Fear of diversity, not economic anxiety, caused Obama voters to switch to Trump

[Lief 🗽]

Great, important article that shatters so many of the myths those on the left, right, and center have clung to explain away Trump's victory.



[quote]Our analysis also shows that seeing racial diversity as a threat also helps to explain what motivated those voters who switched from voting for Barack Obama in 2012 to voting for Trump in 2016.

The CCAP data indicate that 9 percent of Obama 2012 voters switched to Trump in 2016, and about 5 percent of Romney 2012 voters defected from Trump by voting for Hillary Clinton, and 6 percent voted for another candidate. Perceiving growing racial diversity as a threat strongly predicts Obama to Trump vote switchers, and more positive attitudes towards diversity predict the probability that a Romney 2012 voter would defect from the Republican nominee in 2016. The chart below shows that among whites most accepting of diversity there was a predicted 33 percent chance of defecting, compared to a 2 percent chance for whites with the most negative views about rising diversity. Among whites with the most positive views of rising diversity, the model predicts a less than 2 percent chance of an Obama voter’s voting for Trump. This compares to a 50 percent chance of voting for Trump among whites with the most negative views of rising diversity. Moreover, our analysis indicates that these attitudes had a stronger effect on vote switchers than any other variable, including racial resentment and attitudes towards immigration.

...

Fears about immigration were also linked to Trump support. However, we find little evidence to support the idea that concerns about trade deals or a rigged system contributed significantly to a Trump victory. Neither the trade-policy baseline question nor a scale of questions about trade policy predicted Trump support.

Questions about whether the political system benefits wealthy elites predicted vote choice—but in the wrong direction. People who agreed that the system benefited powerful elites were more likely to reject Trump. Increasingly, class is simply not a meaningful dimension along which American politics is fought. In our regressions, income predicted support for McCain and Romney, but not Trump.

[Intell]

#such good analysis.

I mean it doesn't account for how anxiety leads to fear of diversity, and how it could be the combination of both, and it states the opinion "of fear of diversity", which by no means that they voted for Trump just because of "fear of diversity"

Neoliberal Clintonites continue to be trash.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Model controls for too much.

Diversity is diverse. That's its benefit and its problem.

Also, notice that the first two paragraphs are about marginal Trump voters, while the latter are about average Trump voters.

[Beet]

Lief,

This fails to debunk the economic anxiety camp, because even if the above study is accepted as accurate, which I wholly believe to be true, they will come up with two counterarguments. First, they will say that regardless of why voters switched to Trump, the Democrats should become economically populist because it's the right thing to do in a time of high inequality. Secondly, they'll say that from a pragmatic standpoint, if the debate is solely over diversity, we'll lose anyway. So in their minds, they have both merit and pragmatism on their side. At this point, I'm inclined to agree with them.

[JerryArkansas]

Many of us have been saying this, but for some reason many have been wanting to ignore it.  Wonder why?

[Intell]

Many of us have been saying this, but for some reason many have been wanting to ignore it.  Wonder why?

Nobody states that fear of diversity is not a factor in voting for Trump, however it's not the only factor, and probably not even the major factor.

This article states, Obama-Trump voters were more fearful of diversity, not that they voted for him because of that, two completely different points.

The fear of diversity, is more prevalent among those who switched to Trump, but how many people are they? The majority, or the minority?

[Hindsight was 2020]

Now that is what scares me because you can't really counter that as a democrat cause it's either openly condem it an you enter "basket of deplorables" territory or we don't adress it at all an let any racial/white identity politics move by Trump go unaddressed an minorities in this country feel we abandon them

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Now that is what scares me because you can't really counter that as a democrat cause it's either openly condem it an you enter "basket of deplorables" territory or we don't adress it at all an let any racial/white identity politics move by Trump go unaddressed an minorities in this country feel we abandon them

-How about not explicitly claiming America belongs to young illegal migrants?:
https://medium.com/hillary-for-america/to-young-people-who-are-undocumented-this-is-your-country-too-e0184e858b40

[I Won - Get Over It]

Many of us have been saying this, but for some reason many have been wanting to ignore it.  Wonder why?

Nobody states that fear of diversity is not a factor in voting for Trump, however it's not the only factor, and probably not even the major factor.

This article states, Obama-Trump voters were more fearful of diversity, not that they voted for him because of that, two completely different points.

The fear of diversity, is more prevalent among those who switched to Trump, but how many people are they? The majority, or the minority?

Yes. Correlation is not causation.

For example: Trump performed much better than anyone with rural non-educated voters for whatever reason (economic, social, "diversity").

This group is also "happen" to be more "racist". Correlation is not causation!

If it were Jeb vs Sanders the same group could probably switch to Sanders.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They voted twice for a black man, but a ticket with 2 whites was too diverse for them? OK.

[JerryArkansas]

Damn I love how so many progressives don't want to think about the fact the that maybe many Obama voters were racist and were bigots; and they only voted for him as some kind of feel good thing, and so that they wouldn't be called racist. 

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Damn I love how so many progressives don't want to think about the fact the that maybe many Obama voters were racist, and only voted for him so as to not get called racist. 

-How does that make any sense?

[Lief 🗽]

They voted twice for a black man, but a ticket with 2 whites was too diverse for them? OK.

No, they voted twice for liberalism over conservatism (2008 and 2012), but when given the opportunity to pick white nationalism over liberalism (2016), they did so.

[hopper]

Great, important article that shatters so many of the myths those on the left, right, and center have clung to explain away Trump's victory.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only group that income correlated with likelihood of voting for Romney(I don't know about McCain) was Hispanics. Whites-Religion mattered in likely hood of voting for Romney in that 75-80 of Evangelicals I think regardless of income levels voted for Romney. I think Non-Evangelicals 45-50% of them voted for Romney regardless of income. Blacks-It took 90-93% of the Black Population in a county to vote get to Obama's 93% of Black People that voted for him. It took 30% of the Asian Population in a County to get to Obama's total of taking of 73% of the Asian Vote.

[JerryArkansas]

Damn I love how so many progressives don't want to think about the fact the that maybe many Obama voters were racist, and only voted for him so as to not get called racist. 

-How does that make any sense?

Progressives don't want to think that the country is much more racist and bigoted than what they had believed.

[hopper]

They voted twice for a black man, but a ticket with 2 whites was too diverse for them? OK.

No, they voted twice for liberalism over conservatism (2008 and 2012), but when given the opportunity to pick white nationalism over liberalism (2016), they did so.

I corrected it for you.

[Beet]

They voted twice for a black man, but a ticket with 2 whites was too diverse for them? OK.

No, they voted twice for liberalism over conservatism (2008 and 2012), but when given the opportunity to pick white nationalism over liberalism (2016), they did so.

I corrected it for you.

That's why Trump is so tough on Putin, eh?

[hopper]

They voted twice for a black man, but a ticket with 2 whites was too diverse for them? OK.

No, they voted twice for liberalism over conservatism (2008 and 2012), but when given the opportunity to pick white nationalism over liberalism (2016), they did so.

I corrected it for you.

That's why Trump is so tough on Putin, eh?

What does Putin have to do with this?

[Beet]

They voted twice for a black man, but a ticket with 2 whites was too diverse for them? OK.

No, they voted twice for liberalism over conservatism (2008 and 2012), but when given the opportunity to pick white nationalism over liberalism (2016), they did so.

I corrected it for you.

That's why Trump is so tough on Putin, eh?

What does Putin have to do with this?

It's not very nationalistic to allow a foreign country to attack Americans without punishment, to denigrate American intelligence agents who risk their lives for this country, or praise a dictator whose government is run contrary to the values of the US Constitution.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

They voted twice for a black man, but a ticket with 2 whites was too diverse for them? OK.

No, they voted twice for liberalism over conservatism (2008 and 2012), but when given the opportunity to pick white nationalism over liberalism (2016), they did so.

I corrected it for you.

That's why Trump is so tough on Putin, eh?

What does Putin have to do with this?

It's not very nationalistic to allow a foreign country to attack Americans without punishment, to denigrate American intelligence agents who risk their lives for this country, or praise a dictator whose government is run contrary to the values of the US Constitution.

-The U.S. government has released no evidence demonstrating Russian govt involvement in the Podesta phishing and DNC hacks (neither of which were attacks). And how is a country punished? Such words are entirely meaningless. Use language clearly. Putin is not a dictator, though there are, indeed, fewer checks and balances in the Russian system than in the U.S. one. He is, indeed, however, very praiseworthy.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Damn I love how so many progressives don't want to think about the fact the that maybe many Obama voters were racist, and only voted for him so as to not get called racist. 

-How does that make any sense?

Progressives don't want to think that the country is much more racist and bigoted than what they had believed.

-What percent of HRC 2016 voters were racist? What percent of Trump 2016 voters?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Atlas does not understand political science research, exhibit #55798743

[hopper]

They voted twice for a black man, but a ticket with 2 whites was too diverse for them? OK.

No, they voted twice for liberalism over conservatism (2008 and 2012), but when given the opportunity to pick white nationalism over liberalism (2016), they did so.

I corrected it for you.

That's why Trump is so tough on Putin, eh?

What does Putin have to do with this?

It's not very nationalistic to allow a foreign country to attack Americans without punishment, to denigrate American intelligence agents who risk their lives for this country, or praise a dictator whose government is run contrary to the values of the US Constitution.

To Attack Americans-Putin didn't hit us with a nuclear bomb.

Praise a Dictator-Trump said Putin is a strong leader. Trump didn't exactly go into with wether he agreed with Putin on issues.

[Mr. Morden]

They voted twice for a black man, but a ticket with 2 whites was too diverse for them? OK.

As Bill Scher suggested here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/44417?in=19:27&out=21:55

it might have something to do with the fact that Obama 2008 "winked" at "white racial grievance" in a way that Clinton didn't.  He talks about that in more detail here:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/basket-of-deplorables-strategy-democrats-214246

[Beet]

They voted twice for a black man, but a ticket with 2 whites was too diverse for them? OK.

No, they voted twice for liberalism over conservatism (2008 and 2012), but when given the opportunity to pick white nationalism over liberalism (2016), they did so.

I corrected it for you.

That's why Trump is so tough on Putin, eh?

What does Putin have to do with this?

It's not very nationalistic to allow a foreign country to attack Americans without punishment, to denigrate American intelligence agents who risk their lives for this country, or praise a dictator whose government is run contrary to the values of the US Constitution.

To Attack Americans-Putin didn't hit us with a nuclear bomb.

Praise a Dictator-Trump said Putin is a strong leader. Trump didn't exactly go into with wether he agreed with Putin on issues.

Hacking is a crime, that if an American did it he would go to jail; it is digital breaking and entering and theft, no different than the burglars who broke into the DNC in 1972, in this case carried out by an arm of the Russian military, the GRU. So it was literally an attack by a military arm of a foreign power against American civilians. Trump mocked a whole class of US civil servants who offered their opinion on the attack, and then went on to praise the attacker. Regardless of how reasonable you think what he did was, it was by no means anything resembling "nationalistic." To side with foreigners over fellow Americans is the opposite of nationalism.