This chapter applies the total error framework presented in Chapter 5 to a case example of preelection polling during the 2016 US presidential election. Here, the focus is on problems with a single poll.

Describes the early career and political advent of Donald Trump through his election to the presidency in 2016. Explores the weaknesses in system of presidential nomination and election, and of his opponent Hillary Clinton, that made his victory possible. Explores the investigations integral to story of 2016 election: the Clinton email investigation and Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation into Russian election interference and possible Trump campaign collusion with the Russians.

The presidential elections of 2016 and 2020 were two of the most disconcerting in American history. In 2016, the winning candidate lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and never obtained the support of the public. In 2020, the incumbent president lost by 7 million votes. Instead of conceding defeat, he exploited the complex system of certifying the results to prolong the denouement of the election, attempting to subvert the U.S. democratic process. Both elections raise serious doubts about democracy in America. At the core of these misgivings is the electoral college.

In 2010s Citizens United, the Supreme Court held that corporations do indeed have a right to freedom of speech, just as regular citizens do, and that the government could not restrict expenditures based on an entity’s corporate identity. Citizens United thereby allowed corporate donations to flood into elections. In her feminist judgement, Carliss Chatman breaks with the original opinion and refuses to extend the political speech rights of individuals to corporations. She grounds her analysis in the injustice of affording full personhood rights to corporations – which are artificial persons – even as natural persons like women and minorities have historically not enjoyed such rights and continue to suffer inequality. Amy Sepinwall’s commentary situates and contextualizes the feminist judgment, and then questions a key premise. She suggests an alternate feminist approach focusing on the right of the listener to hear from all perspectives, rather than having one side use spending to dominate – and drown out – other voices.

The period since the 1990s has proved, in an ironic way, the strength of Israel–US relations. In 1991, American president, George H. W. Bush, clashed with Israel, and since 1996, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had strained Israel–US relations in an unprecedented manner. In both cases, the constants that determined the course of the Israel–US relationship, religion, shared values, and history, proved to be stronger than any individual, regardless of their position. The period covered in this chapter was characterized by a close friendship and strategic partnership between the two nations. During those years, the two countries signed several memoranda of understanding which solidified the American commitment to Israel’s security and ensured its qualitative military edge, as well as expanding the cooperation on economic and cultural matters. The military-industrial cooperation as well as security cooperation between the two countries deepened. The growing Israeli attachment to American culture and values was another manifestation of the deepening relations between the two countries. The Israeli economy changed from socialist to neoliberal under the influence of American economic thinking. Neoconservatism spread across Israel’s political and intellectual elites through institutions and people, most notably Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israelis adopted many of the characteristics of American culture and economy, bringing their country closer to the United States in form and content. The ties between Israel and the Christian Zionist Evangelicals deepened as well. With the Evangelicals returning to the forefront of American politics since the mid-1970s, they became a major force in the support of Israel, a tendency that was especially encouraged by the right wing in Israel. Evangelical support for Israel has only increased during the 1990s and 2000s.

Demonstrates that secularism can also lead to intraparty tension among Democrats. While many grassroots activists within the Democratic Party are highly secular (and predominantly white and upper status), the party also has a large contingent of Religionist activists (who are predominantly African American, Latino, and working class). Not only do these two groups of activists have different worldviews, they often disagree on both policy and strategy. Secularists are farther to the left, and more interested in ideological purity than compromise. In short, there is potentially a secular storm brewing within the Democratic coalition.

In this second set of case study I examine the performances and representation of Julia Gillard (Australian Prime Minister 2010–2013) and Hillary Clinton (democratic presidential candidate, 2016 US election). I start by analysing adversarial language and sexism in Julia Gillard’s parliamentary performances in the Australian House of Representatives. These highly adversarial exchanges with Tony Abbott are extremely confrontational and adversarial. As with Theresa May, this discussion is developed into an analysis of a critical gendered moments when Gillard delivered her famous ‘sexism and misogyny speech’, which was followed by gendered media representations of the performance, and accusations that she ‘played the gender card’. Secondly, the case study of Hillary Clinton analyses critical gendered moments in the US televised debates against Donald Trump in 2016. Clinton is found to have performed well against Trump, given that she is positioned in gendered ways in relation to his sexist discourses. However, her political success is identified as resting on her ability to negotiate a tightrope of double binds – for example emotionality vs toughness – which mean that she is constantly attending to and negotiating her femininity in terms of both her appearance and her behaviour.

Considers the strong realism of Obama and how his efforts to avoid the Syrian Civil War were like those of George H. W. Bush in Yugoslavia. Examines pros and cons of his nuclear deal with Iran and his failure to contain Russian power in Ukraine and Syria, an impotence he shares with several of his Cold War and post–Cold War predecessors. Assesses the Obama foreign policy legacy and how far it explains the rise of Donald Trump.