2016 Election Night

I’m seeing a lot of women posting photos of themselves wearing pantsuits as they go to the polls today to vote for Clinton. The Pantsuit Nation meme is a nod to the fact that as recently as 1993, wearing a pantsuit was an overt political act. That’s the year that Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) and Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kansas) committed the radical act of wearing pants to the Senate. “The Senate parliamentarian had looked at the rules to see if it was OK,” Mikulski told CNN. “You would have thought I was walking on the moon. It caused a big stir.” Clinton has spent much of her career fending off criticisms of her clothing and appearance. Her embrace of the pantsuit has become a symbol of her cool confidence and desire to get down to work. No wonder then that her pantsuits have inspired an Instagram account, a secret Facebook group for her fans and even a flashmob.

One interesting nugget from the early exit polls is the question of honesty. Trump called Clinton’s honesty into question throughout the campaign. And while 59 percent of voters say Clinton is not honest, 65 percent say Trump isn’t honest.

As we look back on the 2016 presidential campaign, one of the things many of us will be thinking about for a long time is the content of this campaign. A few days ago on the podcast, Jody, Farai and Harry noted that they’d like to see presidential campaigns emphasize issues rather than personality. This fascinating piece at Slate argues that the campaign was, in fact, about important issues. I’d like to make the case for focusing on the candidates — not in a way that’s specific to 2016, but just in terms of looking at what’s unique about picking a president. Party labels will tell us about where the candidates stand on the issues. Clues about how they will make decisions can be relatively rare, but they’re really important. From unexpected crises to the individuals they appoint to key policy positions, presidential decision-making is incredibly influential. But decision-making qualities can be hard for voters to determine, even for experienced candidates. This just might be an argument for why the input of party elites is useful at the nomination stage.