Wednesday 16 November 2016

The Demise of the Demise of Donald J Trump

Without having looked back at this years posts, I am aware there are at least several elections I have not properly recapped and analysed my predictions. I intend to redress this towards the end of the year with a post considering each election covered by this blog. And there are several elections ahead that I probably will not cover, but I will at least allow myself space to do so. Switzerland will hold a referendum on November 27 regarding the phase-out of nuclear power plants. Austria had a two-stage election for president this year, with the second controversial round being annulled and rescheduled for December 4. And the Gaza Strip could still have its on-again, off-again municipal elections this year.

Despite this, I think the 2016 US presidential election deserves some specific analysis. A full breakdown of my predictions and their accuracy will occur at the end of the year (we are, after all, still awaiting the results of Michigan, pending a possible recount). This will include a discussion of an error I should, in the interest of not hiding my mistakes, point out at the earliest opportunity (i.e. now). Maine and Nebraska were stated to split their electoral college votes proportionally during my predictions. This is not the case; both states deliver two electoral college seats (representing their senators) on a winner-takes-all basis, and the rest by first-past-the-post in their congressional districts (representing their members of the house).

What I will be looking at here, instead, will be the large scale result that surprised me as much as the other pollsters relying on US polling data: the victory of Donald Trump. In the minds of some, this is a result of racist, sexist and generally hateful voters. For others this is a rejection of politics as usual and a desire for change. For yet more, this is a far stronger emotion--revenge upon those who have made America not-great. I'll be comparing these three proposed rationalisations against the results to see which fit the data.

RACISM

There are many metrics that can be used to estimate which US states are the most racist. The most popular have been by analysis of twitter posts and google searches (the latter having first been used in psephological analysis of Obama's electoral prospects), however these are unreliable for certain reasons (including access and use of internet due to varying demographics between states and the fact that many terms flagged as offensive have been reclaimed by minorities and used in a positive context). Instead I'll be using the FBI Hate Crimes Statistics 2015, which while also flawed (such as relying on crimes being reported) is somewhat more rigorous.

STATE POPULATION AGENCIES POPULATION REPORTED % RACIAL HATE CRIMES
TOTAL EXAMINED % EXAMINED TOTAL REPORTING % REPORTING REPORTED CALCULATED PER MILLION
Alabama 4,858,979 1,252,146 25.8% 34 3 8.8% 2.3% 8 352 72.41
Alaska 738,432 734,820 99.5% 33 4 12.1% 12.1% 7 58 78.59
Arizona 6,828,065 6,622,880 97.0% 101 21 20.8% 20.2% 162 803 117.64
Arkansas 2,978,204 2,754,543 92.5% 279 4 1.4% 1.3% 3 226 75.97
California 39,144,818 39,137,326 100.0% 730 213 29.2% 29.2% 427 1464 37.39
Colorado 5,456,574 5,445,853 99.8% 234 42 17.9% 17.9% 65 363 66.50
Connecticut 3,590,886 3,399,068 94.7% 95 44 46.3% 43.8% 62 141 39.38
Delaware 945,934 945,934 100.0% 60 7 11.7% 11.7% 9 77 81.55
D. C. 672,228 672,228 100.0% 2 2 100.0% 100.0% 23 23 34.21
Florida 20,271,272 5,356,877 26.4% 38 36 94.7% 25.0% 44 176 8.67
Georgia 10,214,860 7,991,234 78.2% 473 7 1.5% 1.2% 32 2764 270.58
Hawaii 1,431,603 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 N/A N/A
Idaho 1,654,930 1,654,475 100.0% 112 19 17.0% 17.0% 14 83 49.88
Illinois 12,859,995 12,501,008 97.2% 741 43 5.8% 5.6% 59 1046 81.33
Indiana 6,619,680 3,224,755 48.7% 168 18 10.7% 5.2% 43 824 124.45
Iowa 3,123,899 3,105,094 99.4% 237 5 2.1% 2.1% 3 143 45.80
Kansas 2,911,641 2,741,323 94.2% 345 34 9.9% 9.3% 46 496 170.27
Kentucky 4,425,092 4,402,368 99.5% 403 83 20.6% 20.5% 113 551 124.63
Louisiana 4,670,724 3,711,824 79.5% 148 15 10.1% 8.1% 22 273 58.48
Maine 1,329,328 1,329,328 100.0% 184 14 7.6% 7.6% 16 210 158.19
Maryland 6,006,401 6,006,401 100.0% 154 11 7.1% 7.1% 22 308 51.28
Massachusetts 6,794,422 6,566,279 96.6% 342 85 24.9% 24.0% 198 824 121.33
Michigan 9,922,576 9,834,270 99.1% 617 127 20.6% 20.4% 198 971 97.81
Minnesota 5,489,594 5,218,435 95.1% 319 27 8.5% 8.0% 58 721 131.32
Mississippi 2,992,333 763,830 25.5% 43 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 N/A N/A
Missouri 6,083,672 6,079,483 99.9% 628 28 4.5% 4.5% 70 1571 258.25
Montana 1,032,949 1,023,807 99.1% 101 13 12.9% 12.8% 28 219 212.48
Nebraska 1,896,190 1,821,196 96.0% 227 3 1.3% 1.3% 10 788 415.48
Nevada 2,890,845 2,890,845 100.0% 53 6 11.3% 11.3% 36 318 110.00
New Hamp. 1,330,608 1,267,715 95.3% 168 9 5.4% 5.1% 8 157 117.80
New Jersey 8,958,013 8,956,395 100.0% 508 123 24.2% 24.2% 169 698 77.93
New Mexico 2,085,109 574,972 27.6% 18 2 11.1% 3.1% 8 261 125.22
New York 19,795,791 19,766,342 99.9% 575 60 10.4% 10.4% 136 1305 65.94
North Carolina 10,042,802 10,041,690 100.0% 532 52 9.8% 9.8% 106 1085 108.00
North Dakota 756,927 756,927 100.0% 112 19 17.0% 17.0% 29 171 225.84
Ohio 11,613,423 9,781,677 84.2% 595 109 18.3% 15.4% 309 2003 172.44
Oklahoma 3,911,338 3,896,985 99.6% 351 29 8.3% 8.2% 27 328 83.86
Oregon 4,028,977 1,671,416 41.5% 130 16 12.3% 5.1% 41 803 199.31
Pennsylvania 12,802,503 12,550,581 98.0% 1,436 26 1.8% 1.8% 40 2254 176.03
Rhode Island 1,056,298 1,056,298 100.0% 49 8 16.3% 16.3% 6 37 34.79
South Carolina 4,896,146 4,826,241 98.6% 436 40 9.2% 9.0% 44 487 99.37
South Dakota 858,469 782,152 91.1% 121 9 7.4% 6.8% 9 133 154.70
Tennessee 6,600,299 6,600,299 100.0% 463 61 13.2% 13.2% 157 1192 180.55
Texas 27,469,114 27,390,337 99.7% 1,026 62 6.0% 6.0% 107 1776 64.65
Utah 2,995,919 2,966,781 99.0% 133 22 16.5% 16.4% 29 177 59.09
Vermont 626,042 626,042 100.0% 90 5 5.6% 5.6% 5 90 143.76
Virginia 8,382,993 8,380,278 100.0% 414 58 14.0% 14.0% 108 771 91.99
Washington 7,170,351 7,163,444 99.9% 256 79 30.9% 30.8% 160 519 72.38
West Virginia 1,844,128 1,494,503 81.0% 229 12 5.2% 4.2% 28 659 357.53
Wisconsin 5,771,337 5,580,752 96.7% 395 25 6.3% 6.1% 27 441 76.44
Wyoming 586,107 564,577 96.3% 57 1 1.8% 1.7% 2 118 201.92

With the exception of the 2015 state populations, derived from the US Census Bureau's population estimates (XLSX, CSV), all data is taken from the FBI report (specifically tables 12 and 13) or calculated therefrom:

  • Population: % examined ('Population: examined'/'Population: total' x 100%)
    • the proportion of the population covered by the FBI's research 
  • Agencies: % reporting ('Agencies: reporting'/'Agencies: total' x 100%)
    • the proportion of affiliated agencies (which cover the population examined) providing data
  • Population reported % ('Population: % examined' x 'Agencies: % reporting')
    • the estimated proportion of the population for which data is available
    • does not account for variation in agency size
  • Racial hate crimes: calculated ('Racial hate crimes: reported' x 100%/'population reported %')
    • number of hate crimes in each state, extrapolated from the estimated proportion of the population for which data is available
    • does not account for variation in reporting practices
  • Racial hate crimes: per million ('Racial hate crimes: calculated'/'Population total' x 1,000,000)
    • number of hate crimes calculated to have occurred, per million people residing in the state
On these numbers, the most racist states are Nebraska, West Virginia, Georgia, Missouri and North Dakota. Data is not fully available for Hawaii and Mississippi. This data differs from the previously linked data, although West Virginia is also over-represented in anti-black tweets and racist google searches.

STATE HATE CRIMES PER MILLION TRUMP SUPPORT
Alabama 72.41 62.9%
Alaska 78.59 52.9%
Arizona 117.64 49.5%
Arkansas 75.97 60.4%
California 37.39 33.2%
Colorado 66.50 44.4%
Connecticut 39.38 41.7%
Delaware 81.55 41.9%
District of Columbia 34.21 4.1%
Florida 8.67 49.1%
Georgia 270.58 51.3%
Hawaii N/A 30.1%
Idaho 49.88 59.2%
Illinois 81.33 39.4%
Indiana 124.45 57.2%
Iowa 45.80 51.8%
Kansas 170.27 57.2%
Kentucky 124.63 62.5%
Louisiana 58.48 58.1%
Maine 158.19 45.2%
Maryland 51.28 60.5%
Massachusetts 121.33 33.5%
Michigan 97.81 47.6%
Minnesota 131.32 45.4%
Mississippi N/A 39.7%
Missouri 258.25 57.1%
Montana 212.48 56.5%
Nebraska 415.48 60.3%
Nevada 110.00 45.5%
New Hampshire 117.80 47.3%
New Jersey 77.93 41.8%
New Mexico 125.22 40.0%
New York 65.94 37.5%
North Carolina 108.00 50.5%
North Dakota 225.84 64.1%
Ohio 172.44 52.1%
Oklahoma 83.86 65.3%
Oregon 199.31 41.1%
Pennsylvania 176.03 48.8%
Rhode Island 34.79 39.8%
South Carolina 99.37 54.9%
South Dakota 154.70 61.5%
Tennessee 180.55 61.1%
Texas 64.65 52.6%
Utah 59.09 46.6%
Vermont 143.76 32.6%
Virginia 91.99 45.0%
Washington 72.38 38.3%
West Virginia 357.53 68.7%
Wisconsin 76.44 47.9%
Wyoming 201.92 70.1%
Pearson's Correlation 0.41


While there is a low correlation between primary votes for Trump ~(+.41) there are some obvious outliers; in particular the least racist state by our metrics is Florida (which many may disagree with) yet this was famously won by Trump (though by less than 50% of the popular vote).

SEXISM

Sexism has largely been studies by the same means as racism in the past, particularly through twitter posts. Since the FBI also records hate crimes motivated by gender, it is possible to perform the same analysis as above. However, there is such limited data that this does not provide much useful data:

STATE POPULATION AGENCIES POPULATION REPORTED RACIAL HATE CRIMES
TOTAL EXAMINED % EXAMINED TOTAL REPORTING % REPORTING REPORTED CALCULATED PER MILLION
Alabama 4,858,979 1,252,146 25.8% 34 3 8.8% 2.3% 0 0 0.00
Alaska 738,432 734,820 99.5% 33 4 12.1% 12.1% 0 0 0.00
Arizona 6,828,065 6,622,880 97.0% 101 21 20.8% 20.2% 0 0 0.00
Arkansas 2,978,204 2,754,543 92.5% 279 4 1.4% 1.3% 0 0 0.00
California 39,144,818 39,137,326 100.0% 730 213 29.2% 29.2% 1 3 0.09
Colorado 5,456,574 5,445,853 99.8% 234 42 17.9% 17.9% 0 0 0.00
Connecticut 3,590,886 3,399,068 94.7% 95 44 46.3% 43.8% 0 0 0.00
Delaware 945,934 945,934 100.0% 60 7 11.7% 11.7% 0 0 0.00
D.C. 672,228 672,228 100.0% 2 2 100.0% 100.0% 0 0 0.00
Florida 20,271,272 5,356,877 26.4% 38 36 94.7% 25.0% 0 0 0.00
Georgia 10,214,860 7,991,234 78.2% 473 7 1.5% 1.2% 0 0 0.00
Hawaii 1,431,603 0 0.0% 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 N/A N/A
Idaho 1,654,930 1,654,475 100.0% 112 19 17.0% 17.0% 0 0 0.00
Illinois 12,859,995 12,501,008 97.2% 741 43 5.8% 5.6% 1 18 1.38
Indiana 6,619,680 3,224,755 48.7% 168 18 10.7% 5.2% 1 19 2.89
Iowa 3,123,899 3,105,094 99.4% 237 5 2.1% 2.1% 0 0 0.00
Kansas 2,911,641 2,741,323 94.2% 345 34 9.9% 9.3% 1 11 3.70
Kentucky 4,425,092 4,402,368 99.5% 403 83 20.6% 20.5% 0 0 0.00
Louisiana 4,670,724 3,711,824 79.5% 148 15 10.1% 8.1% 0 0 0.00
Maine 1,329,328 1,329,328 100.0% 184 14 7.6% 7.6% 0 0 0.00
Maryland 6,006,401 6,006,401 100.0% 154 11 7.1% 7.1% 0 0 0.00
Massachusetts 6,794,422 6,566,279 96.6% 342 85 24.9% 24.0% 15 62 9.19
Michigan 9,922,576 9,834,270 99.1% 617 127 20.6% 20.4% 1 5 0.49
Minnesota 5,489,594 5,218,435 95.1% 319 27 8.5% 8.0% 0 0 0.00
Mississippi 2,992,333 763,830 25.5% 43 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 N/A N/A
Missouri 6,083,672 6,079,483 99.9% 628 28 4.5% 4.5% 0 0 0.00
Montana 1,032,949 1,023,807 99.1% 101 13 12.9% 12.8% 0 0 0.00
Nebraska 1,896,190 1,821,196 96.0% 227 3 1.3% 1.3% 0 0 0.00
Nevada 2,890,845 2,890,845 100.0% 53 6 11.3% 11.3% 0 0 0.00
New Hamp. 1,330,608 1,267,715 95.3% 168 9 5.4% 5.1% 0 0 0.00
New Jersey 8,958,013 8,956,395 100.0% 508 123 24.2% 24.2% 0 0 0.00
New Mexico 2,085,109 574,972 27.6% 18 2 11.1% 3.1% 0 0 0.00
New York 19,795,791 19,766,342 99.9% 575 60 10.4% 10.4% 0 0 0.00
North Carolina 10,042,802 10,041,690 100.0% 532 52 9.8% 9.8% 0 0 0.00
North Dakota 756,927 756,927 100.0% 112 19 17.0% 17.0% 0 0 0.00
Ohio 11,613,423 9,781,677 84.2% 595 109 18.3% 15.4% 0 0 0.00
Oklahoma 3,911,338 3,896,985 99.6% 351 29 8.3% 8.2% 0 0 0.00
Oregon 4,028,977 1,671,416 41.5% 130 16 12.3% 5.1% 0 0 0.00
Pennsylvania 12,802,503 12,550,581 98.0% 1,436 26 1.8% 1.8% 0 0 0.00
Rhode Island 1,056,298 1,056,298 100.0% 49 8 16.3% 16.3% 0 0 0.00
South Carolina 4,896,146 4,826,241 98.6% 436 40 9.2% 9.0% 0 0 0.00
South Dakota 858,469 782,152 91.1% 121 9 7.4% 6.8% 0 0 0.00
Tennessee 6,600,299 6,600,299 100.0% 463 61 13.2% 13.2% 1 8 1.15
Texas 27,469,114 27,390,337 99.7% 1,026 62 6.0% 6.0% 1 17 0.60
Utah 2,995,919 2,966,781 99.0% 133 22 16.5% 16.4% 0 0 0.00
Vermont 626,042 626,042 100.0% 90 5 5.6% 5.6% 0 0 0.00
Virginia 8,382,993 8,380,278 100.0% 414 58 14.0% 14.0% 0 0 0.00
Washington 7,170,351 7,163,444 99.9% 256 79 30.9% 30.8% 3 10 1.36
West Virginia 1,844,128 1,494,503 81.0% 229 12 5.2% 4.2% 0 0 0.00
Wisconsin 5,771,337 5,580,752 96.7% 395 25 6.3% 6.1% 1 16 2.83
Wyoming 586,107 564,577 96.3% 57 1 1.8% 1.7% 0 0 0.00

For the curious, there is a negligible negative correlation between this limited data and support for Trump (~-0.15).

Instead, I'll be using the rankings produced by WalletHub, which has combined a number of metrics more effectively than I could. For the large number of people that do not understand that the actual enemy of feminism is not men but the enforcement of gender roles, and that metrics that represent male disadvantage (e.g. incarceration rates and duration, length of working hours, child custody rates, life span etc.) are a direct result of these roles which, although disadvantaging men in these instances, have historically been enforced to limit female empowerment, allow me to point out that these metrics have been combined into this study even though the data is billed as regarding "women's equality". In other words, even though the majority of Trump's rhetoric relevant to the claim that Trump's support was supported by sexism has been directed against women, the inclusion of data highlighting examples of male disadvantage is relevant as it indicates more traditional, gender-role enforcing attitudes in the relevant states.

Interestingly, the correlation is again negative, but low at ~0.30:

STATE WALLETHUB SCORE TRUMP SUPPORT
Alabama 50.61 62.9%
Alaska 72.46 52.9%
Arizona 57.31 49.5%
Arkansas 51.57 60.4%
California 69.1 33.2%
Colorado 57.37 44.4%
Connecticut 51.46 41.7%
Delaware 54.22 41.9%
District of Columbia N/A 4.1%
Florida 55.73 49.1%
Georgia 44.46 51.3%
Hawaii 81.67 30.1%
Idaho 50.29 59.2%
Illinois 58.59 39.4%
Indiana 56.35 57.2%
Iowa 58.37 51.8%
Kansas 53.92 57.2%
Kentucky 47.49 62.5%
Louisiana 45.45 58.1%
Maine 69.49 45.2%
Maryland 65.09 60.5%
Massachusetts 58.65 33.5%
Michigan 55.5 47.6%
Minnesota 66.1 45.4%
Mississippi 46.89 39.7%
Missouri 59.22 57.1%
Montana 51.58 56.5%
Nebraska 57.86 60.3%
Nevada 58.05 45.5%
New Hampshire 66.4 47.3%
New Jersey 44.97 41.8%
New Mexico 58.33 40.0%
New York 63.32 37.5%
North Carolina 50.42 50.5%
North Dakota 61.37 64.1%
Ohio 48.83 52.1%
Oklahoma 48.3 65.3%
Oregon 60.18 41.1%
Pennsylvania 45.15 48.8%
Rhode Island 49.08 39.8%
South Carolina 45.8 54.9%
South Dakota 57.86 61.5%
Tennessee 52.8 61.1%
Texas 49.77 52.6%
Utah 33.7 46.6%
Vermont 68.16 32.6%
Virginia 48.67 45.0%
Washington 61.93 38.3%
West Virginia 59.72 68.7%
Wisconsin 62.75 47.9%
Wyoming 57.11 70.1%
Pearson's Correlation -0.30

POLITICAL DISCONTENT

Measuring voter discontent is difficult in the current election. Normally these votes emerge as protest votes or failure to vote. A higher 3rd party vote, for example, may indicate dissatisfaction with either candidate but (ignoring that dissatisfaction in this election was high in part due to Trump's candidacy) there is little to be learned by comparing Trump support with 3rd party results. Does a positive correlation indicate Trump is popular where voters are discontent? Or does a negative correlation indicate that he is absorbing the discontent vote?

Two proxy measures of discontent present themselves: 3rd party voting and non-voting in 2012 (inherently assuming this discontent is not the result of the last 4 years and was present in that data) and 3rd party voting in each state's other federal races this November. Both are problematic, of course. The former assumes little or no change in almost half a decade. The latter ignores the possible swell of Trump voters who turned out to vote (and who normally would not) due to the fervent support the candidate produced but didn't care about other races and therefore deliberately "wasted" their vote. I have gone with the former for a number of reasons, including the nature of Senate elections that mean not all states have a candidate for us to consider, and the frequent absence of any third party candidate in many HoR seats.

STATE 2012 TURNOUT TRUMP SUPPORT
STATE 3RD PARTY TRUMP SUPPORT
Alabama 58.60% 62.9%
Alabama 1.09% 62.9%
Alaska 58.70% 52.9%
Alaska 4.39% 52.9%
Arizona 52.60% 49.5%
Arizona 1.76% 49.5%
Arkansas 50.70% 60.4%
Arkansas 2.55% 60.4%
California 55.10% 33.2%
California 2.64% 33.2%
Colorado 69.90% 44.4%
Colorado 2.38% 44.4%
Connecticut 61.30% 41.7%
Connecticut 1.21% 41.7%
Delaware 62.30% 41.9%
Delaware 1.41% 41.9%
District of Columbia 61.50% 4.1%
District of Columbia 1.81% 4.1%
Florida 62.80% 49.1%
Florida 0.86% 49.1%
Georgia 59.00% 51.3%
Georgia 1.22% 51.3%
Hawaii 44.20% 30.1%
Hawaii 1.61% 30.1%
Idaho 59.80% 59.2%
Idaho 2.85% 59.2%
Illinois 58.90% 39.4%
Illinois 1.67% 39.4%
Indiana 55.20% 57.2%
Indiana 1.94% 57.2%
Iowa 70.30% 51.8%
Iowa 1.83% 51.8%
Kansas 56.90% 57.2%
Kansas 2.30% 57.2%
Kentucky 55.70% 62.5%
Kentucky 1.71% 62.5%
Louisiana 60.20% 58.1%
Louisiana 1.64% 58.1%
Maine 68.20% 45.2%
Maine 2.75% 45.2%
Maryland 66.60% 60.5%
Maryland 2.13% 60.5%
Massachusetts 65.90% 33.5%
Massachusetts 1.84% 33.5%
Michigan 64.70% 47.6%
Michigan 1.08% 47.6%
Minnesota 76.00% 45.4%
Minnesota 2.39% 45.4%
Mississippi 59.30% 39.7%
Mississippi 0.92% 39.7%
Missouri 62.20% 57.1%
Missouri 1.86% 57.1%
Montana 62.50% 56.5%
Montana 2.95% 56.5%
Nebraska 60.30% 60.3%
Nebraska 2.17% 60.3%
Nevada 56.40% 45.5%
Nevada 1.96% 45.5%
New Hampshire 70.20% 47.3%
New Hampshire 1.62% 47.3%
New Jersey 61.50% 41.8%
New Jersey 1.03% 41.8%
New Mexico 54.60% 40.0%
New Mexico 4.17% 40.0%
New York 53.10% 37.5%
New York 1.48% 37.5%
North Carolina 64.80% 50.5%
North Carolina 1.26% 50.5%
North Dakota 59.80% 64.1%
North Dakota 2.99% 64.1%
Ohio 64.50% 52.1%
Ohio 1.64% 52.1%
Oklahoma 49.20% 65.3%
Oklahoma 0.00% 65.3%
Oregon 63.10% 41.1%
Oregon 3.61% 41.1%
Pennsylvania 59.50% 48.8%
Pennsylvania 1.44% 48.8%
Rhode Island 58.00% 39.8%
Rhode Island 2.06% 39.8%
South Carolina 56.30% 54.9%
South Carolina 1.35% 54.9%
South Dakota 59.30% 61.5%
South Dakota 2.24% 61.5%
Tennessee 51.90% 61.1%
Tennessee 1.44% 61.1%
Texas 49.60% 52.6%
Texas 1.45% 52.6%
Utah 55.50% 46.6%
Utah 2.46% 46.6%
Vermont 60.70% 32.6%
Vermont 2.46% 32.6%
Virginia 66.10% 45.0%
Virginia 1.56% 45.0%
Washington 64.80% 38.3%
Washington 2.55% 38.3%
West Virginia 46.30% 68.7%
West Virginia 2.16% 68.7%
Wisconsin 72.90% 47.9%
Wisconsin 1.28% 47.9%
Wyoming 58.60% 70.1%
Wyoming 3.54% 70.1%
Pearson's Correlation -0.17
Pearson's Correlation 0.03

Both non-voting and 3rd-party voting in 2012 show little correlation to support for Trump in 2016, though both nominally in the direction that would suggest Trump served as a vessel for protest votes: a slight negative correlation with 2012 voter turnout and slight positive correlation with 2012 3rd party results. For voter turnout, I'm using the eligible voter highest office data from the United States Electoral Project.

REVENGE OF ANTIGLOBALISTS

This last rationalisation is the one that is often cited in the media as the rise of "angry white men". This rationalisation, though largely ignored in the earlier campaign, is now the dominant focus of media attention. This rationalisation is often portrayed as white, middle-aged men--the pale, stale males--enraged at the rule of a Black President, furious at the prospect of a female one and livid at the shift of American culture towards one of inclusiveness and multiculturalism. However, there's another side to this view. One in which, despite their privilege, these men have faced genuine hardships. One in which their anger is not directed in violence against the non-white, non-male population which we considered earlier. This is a view that, in my opinion, was best explained by documentary filmmaker Michael Moore in clarity I could not hope to equal.


In this view, all of this anger (if we accept that it is distinct from the racism and sexism analysed above) comes from financial hardship and the social effects it has had. Despite the disparity in real living conditions between White and Non-White on average, White men are angrier than Black and feel as though they were made a promise that was then ripped away from them. What matters isn't necessarily that these individuals are doing it tough, but that they feel they are doing it tough, or tougher than they are owed. For a long time America has persisted on the lie that if you work hard and deserve success you can achieve it. The dark corollary to this assertion, unchallenged and patriotically insisted upon, is that if you don't have success it's because you don't deserve it. And when that lack of success falls on minorities, that rationalisation follows easily. It also deprived any impetus for support to the underprivileged. even with minimum welfare, no socialised healthcare and poverty conditions that rival those found in third-world countries, it was easy to feel no obligation for government support. Now that poverty has come for the angry white men too; the ones who dreamed of better things, and the unfairness is revealed. But enough leftist socialist communist bleeding-heart liberal wishy-washy nonsense from me. How does Trump support correlate with job loss and redundancy from, among other things, competition in international manufacture?

Comparisons with state poverty rates and unemployment were negligible. The strongest correlation so far, at ~-0.57, demonstrates a moderate negative correlation between per capita income and support for Trump.

STATE TRUMP SUPPORT POVERTY LEVEL UNEMPLOYMENT INCOME PER CAPITA
Alabama 62.9% 18.5% 5.4% $23,606
Alaska 52.9% 10.3% 6.9% $33,062
Arizona 49.5% 17.4% 5.5% $25,715
Arkansas 60.4% 19.1% 4.0% $22,883
California 33.2% 15.3% 5.5% $30,441
Colorado 44.4% 11.5% 3.6% $32,357
Connecticut 41.7% 10.5% 5.4% $39,373
Delaware 41.9% 12.4% 4.3% $30,488
District of Columbia 4.1% 17.3% 6.1% $45,877
Florida 49.1% 15.7% 4.7% $26,582
Georgia 51.3% 17.0% 5.1% $25,615
Hawaii 30.1% 10.6% 3.3% $29,736
Idaho 59.2% 15.1% 3.8% $23,938
Illinois 39.4% 13.6% 5.5% $30,417
Indiana 57.2% 14.5% 4.5% $25,140
Iowa 51.8% 12.2% 4.2% $28,361
Kansas 57.2% 13.0% 4.4% $27,870
Kentucky 62.5% 18.5% 5.0% $23,684
Louisiana 58.1% 19.6% 6.4% $24,800
Maine 45.2% 13.4% 4.1% $27,978
Maryland 60.5% 9.7% 4.2% $36,338
Massachusetts 33.5% 11.5% 3.6% $36,593
Michigan 47.6% 15.8% 4.6% $26,613
Minnesota 45.4% 10.2% 4.0% $32,638
Mississippi 39.7% 22.0% 6.0% $21,036
Missouri 57.1% 14.8% 5.2% $26,126
Montana 56.5% 14.6% 4.3% $25,989
Nebraska 60.3% 12.6% 3.2% $27,446
Nevada 45.5% 14.7% 5.8% $25,773
New Hampshire 47.3% 8.2% 2.9% $34,691
New Jersey 41.8% 10.8% 5.3% $37,288
New Mexico 40.0% 20.4% 6.7% $23,683
New York 37.5% 15.4% 5.0% $33,095
North Carolina 50.5% 16.4% 4.7% $25,774
North Dakota 64.1% 11.0% 3.0% $33,071
Ohio 52.1% 14.8% 4.8% $26,937
Oklahoma 65.3% 16.1% 5.2% $25,229
Oregon 41.1% 15.4% 5.5% $27,646
Pennsylvania 48.8% 13.2% 5.7% $29,220
Rhode Island 39.8% 13.9% 5.6% $30,830
South Carolina 54.9% 16.6% 4.9% $24,596
South Dakota 61.5% 13.7% 2.9% $26,959
Tennessee 61.1% 16.7% 4.6% $24,922
Texas 52.6% 15.9% 4.8% $27,125
Utah 46.6% 11.3% 3.4% $24,877
Vermont 32.6% 10.2% 3.3% $29,178
Virginia 45.0% 11.2% 4.0% $34,052
Washington 38.3% 12.2% 5.6% $31,841
West Virginia 68.7% 17.9% 5.8% $22,714
Wisconsin 47.9% 12.1% 4.1% $28,213
Wyoming 70.1% 11.1% 5.3% $29,698
Pearson's Correlation 0.11 -0.13 -0.57

But all of these metrics are too blunt. Measures of general hardship in a state will generally include a large proportion of the Non-White population due to the historical inequality with which these groups were treated. Data from the US Census Bureau allows a state by state breakdown of poverty, unemployment and income for "white alone":

 
STATE TRUMP SUPPORT POVERTY LEVEL UNEMPLOYMENT INCOME PER CAPITA
Alabama 62.9% 13.7% 5.5% $28,235
Alaska 52.9% 6.6% 5.9% $41,133
Arizona 49.5% 15.2% 6.0% $29,115
Arkansas 60.4% 15.5% 4.9% $25,864
California 33.2% 14.1% 6.8% $35,523
Colorado 44.4% 10.4% 4.8% $35,676
Connecticut 41.7% 7.9% 5.6% $44,134
Delaware 41.9% 9.6% 5.5% $34,522
District of Columbia 4.1% 7.1% 3.1% $81,474
Florida 49.1% 13.6% 6.0% $30,582
Georgia 51.3% 12.5% 5.2% $31,583
Hawaii 30.1% 10.1% 5.3% $40,010
Idaho 59.2% 14.4% 5.1% $24,935
Illinois 39.4% 10.1% 5.2% $35,754
Indiana 57.2% 12.2% 5.0% $27,907
Iowa 51.8% 10.7% 3.6% $29,973
Kansas 57.2% 11.2% 4.2% $30,533
Kentucky 62.5% 17.1% 6.1% $25,942
Louisiana 58.1% 13.2% 5.5% $30,792
Maine 45.2% 12.7% 5.1% $29,112
Maryland 60.5% 7.1% 4.2% $44,016
Massachusetts 33.5% 9.2% 5.2% $41,556
Michigan 47.6% 12.3% 5.5% $30,171
Minnesota 45.4% 7.8% 3.5% $35,930
Mississippi 39.7% 13.6% 5.8% $26,281
Missouri 57.1% 12.5% 4.6% $29,155
Montana 56.5% 12.7% 3.9% $29,352
Nebraska 60.3% 10.6% 2.8% $30,708
Nevada 45.5% 12.8% 7.4% $30,382
New Hampshire 47.3% 7.9% 4.1% $36,589
New Jersey 41.8% 8.2% 5.6% $41,743
New Mexico 40.0% 17.6% 6.4% $26,722
New York 37.5% 11.3% 5.1% $40,483
North Carolina 50.5% 12.7% 5.4% $30,430
North Dakota 64.1% 9.0% 2.1% $35,895
Ohio 52.1% 11.6% 5.2% $30,077
Oklahoma 65.3% 13.2% 4.7% $28,919
Oregon 41.1% 14.5% 6.5% $30,269
Pennsylvania 48.8% 10.3% 5.2% $32,865
Rhode Island 39.8% 10.9% 5.2% $34,749
South Carolina 54.9% 12.0% 5.6% $29,899
South Dakota 61.5% 9.6% 2.9% $30,461
Tennessee 61.1% 14.5% 5.2% $28,338
Texas 52.6% 14.8% 5.2% $30,067
Utah 46.6% 10.0% 3.7% $27,132
Vermont 32.6% 9.7% 3.7% $31,747
Virginia 45.0% 9.1% 4.5% $38,687
Washington 38.3% 11.0% 5.6% $35,872
West Virginia 68.7% 17.4% 7.0% $23,840
Wisconsin 47.9% 9.6% 3.5% $31,605
Wyoming 70.1% 10.8% 4.6% $32,735
Pearson's Correlation 0.33 -0.07 -0.66

Focusing solely on white poverty levels sees the correlation in the data more than double to a point where it is only eclipsed by the racism and per-capita income metrics. However, at 0.33, this is only slightly stronger than the negative correlation between sexism and Trump support at 0.30, and no one is suggesting that Trump won on the back of feminist support.

Using only the White unemployment rates, the correlation becomes even more negligible.

However, there is (by psephological standards) a high negative correlation between white median wages and support for Trump. And while it's true that this merely points out the existence of a certain stereotype--the working class, White Trump voter--understanding voter demographics is important to understanding why Trump got elected contrary to all conventional wisdom. This was a section of the community that turned out to vote, and felt the need to stand up for something.

CONCLUSION

While much of this data operates as a proxy for some other social issue, such as racism or anger at economic leadership, It is important to realise that there are several reasons for Trump's support. A candidate does not get elected by a single demographic. Not solely by a racist element, or by disillusioned working class voters, or conspiracy theorists who think Hillary Clinton orchestrated World War I from her Russian space-dreadnaught. Of the various reasons studied two comparatively strong correlations emerged.

For those who like to argue Trump supporters are not racist, it is worth noting that states prone to racial violence tend to be more pro-Trump. This should hardly need pointing out for a candidate endorsed by the Klan, but some not-insignificant part of Trump's supporter base comes from a xenophobia that has not been given a political vent as prominent or blatant as Trump before.

On the other hand, for those who, on the other hand, argue that all Trump supporters are hateful racists, it is noteworthy that being from a poor state, and particularly a state with a poor White population, is a better indicator of support for Trump than being from a state with more racially motivated Hate Crimes; some might, of course, argue that voting for Trump in and of itself should be a hate crime.

It is hard for some people to understand how anyone could support a candidate who has voiced the opinions Trump has and not inherently be a biggot. To these people I would suggest the voters need not agree with Trump's statements, only to rationalise them as 'speaking his mind', 'not what he meant', 'locker-room talk' and so forth. People who voted for Trump committed to one aspect or another of his personality or platform--as did Clinton supporters--and forgave the many flaws of their preferred candidate while exaggerating the other's.

There are, of course, many other factors--Trump's ability to seize the zeitgeist, Clinton's many issues with engaging voters, the vast free publicity news outlets offered Trump while underestimating his potential, Trump's ability to give vague and often contradictory promises worded so as to let each listener take what they liked and disregard the rest and so forth. But there are several reasons voters latched on to Trump, some good and some less so.

TL;DR: There is some evidence that Trump had support due to his racist statements. He also appealed to a class of disenfranchised voter with legitimate (though arguably misdirected) grievances against the current system to the extend that they'd happily burn the whole thing down. There would have been other reasons as well, but the portrayal of Trump supporters as rampant racists or as righteous rebels are both partially correct, and partially incorrect.

1 comment:

  1. This post reminded me of these tweets, so I am sharing, because yeah voters are made of individuals, who vote for a number of reasons and we can't split the entirety of the US into two groups... (or even three or four by including 3rd party/non-voters). Complexity, yo.

    https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/798508144683024384 (particularly tweets 9-15)

    ReplyDelete