Presidents have long invoked electoral mandates to justify the use of executive power. In Delivering the People s Message, Julia R. Azari draws on an original dataset of more than 1,500 presidential communications, as well as primary documents from six presidential libraries, to systematically examine choices made by presidents ranging from Herbert Hoover in 1928 to Barack Obama during his 2008 election. Azari argues that Ronald Reagan s election in 1980 marked a shift from the modern presidency formed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt to what she identifies as a more partisan era for the presidency. This partisan model is a form of governance in which the president appears to require a popular mandate in order to manage unruly and deeply contrary elements within his own party and succeed in the face of staunch resistance from the opposition party.

Azari finds that when the presidency enjoys high public esteem and party polarization is low, mandate rhetoric is less frequent and employs broad themes. By contrast, presidents turn to mandate rhetoric when the office loses legitimacy, as in the wake of Watergate and Vietnam and during periods of intense polarization. In the twenty-first century, these two factors have converged. As a result, presidents rely on mandate rhetoric to defend their choices to supporters and critics alike, simultaneously creating unrealistic expectations about the electoral promises they will be able to fulfill."

The 2016 presidential election was unconventional in many ways. The election of President Donald Trump caught many by surprise, with a true outsider - a candidate with no previous governmental experience and mixed support from his own party - won the election by winning in traditionally Democratic states with coattails that extended to Republican Senate candidates and resulted in unified Republican government for the first time since 2008. This result broke with the pre-election conventional wisdom, which expected Hillary Clinton to win the presidency and a closer Senate divide. This surprising result led many political scientists to question whether 2016 truly marked a major turning point in American elections as portrayed in the media - a break from the conventional wisdom - or whether it was really the exception that proved the rule. In this volume, political scientists examine previous theories and trends in light of the 2016 election to determine the extent to which 2016 was a break from previous theories. While in some areas it seems as though 2016 was really just what would have been predicted, in others, this election and the new president pose significant challenges to mainstream theories in political science. In particular, prominent political scientists examine whether voter trends, with particular focus on groups by gender, age, geography, and ethnicity, and election issues, especially the role of the Supreme Court, followed or bucked recent trends. Several political scientists examine the unconventional nomination process and whether this signals a new era for political parties. The role of conspiracy theories and voter confidence in the administration of elections are also discussed. Finally, contributors also examine the indirect effect the presidential candidates, especially Trump, played in congressional election rhetoric.

The 2016 presidential election was unconventional in many ways. The election of President Donald Trump caught many by surprise, with a true outsider - a candidate with no previous governmental experience and mixed support from his own party - won the election by winning in traditionally Democratic states with coattails that extended to Republican Senate candidates and resulted in unified Republican government for the first time since 2008. This result broke with the pre-election conventional wisdom, which expected Hillary Clinton to win the presidency and a closer Senate divide. This surprising result led many political scientists to question whether 2016 truly marked a major turning point in American elections as portrayed in the media - a break from the conventional wisdom - or whether it was really the exception that proved the rule. In this volume, political scientists examine previous theories and trends in light of the 2016 election to determine the extent to which 2016 was a break from previous theories. While in some areas it seems as though 2016 was really just what would have been predicted, in others, this election and the new president pose significant challenges to mainstream theories in political science. In particular, prominent political scientists examine whether voter trends, with particular focus on groups by gender, age, geography, and ethnicity, and election issues, especially the role of the Supreme Court, followed or bucked recent trends. Several political scientists examine the unconventional nomination process and whether this signals a new era for political parties. The role of conspiracy theories and voter confidence in the administration of elections are also discussed. Finally, contributors also examine the indirect effect the presidential candidates, especially Trump, played in congressional election rhetoric.