Trump Ads Were More Policy-Focused, Less Negative Than Clinton's 2016 Election Ads, Find Wesleyan Researchers
"Clinton's message was devoid of policy discussions in a way not seen in the previous four presidential contests."


Say what you will about Hillary Clinton, but at least she wasn't the candidate turning the 2016 election into a policy-light, personality-driven circus…right? Not so fast. Conventional wisdom may hold that Clinton ran the more serious and substantive campaign, but a new analysis out of Wesleyan University suggests otherwise, at least when it comes to campaign advertising.
"Clinton's message was devoid of policy discussions in a way not seen in the previous four presidential contests," according to the Wesleyan Media Project, which analyzed election ads that ran between June 8, 2016, and election day.
For the analysis, Wesleyan researchers coded Clinton and Trump ads—including those from their respective campaigns and ads from political action committies and allies—as being driven by policy, personality, or both. They found that more than half of Clinton's ads focused on Clinton's positive personal qualities or Trump's negative personal qualities rather than on policy matters, compared to a little over 10 percent of Trump's ads.
Campaign advertising for Trump, meanwhile, was both more likely to focus on policy issues alone and to focus on a mix of policy and candidates' personal qualities, as you can see in the chart below.*
The Wesleyan researchers also compared Clinton and Trump ads to those run in previous presidential election cycles, dating back to 2000. Clinton's personality-driven ads far outpaced those of either her Democratic or Republican predecessors in these past races. The candidate who comes nearest is Barack Obama in 2008, when around 15 percent of his ads lacked a policy message entirely (compared to around 10 percent of rival John McCain's ads).

Throughout the period, Democratic campaigns were more likely to use personality-driven ads than were Republicans with the exception of the 2012 election, when Mitt Romney ran more personality-driven ads than did Obama. In general, the biggest proportion of campaign ads focused on policy messages. Check out more of the Wesleyan Media Project's analysis in the latest issue of The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics (open access through mid-April 2017).
Interestingly, the 2016 election cycle saw less negative advertising than the last one, according to the paper. "For all of the vitriol in the 2016 presidential election (in rallies, the debates, on cable news programs), the tone of political advertising was actually less negative than it was in 2012," it states. "The 2016 election did, however, earn the distinction of the second most negative in the last decade and a half."
Also notable: Nearly half of all Clinton campaign spots were negative, whereas more than half of Trump ads were "contrast spots, which discussed Clinton negatively but also provided information about Trump." Clinton's anti-Trump ads also emphasized her opponent's negative personal qualities rather than questionable policy positions, while "about 70 percent of ads from Trump and his allies that attacked Clinton contained at least some discussion of policy, and when there were contrasts drawn between the two candidates, those contrasts were almost all policy-based."

* This post previously mistated the degree of difference and has been updated.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Principles principals mumble mumble whatever...
Gary Johnson fumbled.
I actually didnt see many campaign ads so this is kind of surprising to me
This study conflicts with my preconceived biases, therefore I've concluded it's fake news.
Lol ya. I didnt even think trump ran ads! Wasnt hillary known as the far more wonky one in debates, ads, rallies etc and that was one of excuses for loss?
ENB, this paragraph has got to be in error:
It doesn't match the chart. You've got policy and policy/personal mixed up.
!!! You're totally right. I was reading it backwards for some reason when I wrote that paragraph. Updated now, thanks!
Wait a minute. Half of Clinton's ads were "negative" yet over half were "personal"? I think I see the problem here.
Considering how much Wesleyan is a bastion of conservative thought, I'd take these results with a grain of salt.
Whatever.
Hey, cheer up Smurfette! You can't reasonably expect EVERY article to be a Team Blue puff piece now can you? Where would the fun be in that?
It's not even that. Trump has serious character flaws arguably unlike any other recent major party nominee so one would these flaws to place proponently in the ads of his political opponents. And then Trump himself may not have had the money to buy hit pieces on Clinton but its like he ran a policy driven campaign. His rallies were lessons in bloodlust.
"one would expect these flaws"
"but it's not like he ran a policy driven campaign"
Fucking "place prominently" my phone is a piece of shit
so is your reasoning. Clinton has WORSE character flaws than Trump, but you turn a blind eye. rat.
You're right. The hag's flaws are common, just horribly increased from the norm.
Trump absolutely ran a policy driven campaign. His policies are horrible in many aspects, but he had an agenda he was pushing. Clinton's agenda was "stop Trump".
Yet it's his supporters who are assaulted by the Left, not vice versa.
As far as "serious character flaws, unlike any other recent major party nominee", I'd ask --- have you ever heard of Hillary Clinton?
Say what you will about Hillary Clinton
But at least she's an ethos.
And a bitchy twunt.
No Donny, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of.
like Juanita implied I am alarmed that a person able to profit $8028 in one month on theinternet . you could check here ??????O ????? OPEN Big opportunities JOB ?????-
I am alarmed that the squirrels at Reason still can't block posts saying how much someone earned in one month on the Internet as obvious spam, even after all these years. When do we get some AI squirrels?
It's more important to me that I can brag about my fat stacks of cash I make each month, than to filter out spam.
like Juanita implied I am alarmed that a person able to profit $8028 in one month on theinternet . you could check here ??????O ????? OPEN Big opportunities JOB ?????-
Can we all at least agree that, with the election over, ALL photo illustrations of Hillary articles show her making her teary-eyed concession speech? Is that too much to ask?
+1 convulsion
This study just reenforces other analysis of why Clinton lost. Her ego and condescending nature made her feel that she didn't need to advertise her policies, you serfs knew she was the smartest woman in the world and the most qualified candidate to ever run for office. Why, she didn't even need to campaign in some unimportant states like Michigan and Wisconsin. All she needed to do was expose what a great person, mother, and grandmother she was and what a reprobate the Trumpster was. She was to be coronated after all. This illusion of right to ascendancy is part of why she and the left cannot accept the results of the election.
Yep, "I'm not Trump!"
Worked like a dream.
When you put it like this, it just feels like her defeat was sweet, sweet justice being done... mmm.. yep, still feels good.
Probably because she didn't have any policy positions other than "I should be president, because vagina and because my husband."
Luckily, she's too old and decrepit to run again.
Unfortunately she spawned a creature who be with us for a long time to come.
Speaking of Chelsea, true story I once as a young kid yelled at her and her security detail to sit down at the Cal Ripken 2131 game. Didn't know who she was at the time and didn't care just want to watch me some Orioles and they were blocking my view.
No such thing, they'd run Jeremy Bentham if he were a Democrat.
That being said, if they did run Jeremy Bentham, I'd vote for him.
^^THIS!
Her policy was "8 more years of Obama, but I'm not just a continuation of Obama, in case you don't like everything about him."
And "8 more years of my husband, but I disagree with all of his major initiatives"
Non-crazy news from my alma mater. Will wonders never cease?
"Wesleyan" is named after John Weselyan the Methodist preacher. It is clearly a bastion of the religious right carrying water for Trump. Clearly.
In these crazy days, I admit I only detected the sarcasm with the repeated "clearly". So hard to tell the butthurt from the snark these days.
Clinton ran a lot of ads in California saying "Trump is terrible and we're all going to die if he's elected", and not much else. It seemed to work here, she won California by more than Trump won the rest of the country. Unfortunately for Democrats, California didn't matter at all, so it was pretty much just a money grab to get Californians to donate to her campaign so she could focus on debate prep and not "attending every fish fry in Wisconsin" as Obama suggested.
All the election showed, much as libs hate to admit it, is that Clinton should be governor of CA. She lost the other 49 states by about 2M votes. She won CA by 4.5M.
So, she made a strong case to be CA governor and a horrible one at being President.
like Elizabeth implied I'm amazed that a stay at home mom able to earn $7417 in 4 weeks on the internet . read here............. (((( http://www.net.jobs34.com ))))
Title: 'Trump Ads Were More Policy-Focused, Less Negative Than Clinton's 2016 Election Ads, Find Wesleyan Researchers".
I'm puzzled. It sounds like you are comparing all paid ads for Clinton from June 8 to November 8 2016 to all paid ads for Trump for the same period, right? From June 8th to the Republican convention Clinton still had to deal with other Republican candidates. Does this affect your numbers in any way? It seems to me Trump could 'go easy' on Clinton because of the pressure the other candidates were applying during this time frame. Does this include PAC ads, which legally are beyond the control of the candidate? Is this TV only, or does it include other media sources? Trump also could 'go easy' on Clinton because the pressure the conservative press like Fox, er, um, 'News?' and Breitbart, ah, 'alternative facts' was putting on Clinton. Did this factor in to the analysis?
You're aware that the media was dramatically more negative on Trump than Hillary, right? Add in the media and the numbers are markedly worse.
??????O I can see what your saying... Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I've ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away started bringing in minimum $82 per-hr . ..????????????____BIG.EARN .MONEY.___???????-
Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result. Best Of Luck for new Initiative!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.moneytime10.com
just as Gerald implied I am in shock that a person able to earn $7711 in 1 month on the computer . go now??????O Big Job Big Currency