made public, shortly afterwards, disclosing the financial situations of all the campaigns.

According to the FEC 2008 presidential campaign financial activity release: “Financial activity of 2008 presidential candidates and national party convention committees increased 80% in receipts over the 2004 presidential election, totaling more than $1.8 billion. The Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (AZ), received $84.1 million in public funds to conduct his general election campaign and raised an additional $46.4 million for legal and accounting expenses. The Democratic presidential nominee, then-Sen. Barack Obama (IL), raised a total of $745.7 million in private funds for his primary nomination and general election campaign. It was the first time in the history of presidential public financing that a major party nominee declined to accept public funds for the general election.”

According to the campaign finance system, a presidential candidate can get a grant from the federal government to cover campaign expenses, only if the candidate does not spend more than the amount of the grant and does not accept any additional private contributions. The amount available for each candidate in 2008 was $84 million. For both Obama and McCain, the acceptance or refusal of public fund was a bit risky. By accepting it, it guaranteed that the campaign would have this amount, more than the public funds in the 2004 Bush and Kerry campaign ($75 million). However, the refusal of it, implied that the campaign might fail reaching $84 million or exceed the amount.

Obama bet that he could raise more funds and he was the first candidate to forgo the public financing system – system first put in place after Watergate. McCain was limited to $84 million during the entire general election, whereas Obama raised in September alone $150 million. For the entire campaign, Obama raised a record $745.7 million (raised both in the primary and general elections).

Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama created a new method of campaigning and a broad popular movement by obtaining donations through the Internet. It was a part of a campaign that mobilized common workers in every state. Obama gained support from a record-breaking number of small donors – 4 million individual contributors, as reported by the Obama campaign – and this helped him set fundraising records in more than one month.

This financial difference translated into $170 million on TV ads, whereas the McCain campaign spent only $61 million. This meant that more voters in more states saw Obama ads. Also, it implies that the Obama campaign had a better control over what the voters saw. “Obama’s money advantage allowed him to dominate in all forms of the media “air war”: television, cable, radio, direct mail, and even advertising in video games. He also dominated in the “ground war,” including the organization of field staff and offices. Obama had more staff and offices in more states than McCain.” (Jones, 108)

The Obama campaign put its fundraising to good use by extending the political battleground map, by spending resources in conventional battleground states and investing money in traditionally Republican states. McCain, instead, was forced to play defense in firmly red states and often could not match Obama's campaign field offices, local number of paid staffers and investment in paid media.

The Obama campaign also outperformed the McCain campaign in voter contact. Obama’s reputation as a new breed of politician, one able to overcome traditional racial divides, grew steadily. In a New Yorker profile of Obama, writer William Finnegan, noting Obama’s talent at “slipping subtly into the idiom of his interlocutor,” said Obama “speaks a full range of American vernaculars.” Obama offered his own explanation why he could connect with white voters. “I know these people,” he said. “Those are my grandparents. … Their manners, their sensibilities, their sense of right and wrong — it’s all totally familiar to me.” (eJournal USA, 18)

Interactional Rhetoric

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign character attacks were frequent and severe words were often used by the candidates for party nomination. According to the polls, voters perceived the negative tone of candidates’ speeches.

In the context of a political debate, candidates have a very different interaction and speaking style compared to everyday conversations, mainly because a debate style is rhetorical. This implies that what candidates say is addressed both to the audience and to the opponent.

Bilmes defines rhetoric as “the art of influencing the thought and conduct of one’s hearers by means of persuasive language” (Basta, Ewald, 3) highlighting that the persuasive success of rhetoric relies not only on the speaker’s style, words and delivery, but also on the interaction between opponents. Particularly in the case of presidential debates, “analysis of a speaker’s rhetorical style is inextricably linked to the way in which that speaker receives, processes, and deals with an opponent’s rhetorical style and vice versa.” Consequently, on the stage of a political debate, where candidates are considered to be equal, the main difference is represented by their arguments and not by their fortune or prestige.

In their speeches, both Barack Obama and John McCain take positive stand on climate change and the environment. They both accept that climate change is caused by man and Obama’s position is also reflected by Joe Biden.

Involving the public and attempting to create a connection between personal well-being and protecting the environment has been an assertion of both candidates’ environment policy; creating “green jobs” and the perspectives shaped by renewable energy and green technology were the key for a possible vote winner.

McCain said during the second presidential debate: “We can move forward, and clean up our climate, and develop green technologies, and alternate – alternative energies for – for hybrid, for hydrogen, for battery-powered cars, so that we can clean up our environment and at the same time get our economy going by creating millions of jobs”.

Obama replied in kind, saying: “And it is absolutely critical that we understand this is not just a challenge, it's an opportunity, because if we create a new energy economy, we can create five million new jobs, easily, here in the United States.”

John McCain’s campaign strategy

McCain admitted that transformation was an important part of the national political frame in 2008 and that the previous Bush administration was disliked. Consequently, he introduced himself as someone who would change Washington, and tried to dissociate himself from President Bush.

McCain presented himself as someone who could cooperate with members of both parties in Congress, giving numerous examples when he acted so during his lengthy career as a senator. He claimed that his background demonstrated that he, not Obama, would do a better job at leading an efficient bipartisanship. Still, his age and his long-term service in Washington, probably put many voters in doubt that he would be able to bring significant changes.

By choosing Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential candidate, McCain intended to underline change. Palin was a new face on the national stage and she was known for her ability to work very well with Democrats while she was governor of Alaska. According to the Republican strategists, Palin was an “independent maverick”, alike McCain. Although this option seemed to contribute to the Republican ticket initially, Palin's incapacity to have a good command of the issues and project knowledge, proved to be a drag on the ticket in the end.

McCain by talking about the moments when he did not agree with president Bush, tried to distance himself from the previous administration. Moreover, he criticized Obama for linking him to Bush, but McCain did not to criticize the Bush administration excessively, because this would have meant the alienation of the Republican base.

Maybe most significantly, McCain indicated that he was experienced and mature enough to become president and his opponent, Obama, was not. This approach implied presenting his own extensive record of military and public service, in contrast with Obama's short resume. Furthermore, McCain, in order to prove that he was a dedicated public servant, for whom the country is above his personal interests or his party, emphasized his military and political background. McCain highlighted his valuable experience in national security issues, indicating that Obama's lack of knowledge in this domain would be dangerous for the country.

Lastly, McCain claimed that Obama was “too liberal for America”. He rebuked some of Obama's main proposals, for instance health care reform, as increasing the role of government beyond what many Americans wanted. As well attacking Obama's views on certain public policy issues, the McCain campaign wanted to describe Obama as far to the left by enquiring about Obama's links to a 1960s radical, William Ayres. McCain’s campaign depicted Obama as “a naive, inexperienced political lightweight who would sit down with the leaders of anti-American regimes in Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela without preconditions”.

Obama’s campaign strategy

In contrast with McCain’s discourses, Barack Obama’s speeches meant hope, change and the American dream and this resonated with Democrat voters, mainly with those who never got involved in politics: minorities, teenagers and independent middle class. On top of that, it was in contrast with the negative vision of George W. Bush and his politics, the economic crisis that was approaching – with an increasing number of the poor and those losing their jobs and houses – and the unpopular war in Iraq.

His Republican opponent, John McCain had to carry the heavy burden of Bush’s presidency, while Obama was an outsider, who in contrast with Hillary Clinton, had never stood in the front line. Obama had an impressive eloquence and a new energy. Voters in 2008 were looking for someone different from the previous president. The editors of The New Republic reflected this dominant feeling when they noticed that Obama was the contrast of the incumbent he wanted to replace: “On the whole, he has turned in one of the most impressive performances in recent political history—demonstrating an ability to explain complex ideas in plainspoken English, impeccable managerial skills, evenness of temper, avoidance of sloppy errors, and pragmatism, not to mention that he can really deliver a speech.” (White, 214)

In order to create that perception, his team was carrying out an unprecedented campaign by that time. The whole campaign was a constant innovation, based on four basic lessons:

Showing up in all the states and challenging all his opponents

Focusing on small donations, but from many people (reaching the incredible amount of almost $750 million, 67% online, compared to McCain – $379 million)

Searching for the undecided and discontent public in an attempt to activate him and vote and get involved in the campaign

Creating a story of himself and integrate it into the story of the future country – the American Dream – and spreading this message by all means possible.

The campaign narrative of the Democrat candidate had challenged all the personal development stories that could be found in the deepest books of political communication analysis and storytelling. Obama was the perfect match and he had it all: he was as exotic as needed, but also, so close to the common citizen that he succeeded a perfectly balanced equation. The political communication of his campaign changed the modern political communication.

Obama managed to employ a bidirectional communication, active and direct with his supporters in such a way that for some moments it seemed that the intermediary factor became completely unnecessary. A good example of that is the election of his Vice President, Joe Biden. On Thursday, 21st of August 2008, Obama announced his nomination for Vice President, by SMS messages that he sent to his 3 million supporters, who signed in during the previous weeks to the campaign newsletter. This “mobile politics” was of his greatest predictions. There were no intermediaries between him and his voters.

This lack of intermediaries is also inextricably linked to the online strategy employed by Obama who was the first example of massive usage of social media in doing politics. Propagation is important, but more it is the relational capacity that it generates. Online campaign does not facilitate the vote in itself, since it already has it (the great majority it is represented by its own supporters and future voters who become friends of followers).

Obama’s team understood from the very first moment that the Internet and social networks had to be used for the campaign, just like the other marketing tools and the media. However, the network was not only dissemination (alike television or the rest of traditional means). The Internet worked differently. What the network allows is having an impact and give better information to its public, in order to activate them so that they can start campaigning by themselves, both on the Internet and outside. It meant involving them, making them participate, generate positive information about the party of the walls and personal profiles, to work in favor of Obama with their online contacts and their contacts on the street.

The online campaign also served as a platform to create activities with presence and visibility in the street: neighbor gatherings, supporter meetings, posters creation, etc. The great success of this strategy was that the postings on the network were reaching the street and multiplied exponentially its visibility.

The network and the different channels created in it served as platform to proliferate the good contents that the campaign was creating, at the same time they helped to propagate and take advantage of the contents created by its own supporters. Will.I.Am video “Yes We Can” was a good example of taking advantage of the external creativity for the campaign. That is the function of the 2.0 politics: connecting people through the links created inside the network and obtaining in return new ideas from the talent of ciberactivists.

The strategy was based on various premises:

Priorities – the main priority is represented by the supporters. They received directly the information, often before the press. The activist or supporter was the center of communication, to favor the perception they were truly involved in the campaign. Intermediaries were avoided. Emails were constant and customized.

Brand and coherent design. Same colors and symbols. Online: in social networks, twitter, webs. Offline: who did not wear the appropriate color, did not appear on TV or in the pictures. Same speeches, phrases and mottos read on Twitter and Facebook were on display in the streets.

Repetitions of the message (hope, yes we can, change…)

Fundraising: funds collection broke the previous records regarding presidential campaigns and changed the expectations for future elections. The campaign avoided using public funding and collected the whole amount from private funding, especially from the high number of individual contributors. This perspective regarding funds was also a part of the symbol and the message of his campaign: the whole nation united to change things.

New voters. Obama managed to increase the number of groups who did no tend to vote. He inspired people. Not only a vote or involvement in certain activities was requested, but also in the case of the most undecided the requirements were not direct: call a friend, donate 5 dollars, and watch a video. From these messages, 5 million were sent to the most undecided.

Community. It is not important who are those following a candidate, but their behavior, what activities, events and actions are offered. It is a sort of redefinition of the community and the role played in the campaign. New areas of participation are shaped. It is necessary to create opportunities in order to do something, act, get involved in the campaign and this was achieved through the neighbors’ network in the street and social media: Facebook, Myspace, YouTube and Twitter.

Video politics. YouTube became an endless source of campaign videos for spreading of Obama’s message in the social media. His most important act of promotion was broadcasting in prime time a 30 minutes announcement that cost 3 million dollars on various TV channels, just four days before the election. The attentively chosen audiovisual image of the candidate was a constant during the whole campaign.

Emotion. The whole campaign was filled with hope and change messages. And the messages were wrapped in music, happy images, optimistic speeches and frenetic activity.

Barack Obama’s team changed the way of doing campaign through a message and the means used to promote it and involving the citizens. That message managed to mobilize a generation of youngsters and new voters.

According to David Olive, what drives Barack Obama is “a keen interest in problems and how to solve them; an ambition to restore the American spirit after too many years of setbacks and doubt; and a goal — grandiose or imperative, history will decide — to transform the civic and political culture of the world’s oldest major democracy and rid it of the rancor, partisanship, and elitism that have characterized it for long stretches of time, such as this one, for more than two centuries”. (Olive, 1-2)

Obama’s speeches express his version of the American story and offer a reinvention of his country as a better place for the Americans and for the billions of people who live in the same world. While travelling to every part of the country, he introduces himself, his wife and children, in order to get a connection with voters, who alike him, want a better future for their families.

Americans were hungry for the new vision Obama defined and “record numbers of young voters, dismissed as chronically alienated, plus African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, women, seniors, and veterans registered to vote in the Democratic primaries, some for the first time, some for the first time in decades” (Olive, 6)

Chapter III

US Presidential Elections in 2016: Trump vs. Clinton

Background

The United States presidential election of 2016 was the 58th quadrennial presidential election and it was held on the 8th of November 2016. Republican Party nominees: businessman Donald Trump (Illinois Senator) and his running mate Mike Pence (Indiana Governor) surprisingly defeated Democratic Party nominees: Hillary Clinton (former Secretary of State) and Tim Kaine (Senator from Virginia).

Each candidate offered a unique dimension to the campaign; Hillary Clinton was a former First Lady highly qualified in politics, yet an unpopular figure, whereas Donald Trump introduced himself as an “ultimate political outsider”. Although she won the popular vote, Hillary Clinton lost in front of Donald Trump who won 304 electoral colleges to Clinton’s 227. (see Appendix – Figure 2)

Candidates’ brief description

Donald Trump

Before entering politics, Donald Trump was a real estate mogul and a former TV personality. Born in the borough of Queens, New York, in 1946 Trump became involved in huge, profitable building projects in Manhattan. The Grand Hyatt New York he opened in 1980 made him the city's most renowned developer. In 2004, Trump gained prominence by starring in the hit NBC reality series The Apprentice, a reality television game show. Also, he owned the Miss Universe and Miss USA beauty pageants from 1996 to 2015. In 2017, according to Forbes magazine he had an estimated net worth of $3.5 billion.

Running for President

Trump turned his attention to politics and in 2015 he announced his candidacy for president of the United States on the Republican ticket. Member of a financial elite, although still regarded as an outsider, Donald Trump’s brand of plain-spoken politics attracted many Americans who felt disappointed by traditional leaders. After winning a majority of the primaries and caucuses, Trump became the official Republican candidate for president on July 19, 2016. That November, Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States, after defeating Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Rodham Clinton was born in 1947 in Chicago, Illinois. She was a former first lady (1993–2001) during the administration of her husband, Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the United States, between 1993-2001. She was also an American lawyer, a politician who served as a U.S. senator (2001–09) and the 67th U.S. secretary of state (2009–13) in the administration of President Barack Obama.

According to CNN, “Hillary Clinton has lived in the public eye for parts of five decades, emerging as the first woman to be the presidential nominee of a major American party. To many, though, Clinton remains an inscrutable figure – a trailblazing feminist icon in some corners, she has long been a target of scorn and suspicion from her political opponents.”

Running for President

When Hillary Clinton was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2001, she became the first American first lady to ever win a public office seat. In early 2007, Clinton announced her plans to be the first female president. During the 2008 Democratic primaries, Senator Clinton passed the nomination when it became obvious that nominee Barack Obama held a majority of the delegate vote.

When Clinton interrupted her campaign, she made an address to her supporters. “Although we were not able to shatter that highest and hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you it has 18 million cracks in it,” she said, “and the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time, and we are going to keep working to make it so, today keep with me and stand for me, we still have so much to do together, we made history, and let’s make some more.”

In 2016, as the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, she became the first woman in the United States history to win the presidential ticket of a major political party.

Social Media

According to R. Kay Green, author of the article The Game Changer: Social Media and the 2016 Presidential Election published by Huffington Post: “the ability to reach the millennial demographic is an important component to campaign efforts. And the reason why, is simply because young adults are shifting more of their attention online to social networks. Candidates are naturally incorporating social media in their campaigns to stand out to millennials.”

Barack Obama was the first president to have a great influence on social media, before it became as omnipresent as nowadays. His “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) on the famous networking site Reddit, became very rapidly one of the most widespread threads.

The objective of the 2016 campaign was to access young voters and minority groups which turned out extremely efficient in the 2008 and 2012 elections. Because these campaigns were successful, the majority of presidential candidates became very active on Twitter and Facebook.

Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and other candidates even have Instagram and Snapchat “to reach the growing number of users who prefer these platforms. Both are actually the first candidates to use Snapchat to announce their bid for the presidential nomination.” (Green)

Social media carries a huge influence over the electorate and both candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, use social media to their advantages, but mostly the influencers and the supporters are those who mold perspectives, in accordance with any views that could serve their favorite candidate’s interests.

Government entities and politicians admit that the propagation of information and the sense of obligation that journalists feel to reveal secrets, frequently leaves news media overcome. For instance, Trump’s statement in Iowa in 2016, at a campaign rally “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot people and I wouldn’t lose voters”, underlined that he could say anything and still keep media interest in his campaign. This affirmation generated weeks of coverage which made his statement more credible.

On June 16th of 2015, “Trump told the crowd in a lengthy and meandering 45-minute speech that hit on his signature issues like currency manipulation from China and job creation” (Diamond, 2015). During his campaign, Trump used his global business connections and his fame as a television presence to gather all the attention. According to CNN journalists Brian Stelter and Ken Olshansky, “Donald Trump's Republican campaign for president has received more nightly news attention than all the Democratic campaigns combined” by ABC, NBC and CBS, according to the Tyndall Report.

The nightly news coverage for Donald Trump averaged 234 minutes, from January to November of 2015, in comparison with his fellow’s Republican candidate Ted Cruz who only received 7 minutes. Hillary Clinton averaged, during the same time frame, approximately 117 minutes of coverage. According to the general perspective this was due to Trump’s capacity to continuously generate provocative comments on social media and in the public.

The 2016 campaign enhanced political culture on the internet by creating new strategies for permanently developing social networking services. Hillary Clinton’s campaign announcement on Twitter: “I’m running for president. Everyday Americans need a champion, and want to be a champion. – H” was a defining moment in political dialogue in social media.

This tweet signifies a change in previous campaign policies, when a candidate reached out to a TV source or to the press in order to make his candidacy announcement. However, this was not applicable for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, who created a new model for campaign strategies and political outreach.

The effect that traditional news media and the presidential candidates had upon social networks such as Facebook and Twitter generated issues in understanding the opinions of users. News media and candidates focused too much on imprecise online influences without previously analyzing the sources of information.

For instance, the effects that bots had on social media debates interrupted traditional media coverage. According to researchers Alessandro Bessi and Emilio Ferrara “bots are driven by algorithms and maintain artificial identities that copy the behavior of humans on social media sites”. These bots can share or post information that can be either positive or negative, regarding a candidate. The news shared reflect the agenda that bot creators defined. Consequently, the information generated can be fake and not representative of the real feelings of the population.

The study conducted by Bessi and Ferrara on Twitter conversations during the presidential debates held between September and October of 2016, reflect that more than 400,000 accounts used for political speech were possible bots. According to the “study group of over 20 million tweets, this equated to almost 15 percent of the population which were responsible for 19 percent of the total conversations.” According to experts, the influence exerted by social media in the 2016 presidential election is stronger than ever and the information cycle generated will define the future campaigns.

According to research from Ipsos Mori, “social media has the potential to have more of an impact for 18 to 24-year olds. More than a third (34%) of this group indicated that reading something on social media would influence their vote, second only to televised debates. This is yet another reason why the presidential candidates are increasing their ad spending budgets on social networks.” (Green)

There are various reasons why social media has become such an important instrument. More people than ever gather their news mostly from social media such as Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat. The easiest way for a candidate to make news is to post a comment or to write a statement on a social network. Previously it was a secondary means of communication, but currently the candidates can just post and get other people “work” for them, by sharing their messages around. Now it is extremely easy to reach millions of people and consequently, with each presidential election, presidential candidates from both Republican and Democratic parties are pushing hard, employing social media, to win voters to their campaigns.

Donald Trump’s reach was unprecedented and he got it for free in tweets, shares and likes, even though not all of them were positive. Without the help of social media, he should have bought ads which would have cost him a fortune.

Due to the advent of online social media, the spread of information and the tools of democratic discussion have fundamentally modified. Online platforms have been broadly acclaimed for the impact on the democratization of discussions about politics, social issues and strategy. Nevertheless, many studies have also emphasized the dangers inextricably linked to the abuse of these platforms, such as: misinformation, manipulation and spreading of unverified information.

Campaign fundraising and costs

Although he lost the money race, Donald Trump defied traditional belief, overcoming better financed candidates by leading the air waves for free. Trump also invested his own money, personal assets and setup of his personal business in a unique way.

According to an article published in Bloomberg Magazine, Donald Trump “donated $66 million of his own money, flew across the country in his private jet, and used his resorts to stage campaign events. At the same time, the billionaire was able to draw about $280 million from small donors giving $200 or less. Super-PACs, which can take contributions unlimited in size, were similarly skewed toward his opponent, Hillary Clinton.” (Bloomberg Politics) However, Donald Trump although he raised less money than his opponent Hillary Clinton and any major party presidential nominee, was the winner of this race.

In the same article, the authors mention that “Clinton and her super-PACs raised a total of $1.2 billion, less than President Barack Obama raised in 2012. Her sophisticated fundraising operation included a small army of wealthy donors who wrote seven-figure checks, hundreds of bundlers who raised $100,000 or more from their own networks, and a small-dollar donor operation modeled on the one used by Obama in 2012.”

Although Hillary Clinton invested a lot of money in advertising, her fundraising campaign was not sufficient to overcome Trump’s capacity to lead the airwaves and headlines. According to the data taken from the Federal Election Commission, the total receipts and total disbursements for Hillary Clinton were of $585 million, whereas the total contributions were of almost $409 million. For Donald Trump, the total receipts were of $350 million, whereas the total contributions were much lower – only $152 million. Total disbursements were of $343.

According to the Huffington Post journalist, Kay Green, “spending on social media will doubtless increase to encourage more people to vote and the presidential candidates will be more active to reach their target demographic. It can also be said with certainty that the candidates will continue to leverage social networks to generate support and even raise funds”.

It is obvious that social media has become a great instrument and a game changer. Consequently, the influence of social media will continue to grow and impact “each presidential candidates’ chances of winning the election”, both in terms of influencing voters, but also raising funds. (Green)

Rhetoric

A campaign speech of a candidate for the presidential race is an extremely important element of his or her strategy to defeat the opponents, gain the audience and ultimately win the presidency. However, in the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump, an atypical candidate, shocked the voters and the analysts with a completely different approach and strategy.

When Trump accepted the Republican Party’s nomination on July 21, he affirmed: “Our Convention occurs at a moment of crisis for our nation. The attacks on our police, and the terrorism in our cities, threaten our very way of life. Any politician who does not grasp this danger is not fit to lead our country.”

However, that same week, Hillary Clinton depicted a brighter image: “We have the most dynamic and diverse people in the world. We have the most tolerant and generous young people we've ever had. We have the most powerful military. The most innovative entrepreneurs. The most enduring values. Freedom and equality, justice and opportunity. We should be so proud that these words are associated with us. That when people hear them, they hear… America.”

These conflicting descriptions of America should not surprise voters at all. As someone coming from the interior, as former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton wants to reassure American that the country is on the right path; whereas the newcomer Donald Trump gathers momentum by indicating that America is in shreds and must be released from the incompetent hands of the present administration.

According to linguistics and psychology professor Julie Sedivy, “less obvious is the fact that the two candidates’ opposing versions of reality are also the scaffolding that support their contrasting rhetorical styles—Clinton’s cool, brainy language versus Trump’s hot, from-the-belly delivery.”

The speaking styles of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton cover very few ranges, “each falling at opposite ends of the spectrum of emotional intensity”, in contrast with the former president of the United States, Barack Obama, who can juggle between “cerebral discussion and stirring oratory” and still sound natural in both.

Donald Trump’s discourse is a mixture of verbal intensifiers and his style is instinctual (he mentions that he will make your children “very, very safe” and get a “much, much better deal” in renegotiating NAFTA). Also, he points many of his phrases directly at his listeners (Immigration, he says, “means people pour in and take your jobs. Whether you like it, or don’t like it, they take your jobs.”). In addition, Trump employs too many adjectives, he says he will build “an impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful, southern border wall”.

Clinton, instead, is controlled and distant. Her language is overloaded with concepts that are cleared of emotion, as professor Sedivy says: she will “restore fairness to our economy” and with neutered verbs (she will “ensure” that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes)—for Trump, there is no “ensuring”; he vows to “make Mexico pay” for his very, very physical wall.”

Clinton frequently employs into “we” statements, when talking about her opponent, rather than “you” statements—: “He may have some new people putting new words in his mouth… but we know where he stands.” Trump instead, employs the pronoun “you”: “They’re talking to you, they’re playing you, but believe me, you know the answer.”

As stated by general stylistic indicators, Trump uses an unpretentious and direct communication style, less complex formulations, employing short sentences and a limited vocabulary. In the oral form, Trump commonly employs verb phrases (verbs and adverbs) and pronouns, whereas Clinton prefers a more descriptive style (more prepositions and nouns).

The terminology associated with each candidate discloses their distinguishing style, for example repetition and negativity for Trump. Clinton’s rhetoric uses more cognitive words, whereas Trump employs more often negative emotions.

According to research conducted by David Clementson, “what matters more to voters, is the context in which the words are spoken; what voters look for in a presidential candidate is a level of language intensity that matches their own sense of urgency about the political and economic realities of the day. Emotionally potent language makes sense in a crisis, but comes across as irrational during more tranquil times.” (Sedivy)

Consequently, unless Clinton and Trump can develop their rhetoric as to sound authentic, they are trapped depicting a distorted version of reality—Clinton has to be optimistic, whereas Trump has to be in crisis. This is the main reason why their speeches are so contrasting and they cannot reach an agreement. When Trump says that Michigan’s car industry is “a total disaster,” Clinton contradicts him by saying, “The auto industry just had its best year ever.” When Trump addresses African Americans, “You’re living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no job,” Clinton emphasizes “black-owned businesses” and “historically black colleges and universities”.

Clinton has revealed bigger predisposition than Trump to moderate her representation of America in a manner that opposes her main rhetorical style, admitting that there is still “too little social mobility”, “too much inequality”, “systemic racism” and a need for “more equity and opportunity in communities of color.”

Trump, however, had a measured rhetoric, during one of his visits to Mexico, but he returned to his favorite “barn-burning style” that same evening in Arizona. A huge difference between his Arizona speech and his written speech in Mexico indicate that each time Trump deviates from his teleprompter, he dives deeper into the hot zone.

In his presidential announcement speech, Donald Trump copied Ronald Reagan’s promise to make America great again: “So, ladies and gentlemen, I am officially running for president of the United States, and we are going to make our country great again.” This campaign slogan captured in four words mixed feelings of pessimism and optimism, fear and hope. This slogan goes back to the “golden age of greatness” and it implies that Trump will restore what has been lost (Smith).

Trump told the crowd in a long 45-minute speech that hit on his signature issues like “currency manipulation from China and job creation”. “We need a truly great leader,” he also mentioned before indicating several times his abilities as a negotiator.

Trump indicated his great plans from new infrastructure (“We're becoming a third world country!”) to erecting a massive wall on the border with Mexico “I will build a great wall—and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me—and I’ll build them very inexpensively”, which he said he would have Mexico pay for, and also mentioned the need of a plan to defeat ISIS. Trump’s comments when he announced his campaign for presidency depicts a typical example of his incoherent speaking style.

“Sadly, the American dream is dead,” Trump said at the end of his speech. “But if I get elected president I will bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before.” President Donald Trump does not sound like an impressive orator and his sentences are repetitive, improvised, simplistic and grammatically awkward.

Although the announcement was met with widespread derision, Trump got the votes to become president of the United States. For example, late night host, Stephen Colbert, stated in a satirical clip, “This will be the finest, most luxurious gold-plated, diamond-encrusted campaign that will give hope to a weary nation until together we reach that fine fall day when the new season of Celebrity Apprentice premieres.”

Journalist Olivia Goldhill, presents in her article “Rhetoric scholars pinpoint why Trump’s inarticulate speaking style is so persuasive” the reason why according to scholars, Trump’s speeches resonated with many Americans.

According to Richard Wilson, professor of anthropology and law, who has studied the language of demagogues worldwide, it is not unusual “for populist politicians to speak in such a clunky style”. “They use unusual speech patterns and ungrammatical phrases and long pauses—and it kind of pulls you in,” he says. It’s what makes him stand apart from other politicians.”

Wilson states that there are two reasons why this style of speech is producing results: “They [populists] want to speak like regular folks and so they often use phrases that are ungrammatical so as to seem popular,” he indicates. “But they also do it because it forces us to listen more closely.”

Since Trump’s style is so unclear, voters have to be more attentive to understand his words. Consequently, a bigger focus implies that listeners are prone to be convinced. However, the audience can still evaluate the speech by passing it through the filters of their own judgment—but it still gives a plus.

Edward Schiappa, professor of rhetoric and media at MIT, observes that Trump’s simple language resonates with some voters who believe that politics is straightforward. “People who don’t have time or the inclination to do much research or thought about certain topics think they can be solved simply—’build a wall,’ ‘bomb the hell out of them,’ ‘buy American,’” notes Schiappa. “These are simple ideas that seem to address problems that bother a lot of people”. By being straightforward and sounding honest, Trump displays his trustworthiness.

Also, Trump has other speaking habits, says Wilson, such as disgust and repetition, habits encountered also in demagogues. For example, Wilson indicates that Trump shows disgust in his remarks about Mexicans and women. Disgust is “a powerful emotional tool in creating an in group, and scapegoating outsiders by blaming them for any problems.”

According to Sabato, another important aspect for Trump’s victory and also employed in his speeches is represented by racial resentment: “while Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential elections was one of the most shocking upsets in modern political history, it can be seen as the natural outgrowth of the racial realignment that has transformed the American electorate since the 1970’s.” (Sabato, 202)

Also, repetition is a means employed by all politicians as a rhetorical technique, but Trump exaggerates. This never-ending repetition implies that even totally unfounded declarations are stated in the media. Wilson gives as example Trump’s repeated comments about Clinton’s emails of how repetition can be effective. “It was continually repeated, again and again, by Trump,” he says. “To the point where people think, ‘I keep hearing it, so something must be there.”

Clinton had to deal with criticism and controversy after it was discovered that she had used her personal email, while she was Secretary of State, to handle official governmental business. In the discourse held the United Nations, Clinton admitted that she had used her personal email for “convenience as allowed by state department protocol.” However, she deleted the messages that could be interpreted as personal and handed in all governmental correspondence to the Obama administration.

Hillary Clinton’s strategic approach was to continue Obama’s policies and positioned herself as a female politician with an outstanding portfolio of accomplishments: “I am so looking forward to working with the congressman to make the changes and continue the progress that we can build on the record and accomplishments of President Obama.”

At the South Carolina Primary Victory Speech, Hillary Clinton briefly presented her program to make America whole again; hence giving the opportunity of equal chances, dignity and justice for all Americans. Also, she emphasized her stand to continue the economic measures taken by the preceding President, Barack Obama. Clinton mentioned the importance of love and kindness, for a better future and also presented herself as a skilled leader who can bring progress in the American economy. Also, in her speech made a reference to Donald Trump’s slogan “Make America great again” and to the wall that Trump wants to build at the border with Mexico.

“Despite what you hear, we don’t need to make America great again: America has never stopped being great. But we do need to make America whole again. Instead of building walls, we need to be tearing down barriers. We need to show by everything we do that we really are in this together.”

According to journalist Zeke Miller, in his article for Time magazine, 6 topics formed the backbone of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign themes:

Economic inequality. Clinton focused, alike Barack Obama during his 2012 campaign, on the escalating bridge between the rich and the poor. While accepting a prize at Yale Law School, the candidate said that the nation “must reverse this tide of inequality that is eating away at the social fabric of our country.”

Youth empowerment. Hillary Clinton mentioned the importance of having healthy kids and loving families. “They’re the building blocks of a strong and prosperous society,”

Selfless ambition. Clinton embraced, alike may politicians, the classical cliché of American electoral politics of the “do-good political martyr”: “When you think about why people run for office in these times — if it’s only about yourself, if it’s only about you wanting to get a job and the perks that go with it, and having people stand up when you come into the room, that’s not enough anymore because it’s hard… Politics is hard.”

– The Washington outsider. Hillary pointed out the importance of a previous political background, making references to Donald Trump: “Recently in Washington, unfortunately, we have seen examples of the wrong kind of leadership, when politicians choose scorched earth instead of common ground”. “When they operate in what I call the ‘evidence-free zone,’ with ideology trumping everything else.”

Civility. During a speech held at the University of Buffalo, while dealing with a heckler, the candidate underlined that the future: “doesn’t include yelling … it includes sitting down and talking.” Also, when asked about the NSA’s (National Security Agency) debated surveillance programs, Clinton mentioned the need for more open discussions regarding this topic: “We need to have a sensible adult conversation about what is necessary to be done, and how to do it, in a way that is as transparent as it can be, with as much oversight and citizens’ understanding as there can be”.

International experience. Clinton often includes anecdotes from the years as Secretary of State during the Obama administration. For example, at Chatham House, she recalls a call between Chen Guangcheng, a Chinese activist, who was helped by Clinton and other U.S. officials to leave China with his family: “He called me from the van on the way to the hospital and said, ‘If I were there, I would kiss you.” (Miller)

In his article for Business Insider, journalist Colin Campbell, lists some of Trump’s campaign themes that were mentioned during his speech at Trump Tower in Manhattan, if he won the presidential elections.

Trade deals. Trump mentioned the Trans-Pacific Partnership and repeatedly emphasized that countries like Japan, China and Mexico were “killing us economically”:

“Our country is in serious trouble,” he said. “We don't have victories anymore. We used to have victories, but we don't have them. When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say China, in a trade deal? I beat China all the time. All the time. When did we beat Japan at anything? They send their cars over by the millions. And what do we do? When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo? It doesn't exist folks; they beat us all the time.”

Healthcare. In Trump’s opinion the Obamacare was “the big lie” and criticized the huge expensive $5 billion website who does not work and according to him “Obamacare kicks in in 2016 really big league. It is going to be amazingly destructive. Doctors are quitting”. Consequently, Trump asserts that healthcare legislation should be replaced with something less expensive and better for everyone.

ISIS. Regarding this delicate topic, Trump mentions that he would push them back to the Middle East, by encountering a military genius, who could make it possible.

Unemployment. Trump underlined that the big unemployed rate is also dues to international trade because people from other countries get American’s people jobs: “That's right, a lot of people up there can't get jobs. They can't get jobs because there are no jobs. Because China has our jobs. And Mexico has our jobs. They all have our jobs.”

Education. Trump mentioned that education in the US had fallen behind “third-world countries”. He said the American public was “tired of spending more money on education than any nation in the world per capita — than any nation in the world. And we're 26th in the world. Twenty-five countries are better than us at education. And some of them are like third-world countries.”

The US nuclear stockpile. Trump complains that US nuclear weapons are not updated and the governments should invest in this domain. “Our enemies are getting stronger and stronger every day,” he said. “And we as a country are getting weaker. Even our nuclear arsenal doesn't work. It came out recently: They have equipment that's 30 years old. They don't even know if it works.”

Social Security. Trump vowed to protect SS spending from any cuts. “We've got Social Security that's going to be destroyed if somebody like me doesn't bring money into the country,” he said. “All these other people want to cut the hell out of it. I'm not going to cut it at all. I'm going to bring money in and we're going to save it.”

Infrastructure. Another important topic, that need to be improved is the infrastructure system and Trump, advertised his success as a real-estate developer to indicate how he could rebuild airports, roads and bridges cheaper than they are constructed at present. “It will be done on time, on budget, way below costs, way below what anyone ever thought.”

Chapter IV

The 2008 electoral earthquake and 2016 aftershock victory

The main differences between how the people and the press perceived the victories of the 2008 and 2016 campaigns in the Unites States are best reflected in the covers from newspapers and magazines from around the world.

Bob Staake, creator of both The New Yorker covers, depicts in the first image “Reflection”, the hope he felt with Barack Obama’s 2008 victory (see Appendix – Figure 3). The second one, describing Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, describes a colossal red brick wall and implicitly the sense of fear (see Appendix – Figure 3). While the first image shows optimism, the second one alludes to Trump’s campaign promise to build a wall at the border with Mexico. According to New Yorker editor-in-chief David Remnick: “The election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is nothing less than a tragedy for the American republic, a tragedy for the Constitution, and a triumph for the force, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny, and racism”. (Mark, 2016)

Although not all the newspapers and magazines could portray so expressively on their covers, as The New Yorker, we can definitely notice a change of perspective, if we compare the covers of Obama’s victory to the ones with Trump’s. The US media was more restrained than the rest of the world, but mainly they described the historical aspect of Obama’s victory, the first black American to be elected president, in contrast with the surprise and shock caused by the triumph of Trump.

While Obama makes history and his election leads to a national catharsis, as depicted by The Washington Post, see Appendix – Figure 4, the unexpected election of Donald Trump is simply mentioned as a mere “triumph”. One the one hand, Obama is depicted together with his family, waving flags behind him and black people crying of joy for this historical moment when racial barriers fall in a decisive victory. On the other hand, we have the image of a solitary Trump and his Vice-President, Mike Pence, as to suggest the lack of support and distrust of the American people. The triumph of this 70-year-old mogul, without any government experience, translated into a strong rejection of the establishment forces that fought against him.

Time and New York Post picture Obama with great pride and in awe, calling him Mr. President, underlining that “Change has come to America” and his election made history, see Appendix – Figure 5. However, there is no joy in presenting the results of the 2016 election – called “The upset election” when unfortunately, the least probable scenario came true: “They say it couldn’t happen”, see Appendix – Figure 6.

In the rest of the world, more concern is felt towards the Republican, as reflected for example in the Apocalyptic cover of Der Spiegel, see Appendix – Figure 7 or in contrast between the American Dream and the American Psycho shown by Libération, playing with the title of Bret Easton Ellis’ novel (see Appendix – Figure 8).

From the very beginning of his electoral adventure, Obama knew how to sell himself, not only as the candidate of change, but also as a real icon who represented progress and the hope for a better life for the new North-American generations. His speech resorted to fundamental changes, transforming politics and replacing the existent establishment. Obama acknowledged diversity and assimilated those features as typical for Hispanic and Afro-Americans, not by their origins, but for their condition as American citizens.

Obama stood out through his remarkable rhetoric and his books: “Dreams from my Father” and “The Audacity of Hope”, which managed to create a profound channel of communication. By telling his history and talking about his origins, touched his readers’ hearts and created a connection with them. Obama’s victory was regarded as historical and as an earthquake, because it meant change and hope and it brought a new kind of President at the White House.

The 2008 presidential elections were extremely important not only because they represented a change on a political level, but because big part of this change was due to the great turn taken by the means of communication, especially the political marketing and the electoral propaganda. In this respect, 2008 meant a revolution in employing social media for transmitting an electoral message.

Barack Obama’s campaign is an example of a new political marketing. Technology and Internet were used to differentiate from his opponent and to appropriate attributes such as creativity and dynamism. During this electoral campaign, new possibilities offered by these new means were exploited, such as: ubiquity, message personalization and instantaneous message transmission to reach a large public. The campaign strategy was intended to create closeness and credibility, based on a message generated from the basis, surrounding the control pyramid that traditionally ruled political communication.

For the first time in history, a candidate focuses his strategy on this new technology of information, a combination of meticulously planned activities, in which the online communication becomes crucial and manages to transmit a candidate’s message to a great number of voters. Obama set a new trend, followed also by future candidates, such as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Before Obama, the television and the radio were the principal means of political communication, but with the 2008 campaign, the Internet turned into the queen of these means. The Obama brand and a campaign built on simple elements and sensitive messages was the key to reaching the objective of gaining the elections.

Marketing and the increasing advertising through cell phones became more and more diverse, and consequently Barack Obama’s campaign was designed mainly for the use of mobile communication. Mobile phones technology represented a new market to be exploited and all the text messages sent via cell phones had a greater impact due to the great number of users. Obama envisaged it and used it as an additional means to inform his campaign followers. Consequently, he became a pioneer for this new type of political campaign.

For the Democrats, also focusing on the youth was crucial, because they were extremely active online and they were a great promoter for the one who could connect with them. In order to promote juvenile participation, Obama mobilized public persons, singers and actors such as: Eva Longoria, Leonardo di Caprio, Jennifer Aniston, Bruce Springsteen. He obtained the support of great political personalities, such as Kennedy family or the ex-president Jimmy Carter, among others, who legitimized his campaign. Also, the talk show host and actress, Oprah Winfrey was a great supporter who promoted Obama’s project.

The campaign designed for Barack Obama, did not only have a political or social background with topics such as: war, racism, migration, social security, inequality, economic crisis and women role. Everything turned into the basis of a great project to offer the people a “change”. Marketing offered the tools to do it and besides the traditional means of communication, the new technological era was the perfect scenario for the developments of an excellent campaign.

To summarize Obama’s strategy 4 concepts are important to mention:

Obama’s campaign, the first electoral campaign of the 21st century, was the outset to unite the candidate and his message in order to create a brand.

A simple communication strategy based on the election of a few central communication concepts: “Hope” and “Change we believe in”, linked with a powerful slogan “Yes we can”.

Innovative use of new communication technologies to promote his candidature.

Massive involvement of the young generations in the campaign.

Obama was very wise in elaborating his promises and did not base his messages in the name of the oppressors and the oppression, but on the contrary. He looked for an equal treatment, based on hope and peace and his message was directed to the Latins, Afro-Americans and migrants in order to stop discrimination.

A highly important aspect influencing the results of the elections was the US society. The existence of a very rich class, a poor and a middle class generated inequality and this aspect was taken into account at the moment both candidates, Barack Obama and Donald Trump planned their campaign strategy and the messages directed to the electorate.

While Barack Obama steered away from political controversies, Donald Trump’s approach was completely opposite. He attacked the media, his opponent Hillary Clinton and the celebrities supporting her. According to journalist Donovan Mccomb-Gray: “While both used social media to speak to their audience, Trump sought to spark debate by announcing hard right-wing policies; this campaign fed off negativity and hate, it sought polarising views, it aimed to anger and as a result it got people talking, it created rallies, protests and petitions – it made Trump’s candidacy known and his ideologies clear.” As a consequence, a great many people resonated with Trump’s values and supported them.

During Obama’s campaign, the United States of America was a country in crisis, facing many social differences, the state did not provide a quality health and education system, did not guarantee a decent life, had big financial issues from George W. Bush’ previous government and a war “legacy” in Iraq. This war started in 2003 and Bush justified the invasion in Iraq with the attempt to discover mass destruction weapons that could represent a threat for the country. After the invasion, the support of the American people started to continuously decrease.

Needless to say, George W. Bush had a valuable contribution to Obama’s successful campaign, due to his politics against terrorism, his unilateral military actions which made the people to long for peace inside and outside the United States. Obama’s opponent, John McCain, as a Republican and member of the previous administration, followed by the “shadow” of Bush had a very difficult task to convince the electorate. Consequently, Barack Obama had the advantage of being a promising figure, completely different from the former administration, with a great rhetoric that captivated the audience. The change promised by Obama and his positivism made the people hope again for a better future.

Also, the result of the 2016 presidential campaign could also be justified by the desire of the electorate to choose someone different from the previous administration. According to David Gergen, senior political analyst for CNN, Trump is “the most unconventional figure either party has put forward in modern times”. What the electorate saw in Trump was the ability to reverse the national direction, for being a successful businessman and a maestro of marketing.

As Gergen analyzes: “Frequently, voters turn to candidates whose strengths compensate for the weaknesses of the sitting president. Thus, we elected Jimmy Carter because he seemed honest, a sharp contrast to the Nixon years. Then we turned to Ronald Reagan because he was an antidote to Carter's vacillation. After eight years of George W Bush's plain talk, voters were inspired by Barack Obama's soaring calls. Now, after the Obama years and a string of broken promises by their own leaders, many Republicans believe Trump gets it and will act decisively to address their frustrations. That he is unconventional and outrageous says to them he is real, not a phony.” (Gergen, 2016)

David Axelrod, mastermind of Obama’s election wins, wrote in the New York Times: “Open-seat presidential elections are shaped by perceptions of the style and personality of the outgoing incumbent. Voters rarely seek the replica of what they have. They almost always seek the remedy, the candidate who has the personal qualities the public finds lacking in the departing executive.” (Smith, 2016)

The astonishing and shocking victory of Donald Trump, against all odds, was due to various factors. According to The Guardian newspaper, one of them was by using a simple message, just like Obama. “Trump copied and recast Ronald Reagan’s promise to make America great again. The slogan harks back to a supposed golden age of greatness – the 1950s, perhaps, or the 1980s – and implies that it has been lost but then promises to restore it.” Americans believe in their country and because of their patriotism, they somehow feel that America has been betrayed by the political elites.

Also, Trump’s celebrity and the perception that he was a successful businessman, made him trustworthy. According to Trump’s biographer Gwenda Blair, his celebrity capital was due to “10 years of being in front of the American public being the boss, being CEO, hiring people, famously firing people, being the guy who can fix it, the one who knows everything, being the big authoritarian patriarchal guy.” (Smith, 2016)

Another important aspect is represented by his opponent, Hillary Clinton, whose unpopularity rating kept rising: “As the wife of a former president running to succeed a two-term Democrat, she was the ultimate face of the establishment in a year that was all about change. The lack of enthusiasm compared to Barack Obama’s rise in 2008 was palpable.” Also, the FBI investigation of Clinton’s use of private email server during her period as a secretary of state, played a key role in the perception of the electorate.

Moreover, despite Trump’s outrageous statements regarding women, Mexicans, Muslims, African Americans, disabled people, many people agreed with him and the media only amplified these voices. Consequently, it seemed that racism “has not withered away, but rather in some cases has intensified, since the election of the first African American president.”

The aspect of racial resentment is an extremely important factor: “By 2008, there was a yawning gap between white Democrats and Republicans on this scale. That gap would grow even wider by 2016. But it is important to note that the increase in racial resentment among white Republicans did not occur suddenly after Obama’s emergence on the national political scene in 2008. Instead, racial resentment rose steadily over this entire time period. It was not Obama who sparked the rise in racial resentment among white Republicans, rather, it was the growing visibility and influence of African Americans and other nonwhites within the Democratic Party along with ongoing efforts by Republican candidates and strategists to win over racially conservative white voters by portraying Democrats as soft on crime and favoring policies benefitting minorities at the expense of whites such as welfare and affirmative action.” (Sabato, 204)

According to Matthew Lassiter, Associate Professor of History at the University of Michigan: “Donald Trump’s direct attacks on racial and religious minorities, in particular but not only Mexican and Muslim immigrants, associated his campaign with white nationalism in ways that had seemed no longer within the acceptable boundaries of mainstream politics in modern America.” As stated by The New York Times, Donald J. Trump won the presidency “by riding an enormous wave of support among white working-class voters” (Cohn, 2016). Polls could not anticipate the tremendous turnout of white, working-class voters in key states.

The key factor for Trump’s decisive result of the election was represented by the voters in the Rust Belt – the “region in the US where economic decline, population loss, and urban decay have left the once booming area desolate of industry”.

According to MSNBC political reporter, Alex Seitz-Wald: “Free trade agreements like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – the massive new trade deal with a dozen Pacific countries currently pending approval – make it easier for countries to move goods and operations across state lines. But while many economists say such deals benefit the economy as a whole, they can have hugely disruptive effects on communities and workers.”

The states in the Rust Belt region – mainly Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were crucial to winning the election. With this target electorate, Trump made many claims to revitalize steel, coal and car industry in these areas where it had been in decline for decades. Trump blamed China’s economic policies, and the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs to locations in Asia, due to cheaper labor and Obama’s trade deal policies. Consequently, people voted for Trump because they felt their losses could be overturned, they could get their jobs back and manufacturing could prosper again.

Although Donald Trump could seem the antithesis of Barack Obama, they resemble in two aspects: they were both anti-establishment candidates and they won the elections due to surpassing their opponents in the social media. Trump who according to Reuters, twitted more than any other candidate during a presidential election, had 4 million more followers on Twitter that Hillary Clinton and 5 million more than her on Facebook. Due to this he was more exposed online and his posts were more shared, until he became the person most talked about on the planet.

Trump admits: “The fact that I have such power in terms of numbers with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc … helped me win all of these races where they’re spending much more money than I spent.” His messages were very much amplified due to social media and although they could have represented fake news and were not true, people propagated them to a such extent that everyone believed them. Consequently, this social media strategy was very successful.

If in 2008, Barack Obama massively won the elections, in 2016, Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million, the highest margin in history and still became president of the Unites States.

In 2008, Barack Obama won a decisive victory over McCain, winning the Electoral College and also the popular vote by a sizable margin (365 to 173). With 365 electoral votes, Obama also received the largest share of the popular vote, 52.86% to 45.60%, representing – 69.5 million votes and still standing as the highest number ever won by a presidential candidate.

In comparison, in 2016, Donald Trump, although he won 306 electoral votes to 232 won by Hillary Clinton, lost the popular votes by 2.9 million. Consequently, Hillary Clinton had the largest popular vote margin of any losing presidential candidate (48.5% votes to Trump’s 46.4% votes), according to CNN.

Conclusion

Both 2008 and 2016 US presidential elections made history for several reasons: on the one hand, Barack Obama was the first African-American president, transcending centuries of slavery and segregation, and was perceived as a symbol of hope. On the other hand, Donald Trump was the first American president with such a controversial background, that many members of his own political party withdrew their support.

The fundamental cause for the instability of current American politics is the inability of either Democrats or Republicans to come up with tangible solutions to improve the economic conditions of the poor and working class, mainly pay cuts and inequality growth. Barack Obama and Donald Trump are two opposing characters who employed distinct campaign strategies, had a contrasting rhetoric and different approaches to solve the key issues of the American system. While Obama, a graduate from Harvard Law School, was a master of rhetoric, Donald Trump had a businessman rhetoric, with short and blunt phrases, many times aggressive and outspoken.

Barack Obama’s speeches meant hope, change, unity and he attempted to bridge the cultural gap between the red and blue states, pleading for equality, highlighting that Americans are one people and transmitting his version of America as a better place for everyone. A record number of Americans voted for his vision, some for the first time and others for the first time in decades.

In contrast, one of the main elements in Donald Trump’s discourse was his anti-immigration crusade, promising to reduce illegal migration, to build a wall across the border with Mexico and apply travel bans in order to protect the citizens of the United States. Although these views represented an offense to moral values and to the US Constitution, Trump turned to his advantage the resentments of a great part of the American population against the immigrants and the refugees.

A key factor for the results of the presidential elections was the status quo in America in 2008 and 2016 and the desire of voters to choose someone different from the previous administration. In 2008, Obama’s perspective was in contrast with the negative vision of George W. Bush and his politics. The context of an unpopular war in Iraq, the economic crisis that was approaching and the increasing number of the poor, influenced the victory of Obama who had a new energy and a promising vision for America.

In 2016 the US citizen’s disappointment regarding the American economy was the catalyst pushing the votes in favor of Donald Trump. Many sectors of the US working class felt represented in his speeches, because they shared the same view that due to globalization and technological progress, millions of people had to deal with wage reduction and job loss.

During his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama took a positive stand of climate change and the environment and he admitted that climate change is caused by men. In contrast, during the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump asserted that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive” and this was part of his strategy to earn the votes of those who lost their jobs on behalf of globalization.

Another difference between the 2008 and 2016 presidential elections was represented by the accuracy of the exit polls. In 2008, the public polls unanimously predicted an Obama victory. However, in 2016 the exit polls and the majority of political analysts viewed Hillary Clinton as the winner of the 2016 election and the victory of Donald Trump, a big surprise to many, questioned the accuracy of the surveys taken. Also, a great part of the votes in favor of Trump were interpreted as a sign of protest and anger against the current political class, according to many analysts. The states with a long democratic tradition that in 2008 voted for Obama, voted for Trump in 2016 and this was decisive for the victory of Trump. The vote was led mainly by white voters without a college degree.

Obama’s 2008 campaign has changed the way of doing politics and raising funds, creating a revolutionary method for electoral propaganda that requires a great deal of networking and socializing, both in the online and real environment. The same trend was also followed by Donald Trump who employed social media to transmit his messages.

Also, the contrast between how the press and the people perceived the victories of the 2008 and 2016 campaigns was best reflected in the covers from newspapers and magazines worldwide. While Obama made history and his election led to a national catharsis, the newspapers depicted optimism and hope. In comparison, with the election of Donald Trump, the newspapers reflected the concern and fear regarding the future of The United States.

Nevertheless, if in 2008, Barack Obama massively won the elections, in 2016 Donald Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million, the highest margin in history and still became the president of the United States.

Trump was the ultimate protest vote and according to film-maker Michael Moore: “Across the Midwest, across the Rustbelt, I understand why a lot of people are angry. And they see Donald Trump as their human Molotov cocktail that they get to go into the voting booth on November 8 and throw him into our political system. I think they love the idea of blowing up the system.” (Smith)

Obama’s succession by Donald Trump reinforces the fluctuations of racial progress and resentments in the American political landscape and how angry populist revolts succeeded over the conventional political hierarchy. Also, it reflects that the intensity of racial conservatism is entirely national, rather than southern. The growing gap between rural-metropolitan areas is more significant than the regional state-by-state classification so wrongly emphasized by the red and blue election maps and the “winner-take-all” electoral college system.

Consequently, it is essential to examine what generates country’s profound divides, because “many undemocratic features structure polarization into the political system: gerrymandered House districts, the malapportionment in favor of small states and less demographically diverse areas in the Senate and by the electoral college, and the ability of organized interest groups (and now media-fueled candidacies) to manipulate the interminably long primary process.” (Lassiter)

The American two-party system is frequently unable to produce the results that illustrate the political choices of an American majority and it is fundamental to keep in mind that in 2016, a supermajority of voters was clearly displeased and felt aversion towards both candidates.

Appendix

Figure 1. Results of the American presidential election. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica. Inc.

Figure 2. Results of the American presidential election. 2016. Encyclopædia Britannica. Inc.

Figure 3. The New Yorker. Covers from November 2008 and 2016

Figure 4. The Washington Post. Covers from November 2008 and 2016

Figure 5. Time. Covers from November 2008 and 2016

Figure 6. New York Post. Covers from November 2008 and 2016

Figure 7. Der Spiegel. Covers from November 2008 and 2016

The president of the world: what he wants to do – and what he can(not) do// The end of the world (the way we know it

Figure 8. Libération. Covers from November 2008 and 2016

An American Dream// American Phycho

Bibliography

Volumes

Adkins, Randall E. The Evolution of Political Parties, Campaigns, and Elections: Landmark Documents. Congressional Quarterly Inc., 2008, Washington, D.C.

Baker, Peter. Obama: The Call of History. Callaway, 2017

Boller, Paul F. Presidential Campaigns: From George Washington to George W. Bush. Oxford University Press, 2014

Coleman, Kevin J., et al. Presidential Elections in the United States: a Primer. Novinka Books: 2001, New York

Delli Carpini, M.X. Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications on citizen’ involvement in political and civic life. ed. L. L. Kaid, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 2004, New York

eJournal USA. Elections 2008: The Candidates. U.S. Department of State / October 2008 Volume 13 / number 10, Washington D.C.

Friedman, Michael Jay. USA elections in brief. Bureau of International Information Programs U.S. Department of State, Washington D.C: 2012

Jones, Erik and Salvatore Vassallo. The 2008 Presidential Elections: A Story in Four Acts. Palgrave Macmillan: 2009, New York

Metzgar, Emily and Albert Maruggi. Social Media and the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election. Journal of New Communications Research. Vol IV Issue 1 – Spring/ Summer 209

Mitchell, Joshua, et al. The Political Geography of Campaign Finance: Fundraising and Contribution Patterns in Presidential Elections, 2004 -2012. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015

Olive, David. An American Story: The Speeches of Barack Obama. ECW Press: Toronto, 2008

Sabato, Larry, et al. Trumped: the 2016 Election That Broke All the Rules. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017

Schaffner, Brian F. Politics, Parties, and Elections in America. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012

White, John Kenneth. Barack Obama’s America: how new conceptions of race, family, and religion ended the Reagan era. The University of Michigan Press, 2009

Web sources

Allison, Bill, et al. Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race. Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 9 Dec. 2016, www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising

Bernstein, Carl. Who Is Hillary Clinton? CNN, Cable News Network, 10 July 2016, https://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/10/opinions/hillary-clinton-biography-carl-bernstein/index.html

Bessi, Alessandro, and Emilio Ferrara. Social Bots Distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Online Discussion. First Monday, 7 Nov. 2016, http://firstmonday.org/article/view/7090/5653

Campbell, Colin. Here Are the Big Ideas in Donald Trump's Presidential Campaign. Business Insider, Business Insider, 16 June 2015, http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-2016-campaign-ideas-2015-6

Caroli, Betty Boyd. Hillary Clinton. Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 22 Feb. 2018, www.britannica.com/biography/Hillary-Rodham-Clinton.

Cohn, Nate. Why Trump Won: Working-Class Whites. The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 Nov. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html

Diamond, Jeremy. Donald Trump Is Running for President in 2016 – CNN Politics.

CNN, Cable News Network, 17 June 2015 https://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/donald-trump-2016-announcement-elections/

Drew, Elizabeth. How Money Runs Our Politics. The New York Review of Books, 4 June 2015, www.nybooks.com/contributors/elizabeth-drew/

Gergen, David. Gergen: Trump Win Is History in the Making. CNN, Cable News Network, 4 May 2016, https://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/03/opinions/indiana-primary-result-gergen/index.html

Goldhill, Olivia. Rhetoric Scholars Pinpoint Why Trump's Inarticulate Speaking Style Is so Persuasive. Quartz, Quartz, 22 Apr. 2017, https://qz.com/965004/rhetoric-scholars-pinpoint-why-trumps-inarticulate-speaking-style-is-so-persuasive/

Green, R. Kay. The Game Changer: Social Media and the 2016 Presidential Election. The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 16 Nov. 2015, www.huffingtonpost.com/r-kay-green/the-game-changer-social-m_b_8568432.html.

Lassiter, Matthew. “Putting the 2016 Election into Historical Context.” Process: a Blog for American History, 5 Dec. 2016, www.processhistory.org/historians-panel-2016-election/

Mark, Michelle. The Latest New Yorker Cover Presents an Ominous View of a Trump Presidency. Business Insider, Business Insider, 11 Nov. 2016, www.businessinsider.com/november-21-new-yorker-cover-gives-an-ominous-glimpse-of-trumps-presidency-2016-11

Mccomb-Gray, Donovan. Social Media on the Campaign Trail: How Obama and Trump Got the Upper Hand. Contentgroup, 2 Mar. 2018, https://contentgroup.com.au/2017/09/social-media-campaign-trail-obama-trump-got-upper-hand/

Miller, Zeke. 6 Presidential-Campaign Themes Hillary Clinton Is Test-Driving. Time, Time, 24 Oct. 2013, http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/24/6-presidential-campaign-themes-hillary-clinton-is-test-driving/

Sedivy, Julie How Their Rhetoric Could Doom Trump and Clinton. POLITICO Magazine, POLITICO LLC, 9 Sept. 2016, www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-clinton-rhetoric-reality-214233

Seitz-Wald, Alex. Why Trade Matters in the Rust Belt. MSNBC, NBCUniversal News Group, 12 Mar. 2016, www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-trade-matters-the-rust-belt.

Smith, David. How Trump Won the Election: Volatility and a Common Touch. The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 9 Nov. 2016, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/how-did-donald-trump-win-analysis

Stelter, Brian, and Ken Olshansky. How Much Does Donald Trump Dominate TV News Coverage? CNNMoney, Cable News Network, 6 Dec. 2015, http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/06/media/donald-trump-nightly-news-coverage/

The League of Women Voters (LWV). Electing the President – A guide to the Election Process. The Lyons Press, 2008, URL: https://www.nieonline.com/dispatchnie/downloads/resources/electingThePresident.pdf