Framing the presidential race

By THOMAS HARTWELL

The presidential race in any context is a media frenzy, but this race has been unlike any before it in many ways. As with any story, the media make choices as to how to approach the stories surrounding the presidential race, and there are four commonly used "frames" of presentation, all of which have been used to cover the year's campaigns.

Horse Race:


Horse race journalism in the political spectrum is the presentation of information as a contest or comparison of, in this case, presidential candidates. There's been a lot of talk about a possible convention contest for the Republican nomination this campaign season, and that has opened the door for A LOT of horse race journalism. With a race this close between Trump and Cruz and a candidate pulling delegates away from the two front-runners, many outlets are taking the opportunity to present some "who will win the sprint to 1,237?" stories. There has been some in regard to the Democrats' race as well, but with a race on the left seemingly more and more decidedly won by Hillary, there have been more stories about the change that Sanders' campaign has brought to politics than "who will win?"

From the Associated Press

Conflict:

Horse race and conflict presentation of the Republican race have gone hand-in-hand this campaign season. As the race has continued and candidates have dropped out, there has been more opportunity for conflict-frame journalism. For instance, this CNN article incorporates elements of the delegate race, but describes the race for the nomination between Trump and Cruz as a "duel." A search for stories about Trump on CNN and other news outlets provides a look at the presentation of Trump's campaign strategy: conflict frame and a "Trump vs..." mentality. 

From cnn.com search

Issues:

Candidates of the same party and especially opposite parties LOVE to slam each other on policy issues -- the presidential race produces plenty of these opportunities. While most attacks come on an opponent's stance on ongoing issues, current events also play a part. For example, Trump and Cruz chose to slam President Obama on immigration regulations and international terrorism in response to terrorist attacks in Brussels, Tuesday. Stories written on the issues provide voters and onlookers with the ability -- hopefully objectively, but we all know, not so much -- to make decisions based on those issues. Trump has also generated lots of attention and media spotlight for himself by making large and outrageous issue claims. He's actually winning in the presidential race on lots of the "important issues," because he has so much coverage out there on his policy on those issues.

From msnbc.com

Candidate Attributes:

Another frame of media coverage dominated by Donald Trump and, some may argue, Bernie Sanders. Trump and Sanders' revolutionary approach to U.S. politics has changed the race for good, and a lot of that focuses on their personal attributes. Plenty of stories have focused on Trump's deficiencies, outlining why he couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't be President of the United States.

From toptens.com

This article even outlines ten reasons why Donald Trump should not be the next president, citing his past words, actions, claims, etc. 

Republican party aims to trump Trump as candidate furthers his delegate lead

By THOMAS HARTWELL, ESTI AFANADOR AND CHRISTIANI FERNANDEZ

The 2016 presidential campaign has been one that has, in many ways, strayed from the normal workings of U.S. elections, with the season’s rhetoric centered around the anger and distrust of a “corrupt Washington.” While both sides have seen revolutionary political strategies and several broken ballot records, the Republican party’s election has undeniably been the more colorful of the two, and Donald Trump has captured voters’ attention. The Republican race to the general election is narrowing, and the Trump campaign seems to be rallying the needed public support to face the Democrats in November.

“The Trump phenomenon – no one saw this coming. No one really understands why it’s happening – what’s going on – but I’ve got some ideas,” said political expert Kerwin Swint.

Swint is an author, speaker and professor of political science at Kennesaw State University. He has run campaigns, written books and his work has appeared in several national and international media outlets. Swint said that the “Trump phenomenon” as well as this campaign season’s obviously splintered GOP is something that has been in the cards for a while and has the potential to have lasting effects.

“What’s going on in the Republican party is a real revolution,” said Swint. “It is serious, it is dramatic, it is significant and it’s going to have long-term consequences.”

While there are plenty of voters out there who have voiced their discontent with Trump, more surprisingly, said Swint, is the amount of resistance Trump is receiving from the, so-called, establishment Republicans. The establishment fears that a Trump nomination means a Clinton victory, but it goes beyond that.

“The other part of their thinking … is, ‘Good Lord, he might win,’ which might be worse,” said Swint. “President Trump would pay no attention or very little attention to the establishment.”

Swint also said that a number of Republicans would rather see Clinton win the general election than Trump – a party line-crossing that has not been seen in decades.

Trump has appealed, most abundantly, to white, blue-collar workers who are tired of Washington and who are willing to cross party lines to vote an “outsider” into the Oval Office. His ability to pick up Independent votes has given him an edge in the delegate count, said Swint, but the damage that he and others have been doing to the GOP this season has forced some voters to display their unhappiness in other ways.

  

Delegate count in the 2016 presidential race so far, according to CNN.
If a candidate does not receive the shown majority of delegates (1,237),
the party goes to a convention, which nominates a candidate for the general
election. Source: http://www.cnn.com/election/ 

Zac Carr, a 25-year-old Cobb County voter said his primary vote was cast as a symbol of his own unhappiness with the candidates this campaign season.

“I voted for Rand Paul despite the fact that he is no longer running,” said Carr. “I asked for a non-partisan ballet because I, like George Washington, believe that the two-party system only polarizes our country. I wanted to do my part by showing that I believe non-partisan is preferred over Republican or Democrat.”

Carr said that the “nastiness” in the Republican race forced his hand and initiated his Independent vote.

Lott Middlemas, a Florida voter and international relations and Chinese double major at the University of South Carolina, agreed that the GOP race has been ugly, but said that its dirty tactics might be good for the number of voters in a general election.

“I think that voter turnout on both sides will increase noticeably for both parties as a result of the inflammatory politics of the Republican party during this election cycle,” said Middlemas. “The Republicans have been talking for years about expanding their base of support by appealing to minorities, but I don't think they'll see that as being necessary anymore since they've managed to draw out many more white voters than usual without having to soften their stances on economic and social issues that are often important to minority voters.”

The Democrats, said Middlemas, will turnout in larger numbers simply because of their fear of a Trump presidency and Clinton, he said, will beat Trump handily.

Not so fast, says Swint. A Clinton win isn’t such a sure-fire thing in a head-to-head.

“There are people assuming that Trump wouldn’t have a chance in a general election against Hillary Clinton. I’m not necessarily in agreement with that,” he said. “One of the strengths of Trump is that he’s put together a pretty broad coalition … It’s certainly not a slam dunk [for Clinton].”

It is his ability to appeal to groups of varying demographics and political opinion that potentially makes Trump dangerous, said Swint.

Yet another scenario in the Republican race is a nomination by a convention. Trump leads by about 100 delegates with 460, but he does have to get through a still very present Ted Cruz, and some wonder if the other Republican candidates may be able to pull enough delegates away from Trump to prevent his receiving a majority (1,237 delegates) and force the party to the convention. In this scenario, said Swint, the Republican leadership runs the risk, should they nominate someone other than Trump, of losing grip on their party.

“I think if they do take it away from [Trump] at the convention, I think he absolutely will run independent,” said Swint. “And I think at that point, he would be real interested in just wrecking the party for the Republicans.”

A non-Trump convention nominee would not only anger Republican voters, said Swint, but it would also cause “wheeling and dealing” between presidential candidates, state governments and others – precisely the kind of Washington antics voters are tired of.

According to Middlemas, though, Republican voters don’t need to worry about a convention.

“Super Tuesday cemented Donald Trump's supremacy in this race,” he said. “Sen. Cruz might be able to win a few more states, but Trump will certainly have a majority of delegates by the time the Republican national convention rolls around.”

Whether or not Trump has solidified his nomination remains to be seen, but polls with only Trump and Clinton’s name on them have begun to show up. Current CNN polls show either Democrat defeating Trump in November, but November is still miles down the road, said Swint.

“The general election [polls] right now are meaningless,” said Swint. “The election’s months and months away. We’re going to have coalitions, we’re going to have world events, we’re going to have economic developments that are going to affect that.”

All we can do now, said Swint, is wait and watch.

Campaign narratives and success of candidates

A narrative not only makes for a more interesting story and, in turn, campaign season, but also can win a candidate a state, or even a general election. There have been more than a few surprising narratives driving the candidates' campaigns already this season, and I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised to hear me say that I will, again, be mentioning the Trump (I'm sorry, but as one of my professors once said, "He's the gift that keeps on giving"). The other not-so-surprising choice for a narrative-rich campaigner, I think, is easily Sanders.

I'll start with Trump and just get it out of the way.

Trump has capitalized on two things: fear and frustration with Washington. Trump has been unapologetically blunt, crass and, at times, down-right rude. He can get away with this, and even continue to climb in the polls, because his narrative is that he is new -- he's a successful business man, not a politician, and he swears to use his hard bargaining, his CEO know-how and his tell-it-like-it-is-edness to bring his enemy to their knees and to "Make America great again." How, you ask? "Well, first things first, let's get me elected." People go for that. Partly because of Trump's story telling -- "I'm a successful business man who, like you, is fed up with Washington" -- and partly because his followers just want to see what his specific plans are finally.

Sanders tells a similar story of being fed up, but his story is a little more history and policy-based. Sanders tells us that he has been in politics since the '70s, building trust with listeners. He, like Trump, acknowledges the calls for change, but addresses the change with more specific answers that might be harder for some followers to process than a general, "It's gonna be HUGE." His largest success, though has been embodying the "little guy" who takes on the enormous establishment that is lobby groups and Super PACs. Distrust of cookie-cutter politicians makes Washington the antagonist in both of these candidates' cases and, of course, makes themselves the protagonist.

Twitter, tough talk and (sorry) Trump again

As there is an abundance of attention on Trump and his various campaigning techniques, I wanted to avoid talking about him for a while -- I was going to talk Clinton this time. In light of his recent "Fox debate boycott," however, I cannot ignore -- for the purpose of discussing the mobilization of followers -- his decision. 

Sorry Hillary, you'll have to wait.

Picture from humanevents.com

Trump does two things very well: Make waves and -- for lack of a better term -- sling poo. He does these two things well in two ways: Tweets and speeches.

Using his debate boycott as an example, let's discuss the "make waves" and "speech" points. Trump has, no doubt, been quite a ratings booster for many news media outlets. He has made statements that have been made into headlines, made claims that have sparked impassioned debates and, for some, boosted debates' entertainment value. His lack of political correctness has appealed to the masses, who feel that Americans have become "soft" and who want to hear that extreme change will come about, right now. Trump gives his followers these extreme statements and gives them a call to action, which his slogan, "Make America Great Again" embodies. His latest call to action was sparked by his refusal to participate in Thursday's Fox debate over long-standing disagreements with network officials. He challenged after announcing his absence, "Let's see how the ratings do."

Many Trump supporters have taken this call to action to heart and are boycotting the debate themselves. Trump has doubled-down on his call by announcing the creation of a fundraiser for veterans and the Wounded Warrior Project to be put on during the debate -- Trump's goal seems to be to pull more attention away from Fox. Such seemingly irrational moves on a candidate's part have been consistently benefiting Trump, proving that he has created a high-spirited, highly impressionable and highly mobilized follower base.

In Joseph Tuman's, "Political Communication in American Campaigns," Tuman suggests, "[Speech] effectiveness will depend on the audience; we are not all affected by ethos, pathos, and logos in the same ways." Tuman also suggests that a speaker/candidate has to know his/her audience -- something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth to have to admit, Trump does well.

In the case of "slinging poo" on Twitter -- well, see for yourself. Trump, as I have mentioned before, does well to make himself more desirable by making other candidates less desirable. The content of his tweets are not the only part of his Twitter usage that has, thus far, benefited him. The amount of tweets that Trump puts out daily, praising himself, attacking others and relaying plans is stifling compared to the other candidates' pages. Typically, the candidate with the most coverage will receive the most support. 

So, a recap: Trump captures media coverage for free by making outrageous claims and statements, puts doubt in voters minds as to the reliability and ability of other candidates and mobilizes his followers with calls to action.

While Trump may have benefited immensely from his wild claims in the campaign season, I have to believe that voters will come to the conclusion that the same candidate who so skillfully "slings poo" at other candidates may not be the best choice to win the whole thing. 

So Mr. Trump, my advice to you is this: Unless you can handle quite a bit of global backlash, maybe you should quit while you're ahead -- some foreign leaders may not be so afraid to sling more than just "poo" back.

What is political communication? "Let's Talk Trump."

The most intriguing definition of political communication that I happened across in several readings included several comments about a collaboration between political science and communication/media studies professionals. The collaboration, said the authors, is a result of these professionals working together on topics of mutual interest instead of “ignoring their colleagues” and conducting their own studies. In regards to the transmission of messages or opinions in “policom,” political communication can be described as how a candidate communicates, verbally or otherwise, through many channels and media outlets to get a message to the public and vice versa. Channels and media outlets for candidates might include their campaign website, social media pages or campaign ads. The public and press may use those same channels to interact with or report on candidates as well as take to their own social media accounts and other public channels to express opinions and communicate with people of similar, and many times varying, political opinion. The press, like the public, may interact with candidates or campaign officials via social media, but the press has a leg up on the public with its ability, in many cases, to reach the candidate personally as well as has a responsibility to report factual and accurate information to the public.

A rather colorful example of the practice of policom concepts is Donald Trump’s use of Twitter this campaign season. Trump has, undoubtedly, been the most outspoken illustrator of many candidate goals, namely, attempting to make himself more desirable to potential voters by making other candidates less seem desirable. Trump, while more animated than other candidates, exhibits policom marketing techniques that most candidates, especially in national elections, strive for. Trump has derived much of his success in national polls this season by catering to the other two players’ roles – public and press. When he makes “shocker statements,” like his idea to deport 11 million people and build a border wall, the press picks it up, gives Trump free publicity and steals spotlight potential from others. As far as catering to the public, Trump has capitalized on the nation’s yearning for firm action by making general, attractive statements that strike up conversation among voters. It makes sense as a marketing and campaigning tactic – I mean, who wouldn’t want to “make America great again”?