Individual Research Proposal
Introduction
The research question this proposal looks to explore is; What contributed to increasing ideological
polarisation during the 2016 US election? This is an important question to study as it marks the beginning
of a contentious period in US history that has only continued to worsen in recent years. It signifies the
rise of an “us versus them” mentality throughout the general public and highlights that the left and right
wing have begun to move to extremes to balance each other out. The research question looks to identify
the factors and theories responsible for increased ideological polarisation. This is beneficial as it indicates
areas of vast controversy that have been pulling Americans in different directions. This means that this
research can not only serve to increase the understanding of America in 2016 but can in the future also
aid attempts to analyse polarisation through the factors identified. As this is a broad topic, it is important
to break it down into predictably influential factors which can make analysis of academic articles on the
subject more efficient, as well as provide a feasible time frame for the research to be conducted. This
research question aims to look at previous articles on specific factors pertaining to the US election and
analyse them in terms of polarisation. Therefore, providing different perspectives on factors that shaped
the election and applying them to the division they caused society as a whole.
Literature Review
In order to conduct a structured literature review exploring the chosen research question, literature will
be broken down into key themes; economical, cultural, political and geographical factors.
Cultural Factors
During the 2016 Presidential election campaign, social media and fake news proved to be a crucial factor.
(Jenson, 2018), (Jardine, 2019) and (Carlson, 2018) focused on fake news relating to the 2016 US election;
with all of them stating it was a significant factor. (Allcott & Gentzkov, 2017) specifically analysed the
effect of fake news in dividing the nation and influencing the result. The article confirms that “Fake news
was both widely shared and heavily tilted in favour of Donald Trump.” However, just the existence of fake
news isn’t real cause for concern, it is the fact that millions bought into fake stories and shared them
amongst their peers, which led societies’ views to be skewed towards Trump or towards a right-wing
ideology even though their opinion could be based on a number of false stories. The popularity of Trump-
favouring fake news is explored in this article as it sates “our database contains 115 pro-Trump fake
stories that were shared on Facebook a total of 30 million times, and 41 pro-Clinton fake stories shared a
total of 7.6 million times.” It is therefore evident that fake news had a substantial impact in changing
public opinion. (Persily, 2017), (savage 2017) and (Enil, 2017) focused on the impact of social media on
the Presidential election race, stating that the election shied away from the traditional campaigning
format and instead saw social media websites such as Twitter rise to the forefront. All of the articles
mentioned make valid points but have failed to take into account that rural areas with the same
ideological values made great efforts to get out and share their opinion to others, which also proved to
increase the ideological divide between city and rural voters.
2304
, Political factors
A main divisive factor that either avidly lured people in or disgusted them enough to never look back was
the policies presented during the election, specifically from the Trump campaign. (Winders,2016),
(Waldinger, 2018) and (Vidal & Xavier, 2018) discussed the ideological battle of immigration. One of the
key points was that more left-wing citizens see immigration as “a key part of Americas social fabric” and
place the issue of keeping immigrant families together as a key policy for social justice. In comparison to
this, the article believes that more right-wing individuals view immigration as something that has to be
stopped. This was apparent in Trumps rhetoric of calling Mexican immigrants “Rapists, drug dealers and
murders” while promising to build a wall to keep them out. This therefore inspired many right-wing
Americans who now felt that their already established beliefs had been put to the forefront.
(Nagel,2016), (Yigit & Tatch, 2017) and (Whitehead et al, 2018) analysed the effect of the way refugees
were being treated during the election. A main point from the literature was how anti-refugee rhetoric
had been politicised by the Trump team which undid years of work to lessen the stigma. (Nagel, 2016)
also stresses the point that Trumps comments on refugees led to increased Islamophobic and anti-
refugee discourse; “anti-refugee, anti-muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment has gained particular
traction among white conservative voters in the south who perceive numerous threats to the country’s
social, economic and moral order.” Therefore, saying it empowered a certain group of people while
discouraging others. This shows that Trumps rigid and vitriolic stance on immigration and refugees led to
further polarisation across the nation.
Geographical factors
(Oberhauser & Krier, 2019) directly looked to analyse the polarisation in the 2016 election, specifically in
the heartlands of America which used to be considered inherently politically moderate. The article points
out that the increased ideological polarisation isn’t necessarily evidenced in the states that naturally
turned red, as they were already expected to think and vote that way. However, the large scale
polarisation of the American public can better be seen in the swing states or usually blue states that
marginally swung red such as; Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota or the key battle ground state of Iowa;
“Analysts identify American Heartland swing voters as the decisive force in the election, “flipping”
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa from largely Democratic to Republican states.” The closeness of the race
in these areas highlights the contention and controversy evident across the nation with Trump winning
inherently blue states like Michigan with only a 0.23% lead. However, (Albar & Fonar, 2017) provides
another way to view the division across America. The article suggests that Immigrants are less spread out
in America than in Europe, living predominantly in city or densely populated areas. They then go on to
hypothesise that “a high degree of ethnic diversity fosters an acceptance of diversity as a normal and
taken-for-granted part of social life.” Therefore, saying that since more right-wing rural areas haven’t
widely experienced actual immigrants and instead only have propaganda to shape their views, they will
have vastly different views than those in cities or more left-wing and immigrant friendly areas.
Economic Factors
Many voters that supported Trump stated an economic divide or economic insecurities as the cause.
(Rodrik, 2020) stated that most people who both voted for Trump and stated economic inequality for the
cause were “switchers” meaning people who voted for Obama but then switched to vote for Trump.
Propaganda and big promises were both very useful tools employed by the Trump campaign (Faris et al,
2017). One of the main promises Trump campaigned on was that he wasn’t a politician and could stand
up for working-class families. As well as this, he used propaganda to win people over by saying that
voting for Clinton would increase economic struggles. This therefore increased the divide in the country
as voters turned their back on their own party in order to try and gain economic security promised by
Trump. However, other analysts and academics such as (Reny et al, 2019) state that economics wasn’t
that significant a factor in increasing polarisation and swaying public opinion; “Findings indicate that a
nontrivial number of White voters switched their votes in the 2016 election to Trump or Clinton, that this
vote switching was more associated with racial and immigration attitudes than economic factors.” This
2304
