Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T16:43:59.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Definitely Not Moralistic: State Political Culture and Support for Donald Trump in the Race for the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2016

Patrick I. Fisher
Patrick I. Fisher*
Affiliation:
Seton Hall University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study analyzes the important role state political culture played in the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Donald Trump appealed to demographically distinct types of voters in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries and caucuses that varied considerably from previous Republican presidential nominees. Relative to the demographics of the primary electorates, however, this study finds that state political culture played an outsized role in determining Donald Trump’s relative level of support in a particular state. When state demographics are utilized in ordinary least squares regression models as independent variables with state partisanship and Daniel Elazar’s state political culture typology, political culture proves to be a significant determinant of the level of support given to Trump in a state. States that are characterized by a more moralistic political culture are considerably more likely to have given Trump a lower share of the vote while voters in states that are characterized by a more traditionalistic or individualistic culture were more likely to support Trump.

Type
Articles
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 49 , Special Issue 4: Elections in Focus , October 2016 , pp. 743 - 747
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brown, Michael, Knopp, Larry, and Morrill, Richard. 2005. “The Culture Wars and Urban Electoral Politics: Sexuality, Race, and Class in Tacoma, Washington.” Political Geography 24 (3): 267–291.Google Scholar
Carman, Christopher and Barker, David. 2005. “State Political Culture, Primary Fontloading, and Democratic Voice in Presidential Nominations: 1972–2000.” Electoral Studies 24 (4): 665–687.Google Scholar
Elazar, Daniel. 1984. American Federalism: A View from the States, 3rd edition. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Elazar, Daniel. 1999. “Minnesota—The Epitome of the Moralistic Political Culture.” In Elazar, Daniel, Gray, Virginia, and Spano, Wyman, eds. Minnesota Government and Politics, chapter 3. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S, Wright, Gerald C., and McIver, John P.. 1993. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Steve and Freeman, Joshua B.. 2010. “In the Rearview Mirror: History’s Mad Hatters: The Strange Career of Tea Party Populism.” New Labor Forum 19 (3): 75–81.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew. 2008. Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gimpel, James G. and Schuknecht, Jason E.. 2003. Patchwork Nation: Sectionalism and Political Change in American Politics. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Irwin, Neil and Katz, Josh. 2016. “The Geography of Trumpism.” The New York Times March 12.Google Scholar
Mead, Lawrence M. 2004. “State Political Culture and Welfare Reform.” The Policy Studies Journal 32 (2): 271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana. 2002. “Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice.” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 111–28.Google Scholar
Norrander, Barbara. 2000. “The Multi-Layered Impact of Public Opinion on Capital Punishment Implementation in the American States.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (4): 771–93.Google Scholar