is confirmed in the content of their political advertising, 76% of which contained un-substantive character attacks and only 9% of which contained reference to jobs, social welfare, and/or the economy. The fact that the and were among the most important issue(s), if not ‘economy’ ‘jobs’ most important, in the 2016 election a lingering effect of the Great Recession lends the – – considerable weight to the hypothesis that economic anxiety significantly impacted vote choice. (Clinton ran to the right of Trump on economic issues.) Combined with the clear import of identity politics, there is considerable evidence that America is has entered another populist phase, one with visible (white) nationalist characteristics, and a somewhat unusual authoritarian bent. The Midwestern swing states, on which the presidential election once again hinged in 2016, In short, the decades-long collapse of manufacturing and an influx of reveals populism’s impact. Latino immigration in Midwestern to have had a statistically significant “Rust Belt” states appears impact on the rejection of Clinton. At the heart of this were working- and middle- class white voters in the five rust belt states won by Trump Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and – Wisconsin: therein, the Republican candidate picked up 450,000 (or, 4.9 percent) more ‘white and 335,000 (or, 10.6 percent) more class than in 2012 and the voters’ ‘working voters’ Democratic candidate picked up 950,000 (or, 13 percent) fewer (including 770,000 or, 24.2 – percent and 1.17 million (or, 21.7 percent) fewer than in 2012, respectively; – fewer ‘white males’), an in total, over 500,000 fewer votes were cast compared to 2012 including three times as many – voters with incomes under $100,000 for and twice as many for ‘third party candidates’ ‘write-in with 1.35 million fewer votes going to the Democratic candidate and only 590,000 candidates’ – more going to the Republican candidate. At the national level, while Clinton carried the Democratic base African Americans, Latinos, union households, and women the former three – – groups were won by a six to eight percentage points less than President Obama in 2012; Clinton
is confirmed in the content of their political advertising, 76% of which contained un-substantive character attacks and only 9% of which contained reference to jobs, social welfare, and/or the economy. The fact that the ‘economy’ and ‘jobs’ were among the most important issue(s), if not the most important, in the 2016 election – a lingering effect of the Great Recession – lends considerable weight to the hypothesis that economic anxiety significantly impacted vote choice. (Clinton ran to the right of Trump on economic issues.) Combined with the clear import of identity politics, there is considerable evidence that America is has entered another populist phase, one with visible (white) nationalist characteristics, and a somewhat unusual authoritarian bent. The Midwestern swing states, on which the presidential election once again hinged in 2016, reveals populism’s impact. In short, the decades-long collapse of manufacturing and an influx of Latino immigration in Midwestern “Rust Belt” states appears to have had a statistically significant impact on the rejection of Clinton. At the heart of this were working- and middle- class white voters in the five rust belt states won by Trump – Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin: therein, the Republican candidate picked up 450,000 (or, 4.9 percent) more ‘white voters’ and 335,000 (or, 10.6 percent) more ‘working class voters’ than in 2012 and the Democratic candidate picked up 950,000 (or, 13 percent) fewer (including 770,000 – or, 24.2 percent – fewer ‘white males’), and 1.17 million (or, 21.7 percent) fewer than in 2012, respectively; an in total, over 500,000 fewer votes were cast compared to 2012 – including three times as many voters with incomes under $100,000 for ‘third party candidates’ and twice as many for ‘write-in candidates’ – with 1.35 million fewer votes going to the Democratic candidate and only 590,000 more going to the Republican candidate. At the national level, while Clinton carried the Democratic base – African Americans, Latinos, union households, and women – the former three groups were won by a six to eight percentage points less than President Obama in 2012; Clinton