Abstract:Donald Trump initiated his run for president by framing the United States as a nation in descent. Adopting the slogan “Make America Great Again,” he set his campaign against a backdrop of loss and declared a mission for reclamation. Numerous analysts claim that his candidacy and rhetoric galvanized white voters who feel left behind by changing times, but few have been able to provide direct evidence of a racialized sense of disadvantage, and most polls were not prepared to ask such specific questions prior to … Show more
“…As Jardina (2019) argues, these feelings of group solidarity operate independently of measures of discrimination against an outgroup, but provide another mechanism by which whites' racial attitudes affect vote choice. Here, too, whites' racial attitudes affected their support for Trump, in the primary and the general elections (see, also, Lopez Bunyasi, 2019).…”
Section: The Role Of Race and Gender Attitudes In Electoral Vote Choice In 2016 And Beyondmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Although the use of "non-probability" web-based samples are becoming more common-partially out of sheer necessity, given the increasing difficulty of contacting a representative sample using traditional methods-it is not specifically established as to how accurate these sampling methods are at capturing respondents that mirror the broader population (e.g., Baker et al, 2010), particularly as they compare to traditional RDD telephone and face-to-face probability sample surveys (Fahimi et al, 2015). Although imperfect, one method for assessing the representativeness of a nonprobability sample is to compare metrics to a high-quality benchmark (Yeager et al, 2011), particularly on variables that are likely to correlate with primary independent variables of interest (Lopez Bunyasi, 2019). The American National Election Study (NES) provides such a high-quality benchmark.…”
The 2020 Democratic presidential primary unfolded in a context with significant attention to issues of racial and gender inequality and identity. The field began as an historically diverse one but a white male candidate received the party's endorsement. Did the race and gender attitudes of Democratic primary and caucus participants play a role in shaping the pool of candidates? Using a survey of self-identified Democrats, this study provides evidence that racial resentment, hostile sexism, and modern sexism enhanced the assessments on several evaluative criteria of the white male candidate, while depressing the assessment of the Black woman candidate. These relationships are driven primarily by white respondents. These findings add to our understanding of how race and gender attitudes affect the electoral process well before the general election, particularly by shaping the ultimate choice of candidates in that contest.
“…As Jardina (2019) argues, these feelings of group solidarity operate independently of measures of discrimination against an outgroup, but provide another mechanism by which whites' racial attitudes affect vote choice. Here, too, whites' racial attitudes affected their support for Trump, in the primary and the general elections (see, also, Lopez Bunyasi, 2019).…”
Section: The Role Of Race and Gender Attitudes In Electoral Vote Choice In 2016 And Beyondmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Although the use of "non-probability" web-based samples are becoming more common-partially out of sheer necessity, given the increasing difficulty of contacting a representative sample using traditional methods-it is not specifically established as to how accurate these sampling methods are at capturing respondents that mirror the broader population (e.g., Baker et al, 2010), particularly as they compare to traditional RDD telephone and face-to-face probability sample surveys (Fahimi et al, 2015). Although imperfect, one method for assessing the representativeness of a nonprobability sample is to compare metrics to a high-quality benchmark (Yeager et al, 2011), particularly on variables that are likely to correlate with primary independent variables of interest (Lopez Bunyasi, 2019). The American National Election Study (NES) provides such a high-quality benchmark.…”
The 2020 Democratic presidential primary unfolded in a context with significant attention to issues of racial and gender inequality and identity. The field began as an historically diverse one but a white male candidate received the party's endorsement. Did the race and gender attitudes of Democratic primary and caucus participants play a role in shaping the pool of candidates? Using a survey of self-identified Democrats, this study provides evidence that racial resentment, hostile sexism, and modern sexism enhanced the assessments on several evaluative criteria of the white male candidate, while depressing the assessment of the Black woman candidate. These relationships are driven primarily by white respondents. These findings add to our understanding of how race and gender attitudes affect the electoral process well before the general election, particularly by shaping the ultimate choice of candidates in that contest.
“…Trump's rhetoric gave both white nationalists and believers in a Christian America renewed senses of legitimacy and opportunity during the primaries (Lopez Bunyasi 2019). White supremacist posts accelerated on a leading right-wing website, 4Chan, from the time Trump announced his candidacy through 2018 (Thompson 2018).…”
Critics charge President Donald Trump with racism, but he insists he opposes bigotry and is an American nationalist, not a white nationalist. We use analysis of Trump’s campaign rhetoric, his administration’s policies, and their reception to assess these rival claims. In his campaign, Trump narrated American identity as a tale of lost greatness in which a once-unblemished America gave way to globalist elites who have victimized many Americans, particularly traditionalist, predominantly white Christian Americans. His policies have systematically expanded protections for such Americans and sought to increase their share of the American electorate and citizenry, while reducing or eliminating initiatives designed to assist and increase the numbers of non-white, non-Christian American voters and citizens. The evidence thus shows that although Trump does not explicitly endorse white nationalism, his rhetoric and policies articulate not a consistent race-blind nationalism, but a vision of white protectionism.
“…Moreover, data from the National Study of Color‐Blindness and Race‐Consciousness—a nationally sampled data set fielded two weeks before 2016 primary election season—does afford some insight. As Bunyasi (2019:679) contends, not only was Trumpthe most popular candidate among white voters, but that he was especially supported by whites who think that their racial group fares worse in the job market than do black Americans, who feel that being white has been personally detrimental to their job prospects; who believe that there are generally more disadvantages to being white than there are advantages; and who disagree with the notion that systematic racism mainly benefits whites.…”
Section: Pre‐election 2020: a Period For Possibilitiesmentioning
I provide first an overview of the predictions of the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the public penance paid by political oracles in the wake of the results. Next, I reflect on the social science emphasis on forecasting “who” will win and by “how much.” Third, I argue that our collective emphasis on prediction and realpolitik may obscure, if not stop, our ability to both understand how and why outcomes occur (by illuminating causal mechanisms at play) as well as how to imagine and form social worlds different than our current social relations (by alleviating or eliminating destructive leadership, policies, and rhetoric). Fourth, I call attention to some important gender and racial dynamics—all with the aim of better understanding how modern politics work in order to identify and pursue equitable movements, policies, and laws, rather than to simply (and problematically) make pre‐election seasons into carnivalesque fortune‐telling distractions. I conclude with recommendations on social science at the nexus of gender, race, and politics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
