Analyzing the 2016 Election.

1. Zac Bodner
Lab Assignment 4
What factors could have helped Hillary
win the election?
Executive Summary
Students in Dr. Davis’ undergraduate Marketing Analytics class administered a survey on the
campus of UT Austin, with the purpose of discovering what students thought of the “brands” of
prominent political figures. Included were Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, Bernie
Sanders and Ted Cruz.
The results of the survey beg the question, “If Hillary Clinton had access to the findings of this
survey before she began her campaign, could she have leveraged them to produce a different
outcome to the election?”
The following paper will explore this hypothetical question, and hopefully provide some clues for
Donald Trump’s opponent in 2020.
Methodology
The survey presented multiple questions covering themes of gender identity, political ideology,
geographic upbringing, leadership, honesty, overall impression of candidates and multiple other
demographic and psychographic variables. To analyze the relationships between these
variables, a stepwise regression was employed.
A regression is a statistical method utilized to predict the effect(s) of one or more predictor
(independent) variables on an outcome (dependent) variable. A step-wise regression filters
these variables through certain parameters (in our case, an F value with an entry field of .05 and
an exit of .10) and adds them to a model in order of significance.
Our dependent variable in this case is “having a good impression of Hillary Clinton.” The primary
assumption is that a good impression will equal a vote in the election, or would have.
Every variable in the survey was run through the stepwise regression, and a model including 16
significant predictor variables was returned. For the purpose of this paper, ten were examined
and three analyzed.
Findings
Here are the three most prominent predictor variables in the regression:
Hillary Clinton is a Strong Leader. There was a strong, positive (.324 Beta Coefficient) and
significant (0.00 F Value - meaning the chance this relationship is due to chance equals ZERO)

2. correlation between this independent variable, and the aforementioned outcome variable. Its R
Squared value was .462, meaning that this variable alone accounts for 46% of the explanation
of why people had a positive impression of Hillary.
Hillary Clinton is Like Me. This association was also positive (.299 Beta Coefficient - which
measures the strength of the relationship between one (or more) independent variables and a
dependent variable) and significant (0 F value). When combined with the above variable, they
accounted for 57% of the explanation of why people had a positive impression of Hillary.
Hillary Clinton is Honest. This is an interesting one. When there were only three variables in
the beginning of the model, it’s Beta Coefficient was .283, but when ten variables were included
in the model it fell to .207. This illustrates that the combination of variables add and detract from
each other’s impact at differing times and in differing combinations. These three combined
variables accounted for an adjusted R Square of .61, explaining about 61% of the difference in
the impression people get from Hillary.
A Surprise. There was a negative, significant relationship between Barack Obama’s perceived
intelligence and a good impression of Hillary. This means, the less intelligent a respondent
thought President Obama was, the higher their impression of Hillary.
This seems odd, particularly because President Obama is considered one of the more intelligent
Presidents in US History. And he and Hillary are on the “same side,” so to speak.
Implications
These findings seem to have obvious implications. The more we think someone is a strong
leader, and similar to us, and honest - the better impression of them we will probably hold.
Here is how Hillary could have used these findings to her advantage.
Be a STRONGER LEADER. A leader is someone who inspires others, and outlines an
actionable strategy backed up by persuasive evidence. Hillary never really outlined her vision on
a number of important topics. Trump took advantage of this and went the opposite route - clearly
articulating some very incendiary (and possibly apocalyptic) plans. Dear Lord save us all!
She also never really inspired others, like Barack did with his impassioned rhetoric, or Bernie
did with his awesome history of civil disobedience and service to the historically
disenfranchised. Hillary definitely has an outstanding record of service to speak of as well, but
she didn’t do a very good job of playing it up.
Last on this note, they say to lead you must first know how to follow. Someone who knows how
to follow is someone who knows how to listen. Hillary made a grave mistake by not listening to
the historical base of the Democratic Party - the working class. They have needs, fears, and
insecurities that Donald Trump listened to, and promised (persuasively) to assuage.
Be more LIKE US. Donald Trump, despite being a billionaire and one of the shrewdest
marketing minds in history, is in essence a Joe Everyman. Or at least, he has played the part
brilliantly. Hillary and Bill have gained the reputation of rich, entitled, corrupt politicians. They are
seen by many as all that is wrong with our political system, having gained millions by taking

3. advantage of their position while normal, working class people go without. Donald Trump played
right into this, promising to “drain the swamp,” and “Make America Great Again.”
This resonated with the working class who saw him as an advocate, and ultimately elected him
to the presidency.
Be more HONEST. One of the main perpetrators of Hillary’s undoing was her email scandal. If
she were wise, she would have been transparent with whatever it was that was going on,
convinced the nation she was acting in our interests, and accepted the consequences of her
actions. That’s what John Wayne would have done. This is America, we love to give out second
chances, and we love accountability. If Hillary would have went this route, she could have gotten
out in front of this notorious scandal and minimized its effect on her campaign.