declan walsh, who has been reporting on the u.s. presidential campaign as a foreign correspondent, is answering questions from readers as the election nears. below, he responds to readers interested in the tenor of the campaigns of hillary clinton and donald j. trump ; the practice of voters who split their ballot; and what states will ultimately decide the election. q. how is it possible for the american democracy to produce two presidential candidates who are so widely disliked, and who are not representative of america; its people, its values? cannot a democracy serve up a better, more honest, more decent choice? <u+2014> peter smith, india, by way of australia a. tens of millions of americans are asking the same question. mrs. clinton and mr. trump have little in common, except they are the least popular candidates for president in recent history. the latest new york times/cbs news poll finds that eight in 10 voters are repulsed rather than excited about this presidential campaign. this unsavory choice is a product of many factors, but can be traced most directly to the primaries and caucuses <u+2014> the state-by-state voting, early this year, in which democrats and republicans chose their parties<u+2019> presidential nominees. this time around, republican primary voters defied all conventional political wisdom in selecting mr. trump from a crowded field of candidates, including jeb bush, a member of one of america<u+2019>s dominant political clans, and senator ted cruz, the tea party firebrand from texas. in the democratic primary, mrs. clinton got a scare from her more liberal opponent, senator bernie sanders of vermont, who performed better than she expected. but her unpopularity, even among some democrats, is an enduring problem for her campaign: some people who supported mr. sanders, who is now backing mrs. clinton<u+2019>s bid for the white house, have defected from the democrats and intend to vote for jill stein of the green party (who has no chance of winning). no matter who wins, he or she will urgently need to establish his or her popular legitimacy. after all, the purpose of an election is to find a leader the people want <u+2014> not the one they deem to be the least unpopular candidate. q. why vote for one party for president and the other party for c ongress? that just immobilizes the president<u+2019>s agenda. why are the campaign s focused on smearing each other instead of laying out their plans and how they will benefit the general public? <u+2014> cesar gamez; monterrey, mexico a. you<u+2019>re right. splitting the ticket <u+2014> choosing a candidate from one party for the presidency and the other for congress <u+2014> doesn<u+2019>t seem to make much sense for voters. in recent years the practice has fallen to record lows. in the 2012 election, 10 percent of voters divided their votes between the parties, resulting in split outcomes in 6 percent of congressional districts <u+2014> the lowest rate in 92 years. this year that trend may be sharply reversed. as some republican voters desert their party in disgust at mr. trump<u+2019>s candidacy, the party is hoping to persuade them to stick with it in congressional races. in recent weeks major republican donors, believing mr. trump is doomed to lose, have started to shift funds toward <u+201c>down-ballot<u+201d> races in a bid to retain republican majorities in the house and the senate. in an extraordinary development, some embattled republican senators have even gone on the campaign trail in support of mrs. clinton, encouraging their supporters to split their ballots. your second question, about the ugly tenor of this year<u+2019>s campaign, has many possible answers <u+2014> celebrity culture, social media and popular disillusionment with politics, among others. but by far the greatest factor is mr. trump, whose outlandish statements have loomed large over every day of this campaign. q. why do you think women at all support trump? <u+2014> kelly strodl, london, england, but a native of california a. implicit in your question is the idea that women should be more offended by mr. trump<u+2019>s demeaning and vulgar comments, and suggestions of sexual assault. i understand that sentiment, but i think that men should be equally disturbed by those ideas. beyond that, i think it<u+2019>s simply a measure of the deep polarization of american society. for some people who hate mrs. clinton, it seems they would vote for virtually anyone else to keep her out of power. q. how many states do you truly think are tossups at this point in the campaign? <u+2014> evan saslove, ottawa a. amanda cox, editor of the upshot, says there are eight states in the upshot model where the leading candidate has less than an 85 percent chance of winning. as of thursday afternoon, those states were north carolina, nevada, florida, ohio, iowa, arizona, utah and georgia. other states, including colorado, are right on the edge of that cutoff. (the numbers change often.) depending on what you mean by <u+201c>truly<u+201d> a tossup, the list could be narrower. the cook political report currently rates only two states as tossups: florida and north carolina. q. this election has seen the death of impartial news media. will we ever see it again? <u+2014> jack jameson, sweden, formerly of new jersey a. it is certainly true that the polarized atmosphere of the election has spilled into the american news media. at conservative fox news, the television host sean hannity has openly declared for mr. trump and uncritically aired conspiracy theories. at cnn, the political analyst and democratic strategist donna brazile shared questions for cnn-sponsored candidate events in advance with the clinton campaign. (the network severed its ties with ms. brazile this week.) early in the campaign many news outlets, including the new york times, faced criticism that they had failed to subject mr. trump<u+2019>s unorthodox candidacy to sufficient scrutiny. yet in recent months, news outlets have aggressively held both candidates accountable. the times exposed mr. trump<u+2019>s tax records from 1995 , showing nearly $1 billion in losses that allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for years. the washington post published a tape of mr. trump<u+2019>s aggressive sexual comments about women . revelations from leaked emails published by wikileaks continue to embarrass the clinton campaign . a bigger problem, i think, is that a growing number of americans voters are losing confidence in major mainstream news sources and turning instead to social media, like facebook and twitter. one result is an echo chamber of like-minded views. this can increase the sense of political polarization, as americans of opposing views desert the common ground where they once held their national conversation. that<u+2019>s the paradox of this election: americans have never had more access to so much information about the candidates; the question is whether they believe any of it. q. why is the election process so very long and exhausting? every other country i know has a limit. <u+2014> sue burgess, australia the grueling 18-month stretch of debates and campaigning is supposed to produce a pair of battle-hardened candidates who are ready for the rigors of the world<u+2019>s most powerful elected position. the downside is that, with four-year presidential terms, americans seem to be almost perpetually in election mode. and candidates must engage in feverish fund-raising <u+2014> about $2.5 billion was spent on the 2012 election, and probably much more this time. this year<u+2019>s exhausting race has shown that the campaign can test the public<u+2019>s patience <u+2014> and may hurt their faith in democracy itself. follow declan walsh on twitter @declanwalsh . a version of this article appears in print on november 8, 2016, on page a9 of the new york edition with the headline: quizzical look at u.s. race, from afar. order reprints | today's paper | subscribe
your questions about the u.s. election, answered
declan walsh