Donald Trump’s Victory Probably Wasn’t Uniquely Driven by Racial Resentment

German Lopez channels the conventional wisdom:

Technically, this is true. A number of different studies have shown that the strongest predictor of a vote for Donald Trump was racial resentment.

But in real-world terms these studies are meaningless. Racial resentment has been a growing predictor of votes for every Republican candidate for the past couple of decades. Donald Trump may have tried hard to move that needle, but there’s not a lot of evidence that he did. That leaves us with cruder measures that are frustratingly imprecise. Take a look at the white vote since 1992, for example:

Bill Clinton was the last Democrat to have much appeal to white voters. Since 2000, whites have ticked the box for Republicans at about the same rate in every election. Trump, in fact, did a little worse than Mitt Romney in 2012.

On the other hand, Trump did considerably better than Romney with white working-class voters. Unfortunately, this is hard to assess as well, since Republicans have been steadily increasing their share of the white working-class vote for the past five elections. As with the racial resentment correlations, the question is whether Trump helped drive this upward trend, or merely benefited from it? Since racial resentment among white men hasn’t changed much in decades, most likely it’s the result of increasing partisan polarization, something that Trump had nothing to do with.

As it happens, there is some evidence that racial resentment partially drove the results in a few specific places. The absolute numbers are small, but potentially pivotal given the oddities of the Electoral College. It’s also unquestionably true that Republicans as a whole demonstrated a surprisingly high tolerance for a candidate who was far more explicitly racist, sexist, and xenophobic than any in recent memory. That was disheartening, but it’s not evidence that racism actively drove the results of this election any more than previous ones.

Keep in mind that Trump actually did a little worse than models predicted based on fundamentals. This suggests that racism didn’t have an outsize effect in 2016. It had roughly the same dismal effect it’s always had. What’s more, if James Comey hadn’t released his infamous letter eleven days before the election, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. The fact that Comey did, in fact, release his letter, leading to Trump’s unexpected win, is hardly a good reason to not only hold this endless discussion, but to insist that it’s been settled.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend