Five responses from leading scholars of American politics have given us a great deal to think about. Several themes emerge from the responses. The first is the challenge of the addressing how relevant the 2016 election will be for understanding the future of American politics. Several of the discussants also challenge our thinking about the role of white working class pundits, and about how political scientists should think about demographics and politics more generally. In the study of comparative politics, the literature on case selection demands that scholars answer the question, “What kind of case is this?” before proceeding; see for example Gerring and Seawright (2008). Looking forward, is the 2016 typical with some unusual features, or will it in retrospect seem unusual? The answer to this question depends on the research question and the variables of interest. As a result, elections scholars may need to think more deeply about the kinds of questions we pursue and the theoretical assumptions we make. However, we must also wait to find out the impact of 2016 on subsequent contests. As we attempt to classify the 2016 election, we are stuck doing some guesswork. Noel urges scholars to ask how an outlier can sharpen our theories. Masket and Victor both pose the question of whether last year’s contest will turn out to have been anomalous or a new normal. Finally, Shapiro asks whether the election was really so unusual after all. These different classifications suggest not just different interpretations, but that the implications of 2016 depend on what the researcher seeks to explain.

中文翻译：

---

Rejoinder：2016年有多特别？

美国政治学领先学者的五项回应给了我们很多思考。回应中出现了几个主题。首先是应对2016年大选对理解美国政治未来的重要性的挑战。一些讨论者还挑战了我们对白人工人阶级专家的作用以及政治学家应如何更广泛地考虑人口统计学和政治问题的思考。在比较政治研究中，有关案例选择的文献要求学者回答“这是什么样的案例？”的问题。在继续之前；参见Gerring和Seawright（2008）。展望未来，2016年是典型的，具有一些不寻常的功能，还是回想起来不寻常？这个问题的答案取决于研究问题和感兴趣的变量。结果，选举学者可能需要更深入地思考我们所追求的问题种类以及我们做出的理论假设。但是，我们还必须等待发现2016年对以后比赛的影响。当我们尝试对2016年大选进行分类时，我们被困在做一些猜测。诺埃尔（Noel）敦促学者们提出一个离群值如何完善我们的理论。Masket和Victor都提出了一个问题，那就是去年的比赛是异常的还是新的常态。最后，夏皮罗（Shapiro）询问选举是否真的真的如此不寻常。这些不同的分类不仅暗示着不同的解释，