I know, for a guy who tries to caution about reliance on polls, my recent diaries have seemed to discuss them a bit much. But the reason I am returning to the subject of polling data today is that I have discovered something unusual in political polling, a longitudinal study of the same group of voters over a four year period.
The Voter Study Group published four papers in June that can provide some depth and breadth to the data surrounding exactly what happened in November of 2016. What is different about these papers? The 8,000 voters were surveyed by the Voter Study Group and the polling firm YouGov before and after both the 2012 and 2016 elections.
That is a sample set that, in my opinion, is reason enough to take a look at these results with fresh eyes. These papers are not based on unrelated snapshots at various points. They are based on the evolution of a group over time.
The other thing about this collaboration is that it brings together “analysts and scholars from across the political spectrum”. It isn’t so much about seeking a unified voice as it is about looking at a set of data from different viewpoints. For something this important, understanding what few saw coming, that matters to me.
After reading the four papers, as well as a few other articles on at least one of the papers, I tried to draw some of my own conclusions.
- There is no one style of Trump voter, even though the general theme of non-inclusivity seems to run through much of his appeal. The uniformity disappears on other issues.
- The uncertainty of the US becoming a minority-majority nation seems to divide 2016 voters.
- Yes, a lot of White voters were reacting to the Black guy. Race relations still divide this electorate.
- Whites without a college education? Highly likely to have voted Trump
- Uncertainty and Whiteness lie at the heart of the Trump win
As for the fourth study from the same data set, I will include the key findings and let you make of them what you will. But I have some thoughts on that as well. The dividing lines are drawn pretty starkly. The Democrats are mostly divided along belief in the system as a whole. This should surprise no one here. Tacking to the center and attempts to appeal to the “White Working Class” voter that has become the “Soccer Mom” of 2016 will most likely fail for Democrats going forward.
Two studies looked specifically at Trump and those who voted for him.
Key Findings:
- Voters who held views of immigrants, Muslims, minorities, and feminist women as the undeserving “other” were particularly susceptible to Trump’s appeal in both the primaries and the general election
- The economic concerns of voters made contributions to Trump’s success, both directly and indirectly, through promoting the cultural attitudes associated with Trump support
- Views on trade, contrary to the conventional wisdom, did not appear to have much of an independent effect on Trump support in either the primaries or the general election.
My reading of this paper shows that it is very much an “us versus them” attitude that unifies the Trump base. That final finding, however, stands out for me. The authors state it this way. “As counterintuitive as it may seem, there is a substantial amount of evidence that voters shift their opinions to more closely match those of their preferred candidate.” Call it what you will, depending on your level of cynicism but it certainly speaks to a sens of tribalism in current US politics.
Here’s another way to look at it. Trump supporters were angry and he gave them something to blame. The fact that it tied into his claim of being a great deal maker and his claims that he could do better for the average worker made it a good political choice.
And here’s the thing, the Trump campaign may have been a lot of things. Words like heartless, vile, and venal come to mind. But don’t ever make the mistake that the campaign was stupid. Trump has been pushing White America first polemics since the Central Park Five. They saw a wedge issue and they used it. That’s the thing about Populism of the Right. It is very good at pointing a finger and riling up the masses.
Emily Ekins: The Five Types of Trump Voters
Key Findings:
- This analysis finds five unique clusters of Trump voters: American Preservationists (20%), Staunch Conservatives (31%), Anti-Elites (19%), Free Marketeers (25%), and the Disengaged (5%)
- There is no such thing as “one kind of Trump voter” who voted for him for one single reason. Many voted with enthusiasm for Trump while others held their noses and voted against Hillary Clinton.
- Trump voters hold very different views on a wide variety of issues including immigration, race, American identity, moral traditionalism, trade, and economics.
- Four issues distinguish Trump voters from non-Trump voters: attitudes toward Hillary Clinton, evaluations of the economy, views about illegal immigration, and views about Muslim immigration.
So, it is hard to talk about the “Trump voter” as a heterogeneous group. This shouldn’t come as a big surprise. The Evangelical base has been voting for judges since the 80s. They will always vote for the Republican option. The seriously big money will always vote for the Republican. As for “American Preservationists”, they wouldn’t vote Democrat ever so we can write them off categorically.
Here’s the thing though. I don’t see a group of poachable voters in that coalition except for maybe the “Disaffected”. That 5% of Trump voters would have swayed the election so that’s the group to focus on. How do you do that? You campaign on something that cannot be faked, a desire to use government to actually do something for the people whose votes you are courting.
I have said this before, I am a Progressive and a Democrat because I feel that there is a role for government in society. First and foremost, for me, that role is providing a check against corporate control and monopolies and gambling on Wall Street. Let’s try making that case to the electorate.
I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign. — Harry S Truman
A Third Study Looked at What Divided Voters in the 2016 Election
Key Findings:
- Even before the 2016 election, there was increasing alignment between race and partisanship, with white voters without a college education shifting sharply toward the Republican Party.
- Attitudes related to immigration, religion, and race were more salient to voter decision-making in 2016 than in 2012. Other attitudes do not show this pattern.
- There are serious partisan cleavages in how Americans feel about immigrants and Muslims.
- Large majorities agree on certain criteria for "being American," but Democrats and Republicans disagree about whether being Christian is an important criterion.
- Americans see both positive and negative consequences to the demographic changes that are projected to make the U.S. a majority-minority nation.
I will also add this important caveat from the paper’s conclusion:
Moreover, the findings I have presented here characterize the entire sample of white voters; they are not an account of how any single voter, or every voter, made his or her choice. Nevertheless, these findings suggest that, compared to the 2012 election, the 2016 election was distinctively about attitudes related to racial, ethnic, and religious minorities.
So I’m not suggesting writing off white voters with little or no college education. I am suggesting that there is a current running through all white voters, no matter how much education they have, that looks at minorities disparagingly. This particular group just has a higher percentage of Trump voters.
But here’s the thing. There are real differences on race, religion, and immigration between the two parties. There is nothing to be gained by tacking to the “center” or seeking bipartisan support for a lot of the issues in the 2016 Democratic platform. There is potentially everything to be gained by embracing inclusion in our politics.
The Fourth Study Looked at Where This Leaves Us Today
Key Findings:
- By making questions of national identity more salient, Donald Trump succeeded in winning over “populists” (socially conservative, economically liberal voters) who had previously voted for Democrats.
- Among populists who voted for Obama, Clinton did terribly. She held onto only 6 in 10 of these voters (59 percent). Trump picked up 27 percent of these voters, and the remaining 14 percent didn’t vote for either major party candidate.
- To the extent that the Democratic Party is divided, these divisions are more about faith in the political system and general disaffection than they are about issue positions.
- By contrast, Republican voters are more clearly split. For the most part, Trump and Cruz supporters look fairly similar, though Cruz supporters are considerably more conservative on moral issues, and notably less concerned about inequality and the social safety net, and more pro- free trade. Kasich supporters are the true moderates, caught in between the two parties on almost every issue, both economic and social.
- In both parties, the donor class is both more conservative on economic issues and more liberal on social issues, as compared to the rest of the party
- Democrats may be pressured to move further left on identity issues, given that both younger voters and the party’s donor class are quite far to the left on identity issues. If so, American politics would become further polarized along questions of culture and identity.
So, What Now?
We need to work very hard to make the process as open and transparent as possible. The GOP is the party of “It’s my turn to run for President”. That is what I think happened to Bob Dole and John McCain. (I also think it is what cost John Kerry and Hillary Clinton) Again, just my opinion. But I think that a primary process that is wide open, well contested, and closely watched only helps the party’s candidate in the 2020 General Election.
Finally, inclusion is the only way forward for the Democratic Party. That means standing up for everyone and standing with anyone who stands for equality. There’s a word for that. It is called INTERSECTIONALITY. It is hard. It doesn’t tack to the center. And it takes some getting used to. But it is worth it.
Open up the party, and by this I mean the candidates, to the whole spectrum of LGBTQIA and every minority group. Listen to them. Rally together in support of them. Be ready to man the barricades with and for them.
Together.