The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Understanding White Polarization in the 2016 Vote for President: The Sobering Role of Racism and Sexism
Abstract
THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN FEATURED major-party candidates who both explicitly put issues of race and gender at the forefront of the discourse. Notably, 2016 also witnessed the largest gap between the presidential vote preferences of college-educated and non-college-educated whites since 1980. While Donald Trump enjoyed just a four-point margin over Hillary Clinton among whites with a college degree (10 points less than Mitt Romney’s margin over Barack Obama among that group in 2012), his advantage among non-college-educated whites was nearly 40 points.1 This gap between college-educated and non-college-educated whites was possibly the single most important divide documented in 2016, and it was the culmination of an increasing divide in party identification among college-educated and non-college-educated whites following Obama’s election in 2008.2 While many election postmortems were quick to make note of the education gap among whites in terms of presidential vote choice in 2016, explanations for the origins of this gap were a subject of significant debate. Two primary explanations have been offered. The first is that white working-class Americans were left behind during the economic recovery that took place during the Obama presidency, and Trump’s populist economic message, focusing on protectionism and other policies to help working people, resonated with this feeling.3 A second explanation is that Trump’s willingness to make explicitly racist and sexist appeals during the campaign, coupled with the presence of an African American president and the first major-party female nominee, made racism and sexism a dividing line in the vote in this election.4 This led less educated whites, who tend to exhibit higher levels of sexism and racism, to support Trump, while more educated whites were more supportive of Clinton.5
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“There is growing evidence that racial prejudice and resentment is one of the critical determinants of the appeal of Donald Trump to a substantial proportion of American adults [128,129,130].”
From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [129]
In the citing paper
“These associations were evident after holding constant multiple factors that predict voting behavior.”
From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [129]
In the citing paper
“Also, denial of racism more strongly predicted voting behavior in 2016 than in 2012 and it predicted some voters who voted for Obama in 2012 becoming Trump supporters in 2016.”
From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [129]
In the citing paper
“Similarly, moving from non-sexist views to sexist ones was associated with a 20 percentage point increase in support of Trump [129].”
From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [129]
In the citing paper
“For example, in one of the surveys, as respondents moved from a high level of acknowledgement of racism to a denial of racism, there was a 60-point increase in support of Trump.”
From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [129]
In the citing paper
“Among whites, Trump had a four point margin of voter support over Hilary Clinton among college graduates, but a nearly 40% margin among those without a college education.”
From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [129]
In the citing paper
“The analyses found that a denial of racism and a hostile sexism, rather than economic difficulties, were the key drivers of support for Trump, especially among whites with low levels of education.”
From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [129]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote
Mutz, D. C. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1718155115 · Cited by 1,236
“One way to understand the surprising public acceptance of openly disrespectful statements about women, minorities, and foreigners is as manifestations of preexisting racist and sexist views; in other words, the 2016 election raised the salience of people’s preexisting views on these topics, so that they mattered more…”
BackgroundInfluentialJardina, A. E. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108645157 · Cited by 1,223
Whitehead, A. L., & Perry, S. L. (2020) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190057886.001.0001 · Cited by 570
Whitehead, A. L., Perry, S. L., & Baker, J. O. (2018) · Sociology of Religion · doi:10.1093/socrel/srx070 · Cited by 441
“…have argued that much of the pro-Trump sentiment of this constituency, many of whom voted for Obama in the previous two elections, was owed to their increasing insecurity about their economic and social position in the U.S. (Berezin 2017; Edgell 2017; Schaffner et al. 2017; Wayne et al. 2016).”
BackgroundInfluentialReducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action
Williams, D. R., & Cooper, L. A. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16040606 · Cited by 415
“Similarly, reminding white Americans who scored high on a measure of racial identification that whites would become a minority of the U.S. population in 2042, led them to be more concerned about the declining power of whites in the U.S. and to report increased support for candidate Donald Trump and for anti-immigrant…”
BackgroundResultInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Schaffner, B. F., Macwilliams, M., & Nteta, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- Venue
- Political Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 133
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 9-34
- ISSN
- 0032-3195 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-165X
- OpenAlex
- W2795844998
- Cited by
- 541
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 130 · 2019: 106 · 2018: 34
- FWCI
- 391.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Political Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
- Keywords
- 2016 US presidential election, white voters, racial polarization, sexism, racism, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, educational gaps, party identification, populism, protectionism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review