The Partisan Sorting of “America”: How Nationalist Cleavages Shaped the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Political scientists have acknowledged the importance of nationalism as a constitutive element of radical-right politics but have typically empirically reduced the phenomenon to specific out-group sentiments. Sociologists, in contrast, have devoted more attention to theorizing and operationalizing nationalism but have only sporadically engaged in debates about institutional politics. The present study brings these literatures together by considering how nationalist beliefs shaped respondents’ voting preferences in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and how the election outcome built on long-term changes in the distribution of nationalism in the U.S. population. The results suggest that competing understandings of American nationhood were effectively mobilized by candidates from the two parties, in both the 2016 primaries and the general election. Furthermore, over the past 20 years, nationalism has become sorted by party, as Republican identifiers have come to define America in more exclusionary and critical terms and Democrats have increasingly endorsed inclusive and positive conceptions of nationhood. These trends point to the rising demand for radical candidates among Republicans and suggest a potentially bleak future for U.S. politics, as nationalism becomes yet another among multiple overlapping social and cultural cleavages that serve to reinforce partisan divisions and undermine the stability of liberal democratic institutions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Prior to 2000, Democrats and Republicans differed little in terms of nationalist beliefs, but as of 2016 they held very different conceptions, apparently because of 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and racial resentment in response to Barack Obama's presidency.
“Prior to 2000, Democrats and Republicans differed little in terms of nationalist beliefs, but as of 2016 they held very different conceptions, apparently because of 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and racial resentment in response to Barack Obama’s presidency286.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [286]
The Republican Party's use of restrictive nationalist rhetoric in the twenty-first century is almost certainly linked to demographic shifts (such as the relative increase in the non-white population) in the context of a plurality electoral system with two major parties.
“For example, the Republican Party’s use of restrictive nationalist rhetoric in the twenty-first century286 is almost certainly linked to demographic shifts (such as the relative increase in the non-white population63) in the context of a plurality electoral system with two major parties.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [286]
Cites
Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity
Mason, L. (2018) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001 · Cited by 1,985 · see citing works
Estimating latent structure models with categorical variables: one-step versus three-step estimators
Bolck, A., Croon, M., & Hagenaars, J. (2004) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mph001 · Cited by 1,406 · see citing works
Toward a Measure of Patriotic and Nationalistic Attitudes
Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989) · Political Psychology · doi:10.2307/3791647 · Cited by 1,225 · see citing works
Radical right-wing parties in Europe: What’s populism got to do with it?
Rydgren, J. (2017) · Journal of Language and Politics · doi:10.1075/jlp.17024.ryd · Cited by 239 · see citing works
Pluralistic Collapse: The “Oil Spill” Model of Mass Opinion Polarization
DellaPosta, D. (2020) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122420922989 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Roberts, S. T., Flaherty, B. P., Deya, R., Masese, L., Ngina, J., McClelland, R. S., Simoni, J., & Graham, S. M. (2018) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-018-2107-4 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Kozlowski, A. C., & Murphy, J. P. (2021) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2020.102498 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective
Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781108914123 · Cited by 481 · see citing works
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bonikowski, B., Feinstein, Y., & Bock, S.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- University of Haifa (IL)
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Sociology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2021-09-01
- Volume
- 127
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 492-561
- ISSN
- 0002-9602 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5390
- OpenAlex
- W4285370378
- Cited by
- 88
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 42.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- American Journal of Sociology (publishedVersion)
- SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration, Refugees, and Integration
- Keywords
- nationalism, 2016 US presidential election, American nationhood, partisan sorting, radical right, Republican Party, Democratic Party, voting behavior, political cleavages, party identification, voter mobilization
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