Just like the Great Recession led to fundamental critiques of the discipline of economics, the election of Donald Trump caused an even bigger backlash to political science. At the American Political Science Association’s annual meeting in 2017, many panels and papers were devoted to the question on everyone’s mind: “How did we get it wrong?”

So, how did political science do, theoretically, in terms of the 2016 presidential elections? There were two political science theories that received particular coverage in the run-up to the elections, and which were taken to task after Trump’s surprise win. The first, which relates mainly to the stage of primaries, holds that the party decides which candidate make it on to the ballot. The second argues that money decides, which applies to both stages of the presidential elections.

Few political science books are so well-cited (and perhaps less well-read) by US journalists than The Party Decides, which argues that despite caucuses and primaries, in which party loyalists can vote for the official party candidate, the two big US parties continue to strictly control the process through so-called “invisible primaries”. The argument is that party elites, as well as powerful brokers in the supportive subculture around the party, still control the outcome “by sending cues and signals”, of which official endorsements are among the most powerful.

The question to be answered then, is whether Trump is the exception to the old rule or the new rule?

According to many journalists, as well as some political scientists, the victory of Trump in the Republican primaries proves that, at the very least, the party no longer decides. After all, almost all major voices within the party leadership initially supported another candidate in the primaries – one notable exception was the Alabama senator Jeff Sessions – and many openly came out against Trump.

Moreover, Donald Trump received no major endorsements until well after the first primaries, and finished with just 46 official endorsements from Republican governors and members of Congress. This was not only a fraction of what previous Republican presidential nominees had received, but also (much) less than his three main challengers in 2016.

Unsurprisingly, after taking The Party Decides as gospel for much of the primary, the media was quick to savage it as soon as Trump had secured the Republican nomination. Even one of the authors, Marty Cohen, admitted being surprised by the outcome, suggesting celebrities and social media had transformed the primary process, undermining the power of party elites. The political scientist and Washington Post blogger Dan Drezner went even so far to suggest that the book had made political elites complacent about the run of Trump to the extent that they only realized the book was wrong when it was too late.

The second popular political science theory has a much longer history than The Party Decides. For decades, political scientists have stressed the importance of money in US elections at every level. The controversial US supreme court’s Citizens United decision of 2010, which (simply stated) removed important restrictions on private campaign donations, was met with apocalyptic despair by many Americans, who were afraid that it would unleash an explosion of (corporate) money in US elections. Interestingly, the amount of money spent in the presidential elections spiked most in 2008, because of the unprecedented money spent by the Obama campaign.

It is estimated the Donald Trump received $5bn in free media coverage during the election. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

There is no doubt that Clinton outspent Trump in the 2016 elections; in fact, she did so during pretty much throughout the whole campaign. In total Clinton raised a staggering $1.4bn, while Trump mustered “only” $932m. Moreover, during most of the primary, Trump was also outspent by his main Republican opponents. The last standing serious opponent, Ted Cruz, spent $86m against Trump’s $63m, while Ben Carson had spent almost twice as much as Trump when he dropped his bid in early March ($61m versus $33m). Even “Little” Marco Rubio had spent $4m more by the time he bowed out in March.

There is little doubt that two of the most popular theories in US political science have not been able to account for Trump’s success in the Republican primaries and the US presidential elections of 2016. Trump received much fewer endorsements and spent much less money than his competitors, yet defeated both the other Republicans and Hillary Clinton. The question to be answered then, is whether Trump is the exception to the old rule or the new rule? There are good reasons to argue the latter.



As has been well established, candidates spend most of their campaign money on buying air time, most notably on cable TV. As many studies show, Trump received disproportionate media coverage throughout both the primary and presidential campaigns. Already in March 2016 the New York Times calculated that Trump had received the equivalent of $2bn in free media. The total is believed to be in the $5bn area by election day.

This was a consequence of several separate, but mutually strengthening, factors: first, Trump had a uniquely high name recognition, particularly because of his popular TV show The Apprentice; second, he was always available for major news networks; and third he was faced with a exceptionally broad field of little-known and overall unpopular competitors.

It is highly unlikely that a similar combination will present itself again. It would be the equivalent of Oprah Winfrey or Kanye West contesting a post-Clinton Democratic party primary. Moreover, while The Party Decides failed to explain the Clinton defeat against Trump, it does explain her victory over Bernie Sanders. While Clinton and Sanders were quite close in terms of votes, they were worlds apart in terms of official endorsements as well as superdelegate votes.

In short, it is far too early to dismiss these theories, and throw away the baby with the bathwater. Instead, we should see them for what they really are, probabilistic statements rather than natural laws, and try to improve them, by clarifying the conditions under which they do and do not hold.