“Understanding the Trump Voter” Prof. Brian M. Conley Suffolk University, Boston Ma New England Political Science Association Providence, RI 2017

Trump and 2016 Election Trump 2016: From Western Mass to Michigan Massachusetts: Clinton Landslide Election was a landslide for Clinton (+27%), with the densely populated corridor between Boston and Worcester turning deeper Blue. Some Trump Effect? Yes! But a number of towns in Western Massachusetts flipped Republican and/or went deeper Red. Trump did

Massachusetts: 2016 Political Overview Voters: Dem: 34% Rep: 10.6% Congressional Delegation: 100% Democratic Governor: Republican (Charlie Baker) State Legislature: 80% Democratic

Massachusetts: 2016 Political Overview 2016: Clinton: 60% (+27) Trump: 33% 2012: Obama: 60.3% (+23) Romney: 37.3% 2008: Obama: 61.4% (+25) McCain: 36%

Massachusetts: 2016 Election: Clinton Clinton Landslide Election was a landslide for Clinton (+27%), with the densely populated corridor between Boston and Worcester turning deeper Blue. Massachusetts: 2016 Election: Clinton Source: Boston Globe, 2016

Massachusetts: 2016 Election: Trump Some Trump Effect But a number of towns in Western Massachusetts flipped Republican and/or went deeper Red. Source: Boston Globe, 2016

Massachusetts: Trump Effect: White Working Class Voters 2012-2016 Trump Effect Did not increase Republican Turnout (including in towns where he outperformed Romney and McCain. Rather, his gains followed from changes in the preference of white, working-class voters. Source: Boston Globe, 2016

Massachusetts: Trump Effect: White Working Class Voters 2012-2016 Trump Effect: Republican Turnout 2016: 75% (Dem: %, Rep: %) (early voting) 2012: 73% (Dem: 61.8%, Rep: 37.5%) 2008: 73% (Dem: 61.8%, Rep: 36.0%) Source: Boston Globe, 2016

Massachusetts: Trump Effect: White Working Class Voters 2012-2016: Republican Gains in Western Mass Erving: +11.8 Savoy: +13.7% Chester: +8.9 (flip) Russell: +9.5 (flip) Source: Boston Globe, 2016

Massachusetts: Trump Effect: White Working Class Voters More Diverse, Better-Educated, Wealthier voters. Less Diverse, Less-Educated, Poorer voters. Source: Boston Globe, 2016

Massachusetts: Trump Effect: White Working Class Voters 2012-2016: Republican Gains (Race) Savoy: +13.7% Pop: 692 (-1.8% since 2000) Median Inc. $53,924 (70,628) White: 93.1% (83.2% +9.9) Dem: 17% (34%) Rep: 6% (11%) UNEN: 75% (53.3%) Erving: +11.8 Pop: 1,800 (+23%) Median Inc. $57K White: 96% (+13) Dem: 21.6% Rep: 9.5% UNEN: 68% Chester: +8.9 (flip) Pop: 1,337 (+2.2%) Median Inc. $56,829 White: 98.2% (+15%) Dem: 17% Rep: 17% UNEN: 63% Russell: +9.5 (flip) Pop: 1,775 (+7%) Median Inc. $60K White: 95.8% (+13) Dem: 18% Rep: 21% UNEN: 60% Source: Boston Globe, 2016

Massachusetts: Trump Effect: White Working Class Voters 2012-2016: Republican Gains (Race) 98.2% 96% 95.8% 93.1% 83.2% 83.2% 83.2% 83.2% Savoy: +13.7% Erving: +11.8 Chester: +8.9 (flip) Russell: +9.5 (flip)

Massachusetts: Trump Effect: White Working Class Voters 2012-2016: Republican Gains (Partisanship) Savoy: +13.7% Pop: 692 (-1.8% since 2000) Median Inc. $53,924 (70,628) White: 93.1% (83.2% +9.9) Dem: 17% (34%) Rep: 6% (11%) UNEN: 75% (53.3%, +21.7%) Erving: +11.8 Pop: 1,800 (+23%) Median Inc. $57K White: 96% (+13) Dem: 21.6% Rep: 9.5% UNEN: 68% (+14.7%) Chester: +8.9 (flip) Pop: 1,337 (+2.2%) Median Inc. $56,829 White: 98.2% (+15%) Dem: 17% Rep: 17% UNEN: 63% (+9%) Russell: +9.5 (flip) Pop: 1,775 (+7%) Median Inc. $60K White: 95.8% (+13) Dem: 18% Rep: 21% UNEN: 60% (+6%) Source: Boston Globe, 2016

Massachusetts: Trump Effect: White Working Class Voters 2012-2016: Democratic Gains (Eastern Massachusetts) Westwood: +10.4 (flip) Pop: 14,618 (+3.5%) Median Inc. $129,563 White: 91.5% Dem: 25% Rep: 14% UNEN: 59% Dover: +16 (flip) Pop: 2,265 (+2.2%) Median Inc. $187,120 White: 93.4% Dem: 18% Rep: 22% UNEN: 58% Source: Boston Globe, 2016

2016 Election: Anatomy of the Trump Victory Exit Polls Data: Voters Gender: Trump: 53% M/42% F Clinton: 41% M/54% F Race: Trump: 58% White Clinton: 37% White Age: Trump: 53% 65+ Clinton: 45% 65+ Education: Trump: 67% WH, No College Clinton: 28% WH, No College Income: Trump: 41% 30K or less Clinton: 53% 30K or less Income and Race: Trump: 62%, WH, No Col, 30K/less Clinton: 30% WH, No Col, 30K/less Economy (Condition): Trump: 79% Poor Clinton: 15% Poor 2016 Election: Anatomy of the Trump Victory Source: Politico 2016

2016 Election: Anatomy of the Trump Victory Exit Polls Data: Voters Gender: Trump: 53% M/42% F Clinton: 41% M/54% F Race: Trump: 58% White Clinton: 37% White Age: Trump: 53% 65+ Clinton: 45% 65+ Education: Trump: 67% WH, No College Clinton: 28% WH, No College Income: Trump: 41% 30K or less Clinton: 53% 30K or less Income and Race: Trump: 62%, WH, No Col, 30K/less Clinton: 30% WH, No Col, 30K/less Economy (Condition): Trump: 79% Poor Clinton: 15% Poor 2016 Election: Anatomy of the Trump Victory Sources: Time, 2016; New York Times, 2016

2016 Election: Anatomy of the Trump Victory Sources: BBC, 2016

2016 Election: Anatomy of the Trump Victory Sources: BBC, 2016

2016 Election: Anatomy of the Trump Victory 136,628,459 Total votes 5,536,528 votes 4,824,260 votes 2,976,150 votes 107,330 votes Sources: Washington Post, 2016; Cook Political Report, 2017

2016 Election: Collapse of the “Blue Wall” 1992-2012 Sources: CNN, 2016

Pennsylvania: 2016 Election: Trump 2016: Trump: 48.8% (+1.2%) Clinton: 47.6% 2012: Obama: 52% (+5.2%) Romney: 46.8% 2008: Obama: 54.7% (+10.4%) McCain: 44.3% Source: New York Times, 2016

Wisconsin: 2016 Election: Trump 2016: Trump: 47.9% (+1%) Clinton: 46.9% 2012: Obama: 52.8% (+6.7%) Romney: 46.1% 2008: Obama: 56.3% (+13.9%) McCain: 42.4% Source: New York Times, 2016

Michigan: 2016 Election: Trump 2016: Trump: 47.5% (+.2%) Clinton: 47.3% 2012: Obama: 54.3% (+9.5%) Romney: 44.8% 2008: Obama: 57.4% (+16.5%) McCain: 40.9% Source: New York Times, 2016

Michigan: 2016 Election: Trump Trump flipped 12 counties (purple) Source: Mlive, Michigan 2016

Michigan: 2016 Election: Trump 2012-2016: Republican Flips (Southeast) Saginaw: Reps: +4.7% Dems: -8.4% Shiawassee: Reps: +9% Dems: -14.3% Macomb: Reps: +6.0% Dems: -9.1% Eaton: Reps: +1.7% Dems: -6.9% Calhoun: Reps: +4.9% Dems: - 9.2+ Monroe: Reps: +13.6% Dems: -2.7% Source: John Medlinskas, Suffolk, 2017; Mlive, Michigan 2016

Michigan: 2016 Election: Trump 2012-2016: Democratic Losses in Urban Areas (Southeast) Genesee: -11.2% Oakland: -2% Ingham: -2.5% Wayne: -6.3% Source: John Medlinskas, Suffolk, 2017; Mlive, Michigan 2016

EXTRA

2008

2012

2016

2016

2016 Election: Anatomy of the Trump Victory Exit Polls Data: Voters Gender: Trump: 53% M/42% F Clinton: 41% M/54% F Race: Trump: 58% White Clinton: 37% White Age: Trump: 53% 65+ Clinton: 45% 65+ Education: Trump: 67% WH, No College Clinton: 28% WH, No College Income: Trump: 41% 30K or less Clinton: 53% 30K or less Economy (Condition): Trump: 79% Poor Clinton: 15% Poor Sources: Time, 2016; New York Times, 2016

2016 Election: Anatomy of the Trump Victory Source: Washington Post, 2016

2016 Election: Anatomy of the Trump Victory Source: Washington Post, 2016

2016 Election: Anatomy of the Trump Victory Exit Polls Data: Voters Gender: Trump: 53% M/42% F Clinton: 41% M/54% F Race: Trump: 58% White Clinton: 37% White Age: Trump: 53% 65+ Clinton: 45% 65+ Education: Trump: 67% WH, No College Clinton: 28% WH, No College Income: Trump: 41% 30K or less Clinton: 53% 30K or less Economy (Condition): Trump: 79% Poor Clinton: 15% Poor Sources: Time, 2016; New York Times, 2016

Massachusetts: 2016 Political Overview Voters: Dem: 34% Rep: 10.6% Congressional Delegation: 100% Democratic Governor: Republican (Charlie Baker) State Legislature: 80% Democratic

Massachusetts: 2016 Political Overview 2016: Clinton: 60% (+27) Trump: 33% 2012: Obama: 60.3% (+23) Romney: 37.3% 2008: Obama: 61.4% (+25) McCain: 36% Source: Boston Globe, 2016

Trump and 2016 Election Pretty Conventional: Research-Driven Campaign But there is one thing that Trump did do that all presidential candidates in the U.S. now try to do: he based his core message and policy positioning on a detailed, research-driven understanding of how specific voter segments targeted by his campaign think and behave politically. Research Helped Him Defy Convention: It is this targeting and the disciplined way in which Trump has positioned himself with specific voter groups that has not only enabled him to defy political convention, but also to benefit from doing so.

Trump and 2016 Election Is Trump the First to Use Voter/Market Research? NO To be sure, Trump is not the first U.S. presidential candidate to tailor his message to certain voters, based on ongoing demographic and public opinion research. This is the New Standard: In fact, such research-driven messaging and targeting has become standard practice in U.S. politics, even in state-level races.

Trump and 2016 Election Argument: Pandering, Not Leadership Rather, what the Trump campaign represented was a bald attempt to formulate policy, and communicate those policies based solely on mimicking what specific voters thought about selected issues, without any effort to interact with or shape those opinions. As political marketing scholars have asserted, simply repeating, and thus reinforcing, what targeted voter groups think, regardless of how base or inaccurate such beliefs may be, is merely pandering and not a form of political leadership.

Trump and 2016 Election Roadmap: It is the object of this chapter to examine the extent to which voter research and market-based strategy shaped Donald Trump’s successful 2016 presidential campaign. It will do so by: 1. First reviewing the unique role voter research plays in market-oriented politics, 2. Second, by critically evaluating how central research-based voter segmentation and targeting was to Trump’s overall policy positioning during the general election.

Trump and 2016 Election Literature Review: “Research Driven Politics” Specifically, I examine the extent to which voter research shaped Trump’s Strategy in these three areas: 1. Voter Segmentation 2. Voter Targeting 3. Candidate Positioning

Political Marketing ? Product Approach: Party/Campaign Policy No clear connection between what a party does or thinks in terms of policy and what the public needs or wants. Public (Market)

Political Marketing Sales Approach: Party/Campaign Policy: One Way The Party attempts to “sell” or convince the public that it should want (and thus support) a party’s policies, without consulting the public. Public

Political Marketing Market Approach: Party/Campaign Policy: Two Way A party has the potential to provide the public what it needs, because it has consulted the public about what it wants. Public

Political Marketing Market Approach: Party/Campaign “Research Driven Politics” A market-based approach is operationalized through Research. Public

Political Marketing Market Approach: Party/Campaign “Research Driven Politics” A market-based approach is operationalized through Research. Public Segmentation Positioning Targeting

Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Segmentation Party/Campaign Segments Behavioral Demographic Geographic Psychographic Age Race Income Family Size Framing Active Voter Inactive Voter Apathetic Disaffected Rational Emotive Social

“Committed Cohabiters” Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Segmentation Party/Campaign Segments: Mark Penn 1996-2008: “Micro-Trends “Soccer Mom” “Swing-Rich” “Pet Parents” “Committed Cohabiters” “Old New Dads” “Caffeine Crazies” “Extreme Commuters” “Numbers Junkies” Framing

Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Segmentation Party/Campaign Segments: Cambridge Analytica 2016 Framing Cambridge Analytica, hired by Trump in 2016 claims to have 4000-5000 unique “data points” on 220 million adults living in the US, which they use to build “predictive” models of voter behavior.

Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Targeting Party/Campaign Framing Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Targeting Party/Campaign Frames Framing Segments

Concerns, Values, Aspirations, Needs Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Targeting Party/Campaign Targeting Concerns, Values, Aspirations, Needs Framing Segments

Concerns, Values, Aspirations, Needs Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Positioning Party/Campaign Targeting Concerns, Values, Aspirations, Needs Positioning Framing Segments

Trump 2016 Trump Campaign Segments: Tea Party Voters 2010-2016 54% Republican 8% Democratic 40% Indy 89% White 41% Women 36% Southern 22% Midwestern Framing

Trump 2016 Trump Campaign Segments: Tea Party Voters 2010-2016 - Economic uncertainty Status/Race anxiety Fear of Outsiders Authoritarian personality Framing Frames: What do people think, value, desire?

Trump 2016 Trump Campaign Targeting: How do you reach these voters? Trump Voters Framing

Trump 2016 Trump Campaign Positioning: Crafting a message that reaches/resonates with these targeted voters. Trump Voters Framing

Trump 2016 Trump Campaign Trump’s Trial Balloon: “Birther” Claims “Birther” claims showed the Trump how it might reach these voters with a message that: - Invoked Race - Challenged economic liberalism - Challenged Globalization - Immigration/Terrorism Positioning: Crafting a message that reaches/resonates with these targeted voters. Trump Voters Framing

Trump 2016 Trump Campaign Trump’s (Inverted) Populism Positioning: - Economic Nationalism - Anti-Globalization - Tough on Immigration (outsiders) - Terrorism (threats form abroad) Positioning: Crafting a message that reaches/resonates with these targeted voters. Trump Voters Framing

Economy Globalization: “Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy… but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache” Economic Nationalism: His plan was to rebuild the country with “American hands” fueled by “American energy, harvested from American sources” Taxes: His tax proposals “will present a night-and-day contrast to the job-killing, tax-raising, poverty-inducing Obama-Clinton agenda” Trump Voters Elites: “They knew [that] as long as Clinton is in charge nothing will ever change…the inner cities will remain poor…factories will remain closed…borders will remain open…[and] special interests will remain firmly in control” Framing

Immigration Who has been ignored? “Our forgotten working people,” he asserted, and the many ways that liberal Washington’s failure to curb illegal immigration has negatively “impact[ed]…their jobs, wages, housing, schools, tax bills and general living conditions” Serves Elites: “The fundamental problem with the immigration system in our country,” Trump contended, “is that it serves the needs of the wealthy donors, political activists and powerful, powerful politicians.” Trump Voters Framing Get Tough: He will mass deport, adopt “zero-tolerance for criminal aliens,” recruit “5,000 more Border Patrol agents,” “block funding for sanctuary cities,” ban all immigrants from certain countries and, of course, “build a great wall along the southern border” that Mexico will pay for.

Economy: Leadership? Trump did not specify how he would revive the economy. Bring Coal Back? Revive Manufacturing? America First? Trump Voters Retreat From The World? Framing American Sources? Economic Independence?

Immigration: Leadership? What Trump did not do was inform his target audiences that experts generally believe that few, if any of these proposals will have the effect on immigration, illegal or otherwise, that Trump suggested. A Wall? Mass Deportation? Muslim Ban? Trump Voters Extreme Vetting? Framing

EXTRA EXTRA

? Political Marketing Product Approach: Party Policy No clear connection between what a party does or thinks in terms of policy and what the public needs or wants Public (Market)

Political Marketing Sales Approach: Party Policy: One Way The Party attempts to “sell” or convince the public that it should want (and thus support) a party’s policies, without consulting the public. Public (Market)

Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Segmentation Voter Targeting Candidate Positioning Market Approach: Party /Campaign “Research Driven Politics” A market-based approach is operationalized through Research. Public Segmentation Targeting Positioning

Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Segmentation Voter Targeting Candidate Positioning Market Approach: Party /Campaign “Research Driven Politics” A market-based approach is operationalized through Research. Public Segmentation Targeting Positioning

Political Marketing Market Approach: Party “Research Driven Politics” A market-based approach is operationalized through Research. Policy: Two Way A party has the potential to provide the public what it needs, because it has consulted the public about what it wants. Public Voter Segmentation Voter Targeting Candidate Positioning

Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Targeting Party/Campaign -Tea Party Voters Frames: What do people think, value, desire? Framing

Authoritarian personality Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Targeting Party/Campaign - Economic anxiety Status/Race Fear of Outsiders Authoritarian personality Frames: What do people think, value, desire? Framing

Concerns, Values, Aspirations, Needs Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Targeting Party/Campaign Targeting Concerns, Values, Aspirations, Needs Positioning Framing Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Targeting Party/Campaign Positioning Framing Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Targeting Party/Campaign Framing Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Targeting Party/Campaign Public Framing Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Party Policy and Promises Political Branding Developing an idea, message, image, party narrative based on keen understanding of what certain market segments wants, and then building loyalty with that segment Framing What do people think, value, desire? Concerns, Values, Aspirations, Needs Public Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Party Policy and Promises Positioning If policy/brand fails it can be repositioned, or modified to reconnect or reaffirm concerns of the targeted segments. Public Positioning Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Party Policy and Promises Political Branding Developing an idea, message, image, party narrative based on keen understanding of what certain market segments wants, and then building loyalty with that segment Framing What do people think, value, desire? Concerns, Values, Aspirations, Needs Public Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Party Policy and Promises Positioning If policy/brand fails it can be repositioned, or modified to reconnect or reaffirm concerns of the targeted segments. Public Positioning Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Republican Party: Health Care Health Care: Repeal Political Branding Developing an idea, message, image, party narrative based on keen understanding of what certain market segments wants, and then building loyalty with that segment Public Small Govt, Lower Taxes, Personal Choice Differentiation: Not the DemoCRAT…Party; does not response to DemoCRAT voters (in the first instance)

Political Marketing Market Approach: Republican Party: Health Care Health Care: Repeal Political Branding Developing an idea, message, image, party narrative based on keen understanding of what certain market segments wants, and then building loyalty with that segment Public Small Govt, Lower Taxes, Personal Choice Differentiation: Not the DemoCRAT…Party; does not response to DemoCRAT voters (in the first instance)

Political Marketing Market Approach: Republican Party Brand: Public View Republican Party Small Govt, Lower Taxes, Personal Choice Party Branding How the public views or experiences the party. Health Care: Repeal Small Govt, Lower Taxes, Personal Choice Public Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Republican Party Brand: Party View Republican Party Small Govt, Lower Taxes, Personal Choice Party Branding The party brand story becomes the means through the party communicates, interactions and responses to its targeted segments. Public Small Govt, Lower Taxes, Personal Choice Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Republican Party Brand Small Govt, Lower Taxes, Personal Choice Institutionalization? A party brand story or narrative only works if in fact the party has a story, that is, it has agreed/decided as an institution to cohere around a particular political story. Public Small Govt, Lower Taxes, Personal Choice Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Republican Party Brand Small Govt, Lower Taxes, Family Values, St Def Republican Institutionalization: The Republican Party has a brand story or narrative: Small Government Lower Taxes Family Values Strong Defense Date? Public Small Govt, Lower Taxes, Personal Choice Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Obama Brand 2008 Obama Change, Hope, Audacity, Post-Part/ lnclusion Obama Brand: Obama had a brand story or narrative in 2008: Hope Change you Can believe in Public Responsible govt, community values… Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Democratic Party? ?????????????? Dem. Party Brand: The Democratic Party has talked about developing a brand: Ethical Politics (Rep Culture of Corruption) Public Responsible govt, community values… Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Democratic Party = Obama Brand: 2010 Elections Democratic Party Rec Act, 95% Tax Cut, Obama, Middle-Cl Relief Dem. Party Brand: The Democratic Party did try to adopt the Obama brand in 2010 (Economic Policy) Recovery Act 95% Tax Cuts Obama Middle-Class Tax Relief Public Responsible govt, community values… Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Democratic Party = Obama Brand? Institutionalization? For the brand concept to work, it has be embraced (institutionalized) by the party. Question: Did the Dem. Party institutionalize the Obama brand? Rec Act, 95% Tax Cut, Obama, Middle-Cl Relief Public Responsible govt, community values… Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Democratic Party = Obama Brand: US Senate 2010 Democratic Party Rec Act, 95% Tax Cut, Obama, Middle-Cl Relief Institutionalization? Leadership (White House, DCCC, DSCC): Yes. Public Responsible govt, community values… Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Democratic Party = Obama Brand: US Senate 2010 Democratic Party Institutionalization? The 19 Democratic candidates running to retain party seats in the US Senate: NO! Rec Act, 95% Tax Cut, Obama, Middle-Cl Relief Public Responsible govt, community values… Segments

Political Marketing Market Approach: Republican Party Brand: US Senate 2010 Republican Party Small Govt, Lower Taxes, Family Values, St Def Republican Institutionalization: The Republican leadership (RNC, NRSC, NRCC) and 18 candidates running to retain party seats in US Senate: YES Public Small Govt, Lower Taxes, Personal Choice Segments

“Committed Cohabiters” Political Marketing Market Approach: Voter Segmentation Party/Campaign Segments: Trump Campaign Segmentation “Soccer Mom” “Swing-Rich” “Pet Parents” “Committed Cohabiters” “Old New Dads” “Caffeine Crazies” “Extreme Commuters” “Numbers Junkies” Framing

Economy Globalization: “Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy… but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache” Trade Deals: Hillary Clinton, who along with her husband supported trade deals that took “from the people their means of making a living and supporting their families” Taxes: His tax proposals “will present a night-and-day contrast to the job-killing, tax-raising, poverty-inducing Obama-Clinton agenda” Trump Voters Elites: “They knew [that] as long as Clinton is in charge nothing will ever change…the inner cities will remain poor…factories will remain closed…borders will remain open…[and] special interests will remain firmly in control” Framing

Immigration Globalization: “Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy… but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache” Trade Deals: Hillary Clinton, who along with her husband supported trade deals that took “from the people their means of making a living and supporting their families” Taxes: His tax proposals “will present a night-and-day contrast to the job-killing, tax-raising, poverty-inducing Obama-Clinton agenda” Tea Party Voters Elites: “They knew [that] as long as Clinton is in charge nothing will ever change…the inner cities will remain poor…factories will remain closed…borders will remain open…[and] special interests will remain firmly in control” Framing

Trade Deals: Globalization: Hillary Clinton, who along with her husband supported trade deals that took “from the people their means of making a living and supporting their families” Globalization: “Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy… but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache” Taxes: His tax proposals “will present a night-and-day contrast to the job-killing, tax-raising, poverty-inducing Obama-Clinton agenda” Tea Party Voters Elites: “They knew [that] as long as Clinton is in charge nothing will ever change…the inner cities will remain poor…factories will remain closed…borders will remain open…[and] special interests will remain firmly in control” Framing

Economy Globalization: “Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy… but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache” Trade Deals: Hillary Clinton, who along with her husband supported trade deals that took “from the people their means of making a living and supporting their families” Economic Nationalism: His plan was to rebuild the country with “American hands” fueled by “American energy, harvested from American sources” Trump Voters Elites: “They knew [that] as long as Clinton is in charge nothing will ever change…the inner cities will remain poor…factories will remain closed…borders will remain open…[and] special interests will remain firmly in control” Taxes: His tax proposals “will present a night-and-day contrast to the job-killing, tax-raising, poverty-inducing Obama-Clinton agenda” Framing

Economy Economic Nationalism: His plan was to rebuild the country with “American hands” fueled by “American energy, harvested from American sources” I want you to imagine how much better our future can be if we declare independence from the elites who’ve led us to one financial and foreign policy disaster after another.” Taxes: His tax proposals “will present a night-and-day contrast to the job-killing, tax-raising, poverty-inducing Obama-Clinton agenda” Trump Voters Elites: “They knew [that] as long as Clinton is in charge nothing will ever change…the inner cities will remain poor…factories will remain closed…borders will remain open…[and] special interests will remain firmly in control” Framing

Immigration: Leadership? Claims about mass deportation, for example, are little more than rhetoric, experts argue, entirely disconnected from the legal, logistical or ethical challenges associated with an actual attempt to forcibly remove millions of people from the country (Bennett 2016). Equally dubious was the idea that the US-Mexican border could be secured by erecting a wall (Harlan and Markon 2016). Trump Voters Framing Get Tough: He will mass deport, adopt “zero-tolerance for criminal aliens,” recruit “5,000 more Border Patrol agents,” “block funding for sanctuary cities,” ban all immigrants from certain countries and, of course, “build a great wall along the southern border” that Mexico will pay for.