July 3, 2018

HOW ELSE DO YOU LOSE BY THREE MILLION VOTES TO HILLARY CLINTON?:

This new study suggests Trump's racism might actually hurt him (Greg Sargent, July 3, 2018, Washington Post)

A new analysis by two political scientists offers important new data that sheds light on this debate. It suggests Trump's immigration agenda might have been of negligible importance in his 2016 win, and that Hillary Clinton may have benefited more from the immigration debate than Trump did (that is, despite her electoral-college loss, it actually expanded her popular-vote total).

With Trump tweeting another round of attacks on Democrats over immigration this morning, this new data suggests -- as the two political scientists conclude -- that the Trumpified immigration debate might actually hurt the president and Republicans more than it does Democrats right now.

The new analysis by Howard Lavine and Wendy Rahn of the University of Minnesota looked at 2016 national polling data from the American National Election Studies. They broke down white Americans into three groups: 44 percent of whites are "anti-immigration" and want lower immigration levels; 40 percent of whites are immigration moderates who want to keep levels the same; and 16 percent of whites are "pro-immigration" and want immigration increased.

That means a minority of whites want reduced immigration (as Trump does), while a 56 percent majority of whites are not anti-immigration, with most wanting to keep current levels. The key finding here is that Trump only marginally improved over previous Republican presidential candidates among anti-immigration whites, gaining eight percentage points among them over Mitt Romney. By contrast, Clinton improved over Barack Obama's performance by seven points among moderates but also by a huge margin among pro-immigration whites. Together, those last two blocks of whites are larger than the anti-immigration block.

Posted by at July 3, 2018 3:47 PM

  

« UNIVERSE 2.0: | Main | WRESTLING COACH: »