Hornbill Unleashed

November 11, 2016

Reality Check: Who voted for Trump?

Filed under: Politics — Hornbill Unleashed @ 9:01 PM

Donald Trump has beaten Hillary Clinton in the race to be president of the United States.

BBC News reported that much of the narrative ahead of the election had been that Mr Trump was supported by angry, white men. To get an insight into which groups actually voted for him, you can look at the exit poll conducted across the country by Edison Research for the National Election Pool, a consortium of ABC News, The Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News.

It is very difficult to get a genuinely representative sample of how more than 120 million people have voted. It is a big survey – of almost 25,000 voters – and they are the best figures available, but they should be used with caution.

It throws up some odd results, such as that 10% of people who support the idea of a wall along the Mexican border nonetheless voted for Mrs Clinton, while 5% of people who thought the next president should continue the policies of Barack Obama voted for Mr Trump.

Bear in mind that the proportions are unlikely to add up to 100%, because not everybody answered all the questions and there were other candidates standing in the election, who received about 5% of the votes.

How the votes broke down by gender

The poll suggests that 53% of men voted for Mr Trump, with 41% voting for Mrs Clinton – those proportions are almost exactly reversed for women.

Among white voters (who made up 70% of voters), Mr Trump won 58% to Mrs Clinton’s 37%, while the Democratic candidate won the support of a huge majority of black voters – 88% to Mr Trump’s 8% – and Hispanic voters – 65% to his 29%.

Looking specifically at white women, they favoured Mr Trump, with 53% supporting him compared with 43% for Mrs Clinton.

How the votes broke down by race

It has been widely reported that the 29% of Hispanic voters who supported Mr Trump was greater than the 27% who voted for the Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012, despite Mr Trump’s comments about Mexicans and plans to build a wall on the US’s southern border.

Mrs Clinton had the majority of voters on lower incomes, with 52% of those on incomes below $50,000 (£40,000) a year supporting her compared with 41% voting for her opponent. Among those earning more than $50,000, it was 49% to Mr Trump compared with 47% to Mrs Clinton.

Mrs Clinton’s support among those on incomes below $30,000 was well down on President Obama’s in 2012. He had 63% support from that group compared with 35% voting for Mitt Romney, while Mrs Clinton had 53% support to Mr Trump’s 41%.

There was also a big swing for voters without a high school diploma, with Mr Trump leading 51% to Mrs Clinton’s 45%. Four years ago, President Obama had 64% support from this group compared with Mitt Romney’s 35%.

Mr Trump won the rural vote by 62% to 34% and the suburban vote by 50% to 45%, while Mrs Clinton won the urban vote by 59% to 35%.

How the different age groups voted

And he had a clear majority among those aged 45 and over, while Mrs Clinton was more popular with younger voters.

There were stories before the election of Republicans planning to vote for Mrs Clinton because they did not like their own candidate, but the exit poll actually suggested that 7% of people who identified themselves as Republicans had voted for Mrs Clinton, while 9% of those who identified as Democrats had voted for Mr Trump.

Of people who gave their opinion of the candidate they voted for, 41% strongly favoured them, 32% had reservations and 25% said they disliked the opponents.

Also among the slightly odd findings of the poll, 18% of respondents who felt that Mr Trump was not qualified to be president nonetheless voted for him, as did 20% of those who felt he did not have the necessary temperament.

And 2% of respondents who said they would feel scared if Mr Trump won, still voted for him, compared with 1% who voted for Mrs Clinton, despite saying they would be scared if she won, reported BBC News.


Source : The Heat Malaysia Online


1 Comment »

  1. How economic disparity fueled Trump’s rise, and what this means for Malaysia

    The election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States is probably the most important watershed event globally since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
    What lessons we draw from this election matters. Did Trump win by stroking racial sentiments and being a populist? Or there are deeper causes of his rise, and is his election the consequence of a collective repudiation of an outdated status quo?
    Trump’s election was a clear political revolution against the establishment (i.e. the political elite, Wall Street, the media) and revealed the true depths of economic disgruntlement that many ordinary Americans bear.
    Trump’s election will have a far-reaching impact on US politics, international relations and the global economy though
    The US President does not hold absolute power, the in-built Constitutional guarantee of limited government provides various democratic processes and decentralisation tools which would curb Trump from whatever unorthodox political shenanigans he may be capable of personally.
    The last time the US had a political revolution was in 2008 when Barack Obama rode the tide of economic insecurity and anti-establisment sentiment to a historic victory, but his administration turned out to be one that embraced neo liberal globalisation (rescuing the banks that caused the Global Financial Crisis, promoting free trade which hurt American workers) – unfortunately for many who had hoped for an economic turnaround.
    American workers who had voted for Obama seeking solutions to the Global Financial Crisis were left in despair while Obama’s tenure continued to favor Wall Street, bail out banks, and did little to rewrite the economic playbook. Meanwhile, many hardworking Americans lost their jobs and houses, countless others struggled to make ends meet.
    Millions of disaffected Americans who once saw Obama as their potential “savior” in 2008, quickly blamed his lack of reforms and now see him as the establishment, while Hillary became regarded as a symbol of Wall Street. Economically estranged Americans harboured a winter of discontent that eventually grew into the great anti-establishment wave of 2016.
    Hard times create heroes
    I would argue that had Bernie Sanders been the Democratic Presidential candidate instead of Clinton, Trump might not have won. Or, if Hillary’s running mate had been Elizabeth Warren, perhaps we might have seen a different outcome.
    Why do I think Sanders would have made a stronger candidate? Sanders and Trump both received strong support from non-college educated white males. Hence, in a Sanders vs Trump contest, Trump would not have been the sole beneficiary of this voter group. Also, Sanders could have had a unifying effect of the Democrat alliance of minorities, females, and millennials, at least more so than Clinton.
    Trump’s rise comes at a time where the world faces unprecedented resurgence of populism and radicalism, as evidenced by far-left or far-right parties winning power in Europe and the Brexit referendum. Be that as it may, American voters were not only rejecting the establishment when they voted for Trump, they were also rebelling against the economic model of the past 30 years that had brought them great misery. Here’s how it happened.
    Firstly, the neoliberal economic agenda became entrenched in the Thatcher and Reagan eras following their rise to power in 1979 and 1981 respectively. Fueled by signature policies such as tax cuts for the rich, government downsizing, privatization, cutting social welfare, oppression of workers’ rights; it aided the rich to become richer while the poor got poorer, and the middle class all but disappeared.
    Second, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet-led communist system, capitalism has become the undisputed status quo. Without having to worry about communism infiltrating the working class and peasants, capitalists could wholeheartedly focus on profit-chasing, further widening the gulf between the haves and have-nots.
    Third, there was a paradox of neoliberal globalization with trade as the main axis. Globally, a trend emerged of migration from poor to rich countries, while at the same time businesses in rich countries began to move their operations to developing countries.
    After twenty years of massive migration, Britain saw an influx of Polish migrants, Germany was flush with Turkish migrants, and the US hosted a large Mexican migrant population. The Asian equivalent would be: Myanmarese foreign workers in Thailand, Thai foreign workers in Taiwan/ Saudi Arabia, Indonesian foreign workers in Malaysia, and Malaysians flocking to Singapore to work.
    At the same time, since 1989, Eastern Europe had virtually become a “factory” for Western Europe; India liberalised its economy in 1991; China became the world’s factory after Deng Xiaoping’s southern tour in 1992, and especially after it joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001.
    Wealthy first world nations saw tremendous flow of foreign migrant workers seeking employment, yet across the board their national industries were moving operations to developing countries. As a result there was unprecedented competition for jobs among the lower wage-earning classes, a recipe that led us to where we are today.
    Trump’s election spells the end of the neoliberal global economic model. Malaysia, which has been export-oriented since the early 1970s, must seriously reconsider its future.

    Lessons for Malaysia
    It is worth taking note of how Trump’s agenda clearly differed from that of Sanders, Clinton, and other factions in the Republican Party. He had stressed on infrastructure spending and the employment opportunities arising from it. This message resonated strongly with the American public.
    Where the Republican Tea Party and other factions mostly focused on tax cuts and downsizing government budget and services, Trump’s singling out jobs as his key agenda was a masterstroke in drawing support from the depressed lower and middle classes who had been shut out of US economic growth for a long period. It was music to their ears, and ultimately it translated into votes.
    Make no mistake, at the core, Trump was elected on massive anti-establisment uprising and an economic agenda centred around jobs.

    One more point for Malaysians to take note: this election demonstrated the significance of “social alliances”, as opposed to political alliances. Trump owes his victory to the combined strength of two unlikely groups: the Republican tea party, and white non-college educated males. The latter group had been staunchly on the Democratic ticket since Roosevelt’s time, but upon being direct victims of globalisation and forgotten by the Democrats, changed their allegiance.

    In the Malaysian context, if we want to break the stronghold of UMNO/BN rule, we need to think about how to create a “social alliance” of these two groups: non-Malay voters who had supported the opposition since 2008, and lower middle income Malay voters.

    Comment by almaz — November 13, 2016 @ 9:59 AM | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: