3. U.S. Presidential Election of 2016: The Trump Campaign & Cambridge Analytica The controversially sardonic republican Donald Trump dominating the stage with immoderate statements on immigration and foreign policy, winning him a presidential election in the world’s most powerful and influential country is rather stranger than fiction. Trump’s remarkable rise from a mere political perspective to a trend, as seen in other Western countries, where outspoken outsiders have challenged and even defeated the political elite is simply unbelievable. His opposition, the democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, was someone with a high political pedigree as a former Secretary of State and US senator, and the then incumbent president Barrack Obama’s backing. …show more content…
Cambridge Analytica focussed its efforts on persuadable voters by providing valuable information to the Trump campaign’s activities in getting them to vote for him. This was how they identified swing states in the election and got Trump to hold rallies there. • Cambridge Analytica produced heat maps of persuadable voters, voters who had not made the decision yet. For instance, the state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin is a state that is traditionally a very safe democrat seat. So much so that the Clinton campaign never visited the state of Wisconsin in the entire election. Nevertheless, they were able to use data to identify that there were very large quantities of persuadable voters there that could be influenced to vote for the Trump campaign, and had five rallies there. • An Electoral College is not an easy one for any candidate in the race. The candidate could lose the popular vote and still be the president because of Electoral College votes. This is what happened in the case of Trump’s election. The digital team built a model, the “Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory”; to weigh and rank the states that the data team (Cambridge Analytica) believed were most critical to amassing the 270 electoral votes Trump needed to win the race. On oct.18 2016, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia were top on the list, all of which Trump went on to …show more content…
Cambridge Analytica was undertaking 3000-4000 thousand polls a month in order to inform reporting dashboards to help the campaign understand its resource allocation and to inform their predictive models about the audiences they needed to engage. The weekly polls provided a very powerful insight into tracking the electorate. When Trump’s Access Hollywood tape with Billy Bush was broadcast on national television, his ratings went down in some states while went up in others. Therefore, the digital team was quick to communicate this to the campaign and thereby they could allocate resources in a targeted
Any statistic is prone to manipulations and error depending on the intentions of the source. For example, to increase the sale of a newspaper during an election, newspaper companies put out conclusive headlines that a candidate is leading in ballots. The journalist might reach a conclusion by assumption or by sampling few members of the community whom they voted for in the election. Subsequently, they reach an inaccurate conclusion. If ballot papers are stolen, or voters vote more than one time, data will be in error, and the wrong candidate will emerge as a winner of the election.
Walter E. Williams discuss how Hillary Clinton blamed the electoral college for her losing the presidential election. Williams stated that many individuals believed that the electoral college is dangerous when it comes to American politics. Individuals also claims that there are three electoral votes, or one electoral vote per 200,000 people in the state of Wyoming which was another factor that weight in the presidential election. In California, one electoral vote equals 715,000 people. Williams also stated that there a lot of individual who complain about using the electoral college since they believe that it’s undemocratic.
As these statistics serve as evidence, they help validate the logic behind Bruni’s wish to educate the reader on the reality of Trump and Cruz. In this reality, a significant number of voters approve of Cruz, despite members of his own party disapproving. Thus, Bruni uses evidence to show that most Republicans themselves appose Cruz, and then statistics to prove the frightening fact that this doesn’t matter to certain voters, while simultaneously appealing to ethos by establishing
This resulted in Clinton announcing his own campaign for presidency. In Madison’s first term as president, his popularity varied between the people. It would go from extreme lows to incredible highs in a matter of days, depending on his relationship with
Watching this year’s election was shocking. Against all predictions, against every analysis, Donald Trump became the president-elect of the United States. But were those predictions really off? As the LA Times put it,” Hillary Clinton got roughly the same number of votes that President Obama received four years ago en route to his reelection, but she nonetheless lost the presidency to Donald Trump, who came in at least 2.8 million votes behind her.” This is, of course, because of the electoral college.
I must preface this discussion with the fact that I am anything but, pro Electoral College. Nonetheless, the Electoral College is a method of voting within our democracy, which each state is allocated a certain amount of “electors” who are sworn to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote in their respective state. However, there are two exceptions to this rule, the states of Nebraska and Maine, which bifurcate their respective electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote. The quantity of electoral votes in any given state is grounded in the state’s congressional representation. Respectively, each state is afforded two votes for every Senator with an added vote for every member of the House of Representatives, which is in-turn grounded in volume of the state population.
During the election day Trump won the states that provided him with his victory like Florida and Pennsylvania. States should have the power of deciding the fate of the vote because the state regulates the people in their districts. They have earned the power to have a say what candidate should be selected. An election has to come down to what the states think about which candidate is the best to serve the country. The US Electoral Votes Map shows states like Florida, California, and Pennsylvania having high electoral votes (Document 2).
However, the electoral college does not make candidates care more about small states. Instead, it makes candidates focus on so called, “battleground states”, ignoring the rest of the states. In the 2004 election, almost all of campaign costs were spent in 17 states. “Wisconsin, another “battleground state” received a total of thirty-one candidate visits … ignored states included Texas and Illinois.” (source D)
First, with the specifications of the electoral college there only needs to be 270 electoral votes to a person for them to win. With this rule only 12 states need to be won CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NC, and NJ(DOC A) and this is only a part of the overall population of America. While
An example of making one of the polls biased would be if they only polled certain races, genders, social classes, or party affiliations (like polling only Republicans or Democrats because most people tend to vote for the candidate of their political
According to Robert Speel, a political author from Time magazine, Presidential candidates will still focus on the states where they can get the most electoral votes, which are the higher populated states. Robert Speel earned his Ph.D in political science from Cornell University and Bachelors from The University of Pennsylvania. In fact, Penn State University published his book, Changing Patterns of Voting in the Northern United States. Speel believes that presidential candidates typically campaign in at most 12 states based on the amount of electoral votes from those states. During the 2016 election, both parties spent a combined 87% of their campaign efforts in 12 different states (Speel, 2016); as a result, this
Essentially, the biggest “state” to win changes from California, at 55, to the country itself, with 102 electoral votes. His goal was to almost entirely ensure that a candidate who won the popular vote would win the overall vote. By settling on a number like 102 Schlesinger is trying to ensure the popular vote winner is the overall winner. However, in an extremely unlikely scenario a candidate could still win the popular vote, along with the 102 bonus, and still lose in Electoral College votes. Normally a candidate needs to get to 270 votes to win the election.
Candidates tend to spend a large portion of their time in these types of states to try and convert independents and members of the opposite party to vote for them. Some people argue that this swing state idea defeats the electoral college principle of evening out the power among the states, since the swing states get special attention. The other main issue is that the Electoral College often does not align with the popular vote. This argues against the evening out of power since, it matters more that a candidate collects more states than more people’s votes (“Understanding the Presidential Election”). In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton secured the
The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. Trans-regional appeal is when a presidential candidate tries to appeal to all or more than one region. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. For example, “So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his popularity in states that he knows he will.” The Electoral College makes it so that presidential candidates have to campaign in more than one region to get more support.