The Impact of the Orlando Shooting on the US Election

The mass shooting that occurred at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida has become one of the most pressing discussions in the current political climate. The events not only shocked the nation but also brought into question the role this undercurrent tragedy might play in the upcoming US elections. While Donald Trump has been quick to use the event as a political tool, the true impact remains uncertain.

Trump’s Gambit: Playing on Fear and Misunderstanding

Donald Trump seems to believe that the Orlando shooting might provide an opportunity for him. In a swift and critical response, he accused President Obama of showcasing a weakness in the broader fight against ISIS. His rhetoric included the line, 'We aren’t far enough removed from the Orlando shootings to know exactly how Trump’s gambit will play in a general election. But early polling indications suggest that it isn’t playing nearly as well as he would hope.'

Trump’s campaign strategy has often capitalized on fear and a demand for toughness. Following the Paris and San Bernardino incidents, he proposed a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States. The Republican Party's primary electorate resonated with Trump’s message of disdaining political correctness and the need for strength. People were drawn to his stance for the perceived security it offered.

Post-Orlando Shooting: Trump’s Advantages

Three key reasons suggest that Trump could gain from the Orlando tragedy:

Blame Game: Allegations have emerged that the President was more angry at Trump than the actual shooter. This perception could backfire politically for the Democrats. Rhetoric Escalation: The religion that Trump frequently bashes is involved in this incident. The rhetoric could escalate further, undermining any positive resolutions. Party Divide: The shooter, Omar Mateen, was reportedly a Democrat. This makes it difficult for the Republican Party and NRA supporters to let go of the narrative that Trump should be their candidate for keeping America strong.

Political scientists have analyzed the impact of terrorist events on public opinion. Jennifer Merolla and Elizabeth Zechmeister from the Washington Post have pointed out that terrorist threats can lead to:

Decreased Trust: Increased distrust of others, including neighbors. Antagonism Towards Immigrants: Hostility towards Arab and Muslim Americans. Support for Hawkish Policies: Greater support for strong leadership and security measures.

Trump, as a Republican and male leader with no relevant national security experience, may gain some traction here. However, Hillary Clinton, with her substantial national security experience, is also capable of being viewed as tougher on security. Her hawkish stances on actions like the Iraq invasion and Libya intervention contrast with Trump’s criticism, which may make her appear more balanced in the eyes of voters.

Strengthening of Imagined Divides

Regardless of who is better positioned to address security concerns, the immediate political impacts seem only to inflame existing polarization. Democrats stoke demands for gun control and pro-LGBT rights, while Republicans respond with anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant fear and anger, and support for gun rights.

A marginal benefit to Clinton might be that it could bring the Clinton and Sanders factions closer together sooner. Additionally, if Trump's reaction is perceived as intemperate and rash, it could bolster the view in both parties that he is unqualified for the role of Commander-in-Chief.