Support For Trump Research Articles

Unpacking Young Adults’ Voting Preferences: The Role of Neighborhood Trust

Compared to previous generations, young adults today report lower levels of trust in government, law enforcement, and their communities. This study investigates neighborhood factors influencing social trust among Arizona young adults during the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election. Through an analysis of online survey data for a sample of young adults ( N = 1,376) who participated in the Arizona Youth Identity Project, we explore how neighborhood diversity, population density, racial identity, and political affiliation are associated with social trust and voting preferences. We find that Arizona young adults’ trust in police and their neighbors varies by neighborhood diversity and racial identity, with residents of mostly White neighborhoods reporting higher levels of trust. Additionally, support for Trump is highest among young adults who expressed high trust in local police. This study underscores and begins to unpack the interplay between race, space, and trust in shaping political identities and preferences.

‘Everything everywhere all at once’: Paradigm shifts, the dynamics of agency, and the January 6th assault on the US capitol

To unpack the underlying causes of the events of January 6th, 2021, by supporters of outgoing President Trump, this essay pursues two lines of inquiry. Firstly, drawing on insights from Kuhn and Bion into, respectively, paradigm shifts and group dynamics, we argue support for Trump’s promise to ‘make American great again’ is rooted in anxiety triggered by various disruptive changes facing Americans. Followers alleviate this by becoming dependent upon Trump, thereby affording him undue influence. January 6th itself, we argue, was a paradigm shifting event, constituting a shattering betrayal of a sitting President’s fundamental duty to uphold the Constitution and keep the country safe from harm. Secondly, we examine the MAGA worldview, drawing on social identity theory, its offshoot regarding leadership, and notions of agency. We highlight its deleterious effects on how Trump and his followers exercised their agency and, simultaneously, how it legitimated Trump’s reckless betrayal of his responsibilities. Through our analysis of these underlying causes, we conclude that January 6th was no mere aberration in terms of what Trump and his supporters are capable of doing. Rather we contend the same forces animating what happened that day remain a clear and present danger to democracy in America.

Embracing the Status Hierarchy: How Immigration Attitudes, Prejudice, and Sexism Shaped Non-White Support for Trump

It is well established that Donald Trump’s rhetoric and actions during his candidacy and presidency endorsed existing group-based social hierarchies, helping to boost his support among white Americans, especially men and those without a college degree. But how did these endorsements shape support for Trump among non-white Americans? Extant theories suggest that these actions should have pushed racial and ethnic minority voter support for the GOP candidate to its lowest observed levels in contemporary political history. Yet Trump outperformed these expectations in 2016 and in 2020 among Black, Latino, and Asian American voters. We propose the same embrace of social hierarchies that motivated white support for Trump also motivated the political preferences and behaviors of a significant number of non-white Americans. Using several national large-N surveys conducted between 2011 and 2021 with large samples of Black, Latino, and Asian Americans, we explore how support for existing status hierarchies—both gender and racial—engendered support for Trump across racial and ethnic groups and discuss implications for the future of electoral politics in a rapidly diversifying United States.

From apprentice to president? Entertainment TV and US elections

This article studies the importance of entertainment TV for the selection of political leaders in the context of an important case study: Donald Trump's win in the 2016 presidential election and his previous role as host of the popular TV show “The Apprentice.” We find a positive correlation between TV ratings of The Apprentice and the county-level Republican vote share in 2016, but this correlation vanishes once we control for pre-existing voting and NBC viewership patterns. This null result is robust to different model specifications, measures of exposure to The Apprentice, and an extensive investigation of heterogeneous effects. Viewership of The Apprentice is also unrelated to Congressional election results, as well as support for Trump in survey data and the Republican primaries. These findings highlight the context-dependent importance of television for political leadership.

I can’t stop myself! Doomscrolling, conspiracy theories, and trust in social media

ABSTRACT This study furthers understanding of doomscrolling – obsessively looking for bad news on a mobile device to the detriment of one’s well-being – by examining reactions (negative feelings, information seeking, sharing) to doomscrolling. It also tests relationships among doomscrolling, belief in 2020 election conspiracy theories and trust in video- and text-based social media. Findings show that belief in conspiracies theories influences all three reactions to doomscrolling, but only sharing of doomscrolled information influences belief in conspiracy theories. Also, trust in text-based and video social media leads to negative reactions and information seeking, while trust in video social media promotes sharing doomscrolled news. Further, the more strongly survey respondents trust video-based social media, the more they believe conspiracy theories. But support for Trump during the 2020 election is the strongest predictor of belief in conspiracy theories, while support for Biden is a negative predictor.

Solidarity in question: activation of dormant political dispositions and Latino support for Trump in 2020

Abstract Expectations about ethnic solidarity notwithstanding, Latino support for Donald Trump grew between the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. Despite his anti-immigration positions and policies, the number of votes cast for Trump unexpectedly increased among members of the group most strongly associated with the issue of immigration. Latinos showed considerably more variance in voting behavior than what would be expected given accounts focused mainly on their ethnic solidarity. We propose a counterintuitive explanation for this trend: due to the activation of dormant political dispositions, it is the very anti-immigration attitudes characterizing Trump that account for his ascendence among Latino voters. Latinos voting for Trump did so because of his anti-immigration positions and not despite those positions. Our findings motivate a reevaluation of standard understandings of the role of minorities in American politics writ large and in American elections more specifically. Furthermore, as anti-immigration Latinos reside disproportionately more in certain swing states, we find them to be a pivotal political force in determining election outcomes, though in unexpected ways.

Trump’s African Americans? Racial resentment and Black support for Trump in the 2020 elections

ABSTRACT The juxtaposition of the 2016 and 2020 elections reveals that despite articulating prejudiced positions as a candidate and then as president, Donald Trump broadened his support among minorities. Particularly perplexing is the fact that support for Trump grew among African Americans. We propose a counterintuitive explanation: racial resentment among Blacks accounted for Trump’s increased support. Our highly robust results motivate a reevaluation of standard understandings of the role of race in American politics writ large and in American elections more specifically. Blacks show considerably more variance in voting behavior than what would be expected given accounts focused on their linked fate; Blacks behave not just in the mold of Stacey Abrams, but more than commonly thought also in the mold of Clarence Thomas. As racially resentful Blacks reside disproportionately in certain swing states, our account portrays Blacks as citizens with political agency, who may be pivotal in determining election outcomes, sometimes in unexpected ways.

The dual economy, climate change, and the polarization of American politics

This article explores two questions. What generates the political division over climate change policy in the United States? How is the division over climate change policy related to the broader polarization of contemporary American politics? I argue that the geographies of America’s dual economy—the knowledge economy and the carbon economy—and exposure to the climate crisis intersect to generate a new axis of conflict, which I call the carbon–climate cleavage. This cleavage produces political division over climate change and provides materialist elements that accompany the sociocultural factors that shape contemporary polarization. I demonstrate the existence of the cleavage and its impact using data on economic geography, political attitudes on climate change policy, and support for Trump in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. The empirical analysis indicates that carbon economy communities oppose climate change policy and support Trump, while knowledge economy residents support climate change policy and oppose Trump.

Unions, democracy, and Trump: Deconstructing the COVID-19 vaccination crisis of 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant challenges for U.S. workers, especially those in essential occupations. As most public health experts view vaccination as the only certain path to defeating the virus, this study examines how union membership, political participation, and support for Trump have affected adult vaccination rates. The analyses also explore how these interrelated factors intersect to either exacerbate or reduce the ongoing public health crisis. Using vaccination data from 3112 U.S. counties in July of 2021, this study finds strong support for claims that localities with high levels of support for Trump have lower percentages of adults vaccinated, while areas with higher union coverage and higher voter turnout are associated with higher rates of vaccination. Moreover, the results show that the positive effects of union density are enhanced in counties with higher rates of voter turnout and support for Trump, revealing a complex relationship between unions, democracy and partisan politics. The results suggest that workplace and political democracy can effectively facilitate individual and collective responses to large-scale collective action problems such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authoritarianism and support for Trump and Clinton in the 2016 primaries

Research in the wake of the contentious 2016 presidential primaries contends both Democrats and Republicans were internally divided along psychological lines. Specifically, MacWilliams (2016) finds authoritarian personality was strongly related to Trump support among Republican primary voters, and Wronski et al. (2018) finds authoritarianism was strongly related to Clinton support among Democratic primary voters. In this paper, I reassess the relationships between authoritarianism and 2016 primary candidate preferences for both Republicans and Democrats. I analyze two new large, probability-based surveys and generate random effects estimates using these surveys and two national surveys from Wronski et al. (2018) . Overall, I find authoritarianism was moderately associated with support for Clinton over Sanders among Democratic primary voters, but weakly associated with support for Trump among Republican primary voters. My findings indicate authoritarianism may have played a more limited role in shaping Americans’ candidate preferences in the 2016 presidential primary elections than past studies have suggested.

Politicization of a Pathogen: A Prospective Longitudinal Study of COVID‐19 Responses in a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample

Understanding population‐level variability in responses to pathogens over time is important for developing effective health‐based messages targeted at ideologically diverse populations. Research from psychological and political sciences suggests that party and elite cues shape how people respond to major threats like climate change. Research on responses to the COVID‐19 pandemic suggests similar variability across party identities; however, prior work has methodological limitations. This prospective, longitudinal study of a large probability‐based nationally representative U.S. sample assessed in March–April 2020 (N = 6,514) and then 6 months later in September–October 2020 (N = 5,661) demonstrates that COVID‐19 fear, perceived COVID‐19 death risk, and reported health‐protective behaviors became increasingly polarized over the first 6 months of the pandemic. Initial differences between Democrats and Republicans failed to converge over time and became more pronounced. Responses among Republicans were further polarized by support for former President Donald Trump: Trump Republicans initially reported weaker responses to COVID‐19 than non‐Trump Republicans, and these differences became more pronounced over time. Importantly, political identity and Trump support were not linked to perceived infection risk of a nonpoliticized pathogen, the flu. Finally, political identity and Republican Trump support prospectively predicted COVID‐19 vaccine intentions 6 months into the pandemic.

Television, Authoritarianism, and Support for Trump: A Replication

Abstract Many factors contributed to support for Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election, among them media influences. Morgan and Shanahan (2017) found that television viewing was associated with support for Trump, mediated through authoritarianism. In light of the changes in the political and media environments during Trump’s presidency, our study examined whether Morgan and Shanahan’s (2017) findings still held in the 2020 US presidential election. Replicating their findings, we found that authoritarianism still mediates the relationship between television viewing and Trump support. As in the original study, the indirect effect is moderated by political ideology and gender, with stronger indirect effects among liberals and females.

County Immigration Enforcement in the Context of Unsettled Federalism: From Obama to Trump

We examine patterns of county participation in immigration enforcement across the Obama and Trump administrations and responses to the Trump administration’s efforts to mandate local compliance with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) directives. We focus on the policy that directly speaks to local discretion in enforcing federal law—namely, the willingness of local officials to render immigrant detainees to ICE. We find that underlying patterns of detainee transfers from counties to ICE were largely consistent between the Obama and Trump administrations. Nonetheless, the rate of detainee transfers increased during the Trump administration, an outcome associated with county support for Trump in the 2016 election. The findings suggest that partisanship is an entrenched source of diverging county enforcement practices, increasing intergovernmental conflict and undermining the “steam valve” potential of immigration federalism.

Lying for Trump? Elite Cue-Taking and Expressive Responding on Vote Method

AbstractMight elite cues affect how we vote? Extant literature focuses on effects of elite cues on candidate evaluation or policy preference, but we know little about how they might affect vote method preferences. Drawing on a large survey of validated Florida voters, including those who regularly vote by mail, we find that retrospective and prospective misreporting of vote method prior to the 2020 General Election was driven primarily by support for Trump. The president’s supporters who were most politically aware were most likely to disavow their own voting by mail and misreport their anticipated vote method in the November election. Understanding the effects—and limits—of elite cues on the politicization of self-reported political behavior has important implications for pollsters and campaigns, election administrators, voters, and the broader democratic electoral process.

Trump’s African Americans? Racial Resentment and Black Support for Trump in the 2020 Elections

Trump’s African Americans? Racial Resentment and Black Support for Trump in the 2020 Elections

Politically Contested Beliefs: Support for Trump Better Predicts Having Inaccurate Beliefs About COVID-19 Than Conservative/Republican Political Identity

ABSTRACT The COVID-19 pandemic poses an unprecedented risk to society. Studies suggested that people’s beliefs about COVID-19 are divided depending on partisan affiliations. Building on the belief gap hypothesis, this study adopts a nationally representative survey (N = 1,119) to examine whether political identity or support for Trump is more strongly related to having false beliefs about COVID-19. Results showed that support for Trump is a better predictor of having false beliefs about COVID-19 than conservative/Republican political identity. Support for Trump predicted having false beliefs, and such a tendency increased when they were more educated. Trust in scientific and news media institutions and conservative news use mediated the relationship between support for Trump and having false beliefs. Our findings bear implications on belief gap studies by introducing new mediators such as different dimensions of institutional trust and shed light on why people who support Trump are more susceptible to false claims about COVID-19.

Prototypicality threat drives support for nativist politics in U.S. and U.K. elections

Recent research shows that increasing diversity due to immigration can lead members of dominant ethnic groups (e.g., Whites in America) to experience prototypicality threat – the concern that their claim to best represent their national identity may be lost. Here we examine the emotional and behavioral responses to prototypicality threat in the domain of politics. Across eight years, five studies, two nations, and four electoral contexts (White Americans’ support for Trump in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election; White Britons’ support for the 2016 Brexit Referendum; White Americans’ support for Congressional candidates in 2018 U.S. Midterm Election; and White Americans’ support for a fictitious Congressional candidate in the 2022 U.S. Midterm Election), we show that prototypicality threat explains support for nativist policies and candidates. Furthermore, when those high in prototypicality threat see their favored nativist politics as victorious, they report lower anxiety and threat after the election. By demonstrating the role of prototypicality threat in support for nativist politics specifically, this work helps us understand how people respond to broad societal issues and suggests novel strategies for addressing politics hostile to immigrants.

Who are the Real Top Dogs and the Real Underdogs?

Three predominant explanations have been offered for the success of Donald Trump: first, that increased Republican support was based on a backlash against Democratic centrists and “elites” who had abandoned the working class by advocating neoliberal economic policies; second, that Trump and his supporters used racism, sexism, xenophobia and other “dog whistles” to create a backlash among white voters; and third, that support for Trump was based on misinformation, conspiracy theories, and propaganda promoted by various media and online outlets. While all three interpretations reflect some degree of accuracy, the common threads are that Trump supporters are seen as victims or underdogs, struggling against powerful “top dogs” who pose an existential threat to their livelihoods, culture, and social standing. In this article, we first address this question of underdogs versus top dogs, using the framework presented by William Dugger and other institutionalist economics to describe the consequences of liberal capitalism. We then ask whether these categories of “elite” and “populist” are mutually exclusive and all inclusive. We conclude by offering some thoughts on whether use of this terminology has muddled the basic understanding of the economic transformation that the United States is experiencing at this present time.

The Politics of Prevention: Polarization in How Workplace COVID-19 Safety Practices Shaped the Well-Being of Frontline Service Sector Workers.

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically reshaped the labor market, especially for service sector workers. Frontline service sector workers, already coping with precarious working conditions, faced proximate risks of COVID-19 transmission on the job and navigated new workplace safety measures, including masking, social distancing, and staying home while sick, all in a polarized political environment. We examine polarization in the effects of COVID-19 workplace safety measures on workers’ feelings of safety and well-being. Specifically, we examine how support for former President Trump moderates the relationship between COVID-19 safety practices (masking, social distancing, staying home while sick) and workers’ feelings of safety and well-being. To do so, we draw on novel data collected by The Shift Project from 2,039 service sector workers at 89 large firms during the COVID-19 pandemic. We find that workplace safety measures are positively associated with workers’ self-assessments of feeling safe and with mental health, but only for Biden voters.

Fear, Political Legitimization, and Racism: Examining Anti-Asian Xenophobia During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Unfortunately, there is a long history linking pandemics to Anti-Asian prejudice and xenophobia; these negative outcomes have been particularly pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some scholars have suggested that these relationships are driven by fear, wherein individuals respond to disease threat by “othering” that threat. Other research has implicated the role of the state, including the political rhetoric of former President Trump, in exacerbating bias by enabling a divisive political environment. Yet, very few existing studies have been able to assess the nature of these impacts or examine the mechanisms behind observed increases in xenophobia. To that end, this research presents results from a survey administered in May 2020 to respondents residing in the U.S., which assessed COVID-19-related attitudes and behaviors, as well as anti-Asian prejudicial attitudes. Using these data, we assessed the direct and interactive relationship between perceptions of risk (i.e., fear), exposure to COVID-19 information, support for Trump, and anti-Asian prejudice. Results reveal that fear—and support for Trump—are associated with increased anti-Asian prejudice, but that exposure to more information about COVID-19 is associated with decreased prejudice; we also note complex interactions between each of these factors.