The election of 2016 is most unusual. It has no precedent in modern American history. It deserves serious attention and analysis on a number of levels. The meaning of the election for a restrained conception of democratic leadership equal to the task of leading the world’s greatest power constitutes the essence of the race. The issues range from domestic anger and political deadlock to international crises, fundamental concerns that will take insightful and experienced leadership. In these regards, each of the major party candidates can be said to have problems if of a decidedly different nature.

The election and more specifically, the manner in which it was conducted, raises a number of questions. Among these, and among the more fundamental, is whether it is a blip, an aberration and exception in the long life of national elections, the manner in which they have been conducted, and the underlying dynamics that have come to explain the major efforts. Or, alternatively, 2016 could be an introduction to future such races, with political parties lacking influence of any magnitude and voter discontent turning to the more radical and unrestrained of candidate alternatives with consequences yet to be seen for the operations of a democratic state. One thing is clear and that is considerable voter anger in both parties over the manner in which elected officials have largely ignored their real needs and in particular those associated with the economic well-being, of major segments of the population. The discrepancy between the promises and agendas of the candidates and parties over the last half century and the operations and priorities in office of those who would emerge as the winners in elections has much to do with the level of current discontent. The candidate races in both parties in a strikingly different manner serve to illustrate the argument.

Briefly, and beginning with the most atypical, the contest in the Republican party would come to challenge our assumptions as to how electoral contests are or should be conducted. The Republican race began two years or more before the actual election with a large, and mostly undistinguished, field vying for the party’s nomination. At this stage or later the party and its mainstream elements would have little impact on the outcome. In contrast, prospective candidates began a series of early interviews with conservative billionaires with the money to invest in campaigns and the motivation to effectively determine the nation’s political future, the fruits of the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United (2013). The conservative Fox News sponsored a series of early debates that culled the field, establishing an “A” list of contenders and a “B” list of also-rans. Within this context, Donald Trump, a self-reported billionaire real estate developer and casino and golf course owner, quickly emerged as the frontrunner. Trump’s campaign had little formal organization or policy content. It was based on intuition, a familiarity with how television worked and invective directed at the other potential frontrunners. It worked well enough to secure Trump the party’s nomination although possibly less well in the general election to follow. Only 17% or so of voters participate in the primary phase. The broader general electorate begins to tune in after Labor Day and the rules and expectations consequently change.

The Democratic party had its presumptive nominee early on. A Super Pac had been created to supply the funding for a successful campaign and not incidentally to ward off potential challengers to Hillary Clinton. It appeared to work until, most unexpectedly, a 74-year old senator and self-proclaimed “Democratic Socialist,” Bernie Sanders, decided to challenge the centrist Clinton. Sanders’ surprising success, both in fundraising and electoral appeal, pushed Clinton to the left and made for a more competitive, if still one-sided, race than any could have anticipated. What the Sanders’ campaign did demonstrate was the level of anger and feeling of abandonment among large sectors of the Democratic coalition particularly strong among the young. It also indicated how far centrist/right the Democratic party had drifted.

With Trump and Clinton winning their respective parties’ nominations the general election will come down to a contest between two of the least popular candidates in the modern era. Each has high negatives as to “trustworthiness,” Trump leading. In itself, this is one more curious aspect of a complicated campaign. 

The consequences are unpredictable. If Trump wins (he is not the favorite, but who knows), what his actions and behavior will be like is impossible to judge. He has no policy positions, domestic or international, of note, that is beyond sending all immigrants in the U.S. illegally back to their original countries and building a wall on the Mexican border (to be paid for by Mexico). Also, it should be said he likes Putin and feels our Western European allies have not been paying their fair share of costs. Hillary Clinton is experienced, tough, highly intelligent and a workaholic. She likes the military option first in most crisis situations. She has been an advocate for Wall Street and has seen little wrong with international trade agreements (globalization) or the economic polarization that dominates American politics. She moved left on those issues under pressure from Bernie Sanders in the primary campaigns. The question is which Hillary will show up, the “new” 2016 Clinton or the Clinton of previous times. As noted, neither candidate is trusted by a majority of the voting public.

A wild and unprecedented campaign could lead to a presidency of confusion and an ill-prepared candidate (Trump) or one advocating policies it was elected to change (Clinton). Much to come…

William J. Crotty is Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. Chair in Public Life and Emeritus Professor of Political Science at Northeastern University, Boston. He is presently editing and co-authoring a book, Winning the Presidency 2016 (London: Routledge) to be published in early 2017. The book is the most recent in a series on presidential elections over the past few decades.

Image: Michael Vadon CC BY-2.0