Rejoinder: How Special was 2016?

Abstract

Five responses from leading scholars of American politics have given us a great deal to think about. Several themes emerge from the responses. The first is the challenge of the addressing how relevant the 2016 election will be for understanding the future of American politics. Several of the discussants also challenge our thinking about the role of white working class pundits, and about how political scientists should think about demographics and politics more generally. In the study of comparative politics, the literature on case selection demands that scholars answer the question, “What kind of case is this?” before proceeding; see for example Gerring and Seawright (2008). Looking forward, is the 2016 typical with some unusual features, or will it in retrospect seem unusual? The answer to this question depends on the research question and the variables of interest. As a result, elections scholars may need to think more deeply about the kinds of questions we pursue and the theoretical assumptions we make. However, we must also wait to find out the impact of 2016 on subsequent contests. As we attempt to classify the 2016 election, we are stuck doing some guesswork. Noel urges scholars to ask how an outlier can sharpen our theories. Masket and Victor both pose the question of whether last year’s contest will turn out to have been anomalous or a new normal. Finally, Shapiro asks whether the election was really so unusual after all. These different classifications suggest not just different interpretations, but that the implications of 2016 depend on what the researcher seeks to explain.