Cited by 88Populism, Right-Wing MovementsElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationMigration, Refugees, and Integration

The Partisan Sorting of “America”: How Nationalist Cleavages Shaped the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

Open access
Bonikowski, Bart, Feinstein, Yuval, Bock, Sean·2021·American Journal of Sociology

Published 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

Crossref · 10.1086/717103

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”
  • 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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bonikowski, B., Feinstein, Y., & Bock, S.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • University of Haifa (IL)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Sociology
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
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