The Numbers Show Trump Win NOT Due to Racism and Sexism

Clinton supporters frequently assume that Trump supporters are all racists and sexists.

But a higher percentage of Hispanics voted for Trump than voted for Mitt Romney or Bob Dole in previous elections. As USA Today notes:

But that margin [of Clinton’s share of the Hispanic vote], based on exit polling conducted by Edison Research, was smaller than the 71%-27% split that President Obama won in 2012. And it was smaller than the 72%-21% her husband, former president Bill Clinton, won in 1996.

The same is true with African-Americans. The Washington Post reports:

Trump actually performed slightly worse among white voters than Mitt Romney did. He did, however, perform better than Romney among blacks, Latinos and Asian Americans, making it more difficult to claim that racial resentment was the dominant factor explaining Trump’s support nationally.


Trump made important gains among black voters as well as whites.


Trump performed better with black voters than McCain did in 2008, and on par with Bush’s performance in 2000.


Trump performed as well as McCain did with Latino voters in 2008 …

And quite a few individual voters and counties that voted for Obama – once, or even twice – voted for Trump.  And see this.

What about sexism?

In reality, many men who hate Clinton would vote for a woman who wasn’t so firmly in the pocket of the establishment.

Lambert Strether – who is extremely knowledgeable about political horseraces – points out:

Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Racism

Here’s a headline showing the talking point from a Vox explainer:

Trump’s win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism

The subtext here is usually that if you don’t chime in with vehement agreement, you’re a racist yourself, and possibly a racist Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is false.

First, voter caring levels dropped from 2012 to 2016, especially among black Democrats. Carl Beijer:

From 2012 to 2016, both men and women went from caring about the outcome to not caring. Among Democratic men and women, as well as Republican women, care levels dropped about 3-4 points; Republican men cared a little less too, but only by one point. Across the board, in any case, the plurality of voters simply didn’t care.

Beijer includes the following chart (based on Edison exit polling cross-referenced with total population numbers from the US Census):


Beijer interprets:

White voters cared even less in 2016 then in 2012, when they also didn’t care; most of that apathy came from white Republicans compared to white Democrats, who dropped off a little less. Voters of color, in contrast, continued to care – but their care levels dropped even more, by 8 points (compared to the 6 point drop-off among white voters). Incredibly, that drop was driven entirely by a 9 point drop among Democratic voters of color which left Democrats with only slim majority 51% support; Republicans, meanwhile, actually gained support among people of color.

Beijer’s data is born out by anecdote from Milwaukee, Wisconsin:

Urban areas, where black and Hispanic voters are concentrated along with college-educated voters, already leaned toward the Democrats, but Clinton did not get the turnout from these groups that she needed. For instance, black voters did not show up in the same numbers they did for Barack Obama, the first black president, in 2008 and 2012.

Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin.

Second, counties that voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016. The Washington Post:

These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump

Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump.

The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.)

Here’s the chart:


And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the black man in 2012 were racist because they didn’t vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me, I suppose, to sexism.

Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Sexism

Here’s an article showing the talking point from Newsweek:

This often vitriolic campaign was a national referendum on women and power.

(The subtext here is usually that if you don’t join the consensus cluster, you’re a sexist yourself, and possibly a sexist Trump supporter). And if you only look at the averages this claim might seem true:

On Election Day, women responded accordingly, as Clinton beat Trump among women 54 percent to 42 percent. They were voting not so much for her as against him and what he brought to the surface during his campaign: quotidian misogyny.

There are two reasons this talking point is not true. First, averages conceal, and what they conceal is class. As you read further into the article, you can see it fall apart:

In fact, Trump beat Clinton among white women 53 percent to 43 percent, with white women without college degrees going for [Trump] two to one.

So, taking lack of a college degree as a proxy for being working class, for Newsweek’s claim to be true, you have to believe that working class women don’t get a vote in their referendum, and for the talking point to be true, you have to believe that working class women are sexist. Which leads me to ask: Who died and left the bourgeois feminists in Clinton’s base in charge of the definition of sexism, or feminism? Class traitor Tina Brown is worth repeating:

Here’s my own beef. Liberal feminists, young and old, need to question the role they played in Hillary’s demise. The two weeks of media hyperventilation over grab-her-by-the-pussygate, when the airwaves were saturated with aghast liberal women equating Trump’s gross comments with sexual assault, had the opposite effect on multiple women voters in the Heartland.

These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump’s unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he’d be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill’s.

Missing this pragmatic response by so many women was another mistake of Robbie Mook’s campaign data nerds. They computed that America’s women would all be as outraged as the ones they came home to at night. But pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum. They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, who participate in their remaindered pain. It is everywhere in the interviews. “My dad lost his business”, “My husband hasn’t been the same since his job at the factory went away”.

Second, Clinton in 2016 did no better than Obama in 2008 with women (although she did better than Obama in 2012). From the New York Times analysis of the exit polls, this chart:


So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn’t they move in opposite directions?

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • David S

    But all whites are by definition racist, so all of these votes would count as racist votes for Trump. LOL

    Great analysis. I’m glad I’m a white male. I seem to be in the only group that is allowed to think for itself when it comes to political issues. How sad for all the rest.

  • sufferingsuccatash

    Don’t kid—- there was definite intended appeal to racism with the Trump campaign and Trump himself is awkwardly racist while insisting he isn’t. This election and his victory were propelled by elements of racism, economic despair, falling living standards in middle America, and a deteriorating of the US’s international image. The very concoction that elevated the national socialistic movement in Germany. There is a mass psychology of fascism running throughout America—-a very dangerous time.

    • darthangel

      Trump did more than any democrat to deflate the neocon/neoliberal agenda that liberals themselves screamed was fascist when Bush was president.

      Only a complete idiotic a-hole would say that Trump is fascist when Trump has threatened the entire agenda that the same idiots were saying was “fascist” 8 years ago.

      You have to be a completely brain-damaged subhuman piece of garbage to now rally around the very agenda that you agreed was fascist 8 years ago. You have proven you don’t mind fascism as long as you are in charge.

      You have already proven that the left will call anything “fascist” and “racist” because you used the exact same rhetoric against Bush, who opposes Trump.

      Trump has not said one ethnic group secretly controls the finances of the world, or one ethnic group is siphoning wealth out of the country or that the world would be a better place without one ethnic group, he has not said the social life of the country should revolve around the state, or that we should have a homogenous ethnocratic regime. Anyone comparing Trump to fascism is too lazy and stupid to even read what fascism was.

      What real fascists did say is that illegal “pre-emptive” war was justified, just like Clinton, Bush and Obama in Libya, Syria and Iraq. Anyone pretending to be “offended” by Trump but who was not more offended by innocent civilians killed by neocons/neoliberals like Hillary has no conscience and should not be taken seriously on anything.

      • sufferingsuccatash

        I didn’t support the neo-liberal/neo-con agenda. Never have and never will—–But your characterization of Trump is hardly accurate. “Bullets dipped in pig’s blood” What Trump does will prove what he is. Guiliani, Bannon, Jeff Sessions, Mnunchin, Gingrich….tell me it’s the same old song.

    • UpYourHorse

      Your candidate sucked, as well as being headed toward indictment. Anytime the facts don’t fit the lib narrative, they play the race card.

      • sufferingsuccatash

        Not my candidate sport—-I didn’t vote Hillary.

        • UpYourHorse

          Two words: Protest Vote. Trump was there and happened to be the ONLY contender who could stop Hillary Clinton from ruining the country.

    • UpYourHorse

      My affluent college-educated New England town broke for Trump in primary which carried him to the presidency. My diesel mechanic cousin living in Texas voted for him also. His wife is Hispanic and she came here as an illegal at age 10. Since the individual stories of Trump voters accumulate to multiple millions for whom racism is NO issue, then your narrative falls apart.

      It doesn’t take a college education to understand corruption and illegality in a pay-to-play Clinton global foundation. Nor does it take one to google how carelessly handling unsecured classified documents has sent many people to prison. As bad as Benghazi was, when your start in life is an ambitious and grifting lawyer-wife of an AR governor, and controversy has followed your entire career, most people take a step back from that. In the end Wikileaks entirely unmasked the person underneath.

      • sufferingsuccatash

        The racist argument doesn’t fall apart because a diesel mechanic’s wife votes for Trump—–for all I know he had a gun to her head. True though, many people voted for Trump because of the Clinton political gangster class—–but Trump’s overt appeals to racist elements of the American public certainly got him votes. The Clinton Democratic Party machine is nothing more than a money laundering operation for corporate cronies and Wall St. I didn’t need Wikileaks to understand any of that—-The value of Wikileaks can be applied to her policy which portends one thing and then intends another. Take her appeal to the college loan debt crisis which is over $1trillion. You would suppose from her speeches that she was intent on resolving this debt to help students. No way—–her policy disallowed bankruptcy or any debt forgiveness. It would help some minor category of students, but by and large, most students would be on the hook for their large debts. Even Jeb Bush’s plan allowed for bankruptcy to absolve loans. Not Hillary though. You don’t get $250k per speech to help the debtor.

        • UpYourHorse

          The Hispanic woman is now a police detective in a major metropolitan city, so she’s actually the one with the gun! LoL What brought down the liberal establishment were the failures in healthcare, job creation, education, honesty and trust. If they don’t take ownership of failure, you will see this happen again in 2020! This was not about racism, or Trump’s so-called appeal to racists. I like your comments about the student debt relief though. Thanks.

          • sufferingsuccatash

            This is not a failure of liberalism—–There is nothing liberal about bailing out the banks, funneling money to the healthcare corporations, bombarding Libya, running weapons through Benghazi, attempting to pass TTP, TTIP, failing to prosecute criminal bankers, and so on. This agenda is not progressive nor liberal—–it is creating the framework for plundering the working class and running the government as a money laundering operation. This duality is the creation of the media industrial complex. What is interesting is that most Americans—working Americans from both parties want a higher minimum wage, national healthcare without the added expense of the drug makers and the healthcare management organizations taking an unnecessary and heavy cut, the expansion of social security, and clean water and air. The corruption is endemic to both parties and it runs broad and deep. Trump is not clean by any stretch of imagination—-but the Clinton money machine needed to end.

  • ClubToTheHead

    I voted for Trump, Democrats could say, because a vote for Stein was a vote for Trump.

    And so voting for a woman named Stein makes me a misogynist.

    Alice in Wonderland logic by Democrats.

    • David S

      You are only allowed to make your vote truly count when it conforms to THEIR agenda. The same crap is always said about libertarian votes that “help elect democrats.” As if any libertarian was going to vote for a republican in the first place. A parliamentary process or even the inclusion of “none of the above” to EVERY ballot race would be a great improvement (so long as when NOTA wins, ALL candidates lose and none can run again for that same race).

  • L Garou

    It’s the only card the I want and gimme crowd has.
    Oh, and of course.. racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist, racist……

  • diogenes

    Clinton lost because it is evident to a sufficient number of Americans who owns her — Goldman Sachs & their fellows.

    • David S

      How did all these folks go from “Occupying Wall Street” to voting for Wall Street?

      • sent

        They banned Wall Street from “Occupying White House”.

  • Sister Jane

    Everything the American media does is based on Social Justice it’s the only view they have, so everything is Sexism, racism, any moral dilemma that they can’t figure out, homophobia, islamophobia (racism again.). In everything the Media does, their searching or seeking to find the bigot, even if they have to create the bigot to show their followers that there really is one. The solution to this is to turn off the TV, and stop listening or reading Main Stream Established media, life is much broader than what the establishment wants you to believe and they do want you to believe everything is just a Social Justice problem, it’s just that simple, then they the establishment can totally control everything you do once you believe them.

    The media with the example of holding illegal immigrants accountable for being within the US illegally, the media’s counter is of course based upon that all time favorite of Islamophobia or racism, and if one follows CNN you can see it plainly, they will exaggerate statements and hound those who never made the exact statements CNN claims they made, in order to push what they see as a moral dilemma, overlooking of course that the topic is ILLEGAL immigration. If CNN does not have at least 3 or 4 articles on Social Justice on their site a day, their not doing their jobs as American Mass Media Journalist, everything to these folks comes down to Social Justice, ignore everything else. Then there are the protest we see today where all the protestors Hate Trumps Hate and they all show it by Hating Trump, it’s all about Social Justice, everything…….the protestors perhaps are filled up with American Journalism and it’s Social Justice War on everything..

    • MeanValueTheorem

      If everything the media did was based on social justice then you’d see them cover Sanders as much if not more than they covered Trump during the primaries. They would gover the Standing Rock issue. They’d cover Clinton’s HORRIBLE record on social justice, they’d cover Obama’s deportation of 2.5 Million people, they’d cover the corruption in government which allowed Wall Street criminals to skate after destroying the global economy.

      Face it, the idea that the media is liberally biased because it drones on superficially about boutique identity politics sans class struggle analysis, is a complete fiction. You don’t have a “liberal” MSM, you have a corporate one. That fact is plainly obvious by acknowledging who it is that OWNS the MSM and who is signing the checks.

      I have yet to encounter a single conservative who can explain to me why it is the same individuals who comprise the ruling class billionaires in America are somehow spending hundreds of Millions a year slitting the throats of their own interests? How is the business class alive today if all they do is push communism? Do you ever stop to hear yourself?

      • Sister Jane

        There are some truths to what you say except for one big fallacy, Hillary Clinton was the establishments pick, and they did hit her up on some Social Issues, morals, bigotry, sexual, racial and so many others, because the MSM does not really want to spend time on issues and facts, bigots sell. Since from the start the DNC already knew how to handle Sanders (See DNC email hacks.) there wasn’t really any need to attack Sanders as a bigot, because he had no chance from the get go.

        By your comment I imagine you do not consider yourself a conservative, because for some reason their supposed to explain things to you as you put it, which kinda means you’re not one of them. The ruling class as you put it does not care about conservative or liberal, they only care about one thing. The ideals of liberal or conservative, well that’s just there to create some more division so that the ruling class can keep on ruling. However with the election of Trump, where it goes from here is kinda unknown, never before has America elected a non-political figure, he’s got no track record, then again the Republican Party would not have selected somebody if they were not in agreement with the system would they? Oh, I’m not going to get down on Trump, just like every President before him I don’t see any big detour coming down the road, but I’ll let him get in office for awhile before I comment on him.

        We probably agree on the media, normally I like to call them the Main Stream Established Media, and they along with all the establishments tools of the trade love dividing the American People up, and anything and everything is their tool of choice. It just so happens though that especially since Trump and Clinton have been going at it, Mass Media has been focusing heavily upon Bigots, (even before that really, so many things were just Social Justice issues according to MSM.) their constantly trying to find the bigot lately. Now maybe next week they will constantly be trying to find the some other tool, and the week after that it’ll be islamophobe like when discussing mass immigration or refugees or illegal immigration, these terms used like salt on food, if they use enough of it, it usually hides the taste, what I’m saying in that analogy is, it hides the issues, distracts the people, divides them up, now sprinkle that with some good old hate, hate for bigots, hate for anything that will distract from the issues, nothing like some good ole’ emotional engineering going strong for decades now. Bernays would be proud to be an American today.

        In the hacked Podesta emails we have Hillary Clinton’s advisor admitting that Hillary “hates everyday Americans”, so Podesta used that for PR, by suggesting they spread the “message”, shortly after that we heard Hillary’s “deplorables speech”. If you cannot win them over, divide them up and win. The establishment did not count on the backlash that Hillary received this election, what I expect to see now, is an attack on Wiki Leaks and leakers in general, more control of the Internet and media in general (even more.) and if they cannot gain control of it, they’ll do exactly like they did with media in the past, infiltrate it and control it from the inside. (Good examples today are Google, Facebook, probably twitter as well, oh I’m sure they try to make them look like leftist or far right tools, but no not really, there just tools, in this case tools to keep tabs on things and people and tools to division.)

        Historically to sway mass opinion, PR must be used to inspire the desired action, and those in control are the ones that have an agenda or desired action they wish to inspire in the masses. So for example those wishing to end Trumps Hate and change the world by ending the electoral college, did it ever dawn on these followers, that’s exactly what the establishment hopes they do for their own personal benefit. By so doing we can once and for all bury even the idea of the Republic, and spread mob rule to the farthest corners of the US of A, and in the end almost nobody will even remember that it was a Republic, most do not already, it’s working and a work in progress.

      • Antileftist

        It is ignorant to claim that the “business class” controls the news media, as you do, when it fact, it is the “entertainment industry” which largely controls the news media with the exception being GE who, although they are in manufacturing, also have a large arm of their business devoted to entertainment.

        According to Business Insider magazine, Viacom, Time Warner, Newscorp, CBS, Disney and GE control over 90% of the news we view on TV. These people want to turn a profit by having the most coveted demographic watch their programming and that demographic is 18-34 y/o people, who it just so happens, have always skewed democrat. Of course they are going to want to give that demographic what they want, that’s who their advertisers pay them to deliver.

        CNN and MSNBC lead the charge for the SJW crowd. While NBC, CBS, and ABC make thinly veiled attempts to portray themselves as playing closer to the vest, one need look no further than the recent campaign coverage to know they did not support Trump at all. They twisted Trump’s positions such as his desire for FAIR TRADE, by continually portraying him as ANTI TRADE. His position against illegal Mexican (a nationality) immigrants and Muslims (a religion) were both described as “racist” though neither is a race.
        Meanwhile, much of the Wikileaks information which was damaging to Hillary, had to be searched for online, as most of it was never even mentioned on NBC, CBS or ABC. That was to protect Hillary’s campaign.
        FOX is the lone voice of establishment conservatives on TV and even among them, only Hannity was in the Trump camp. In fact, their parent company News Corp. gave as much money to democrats during this last election as they gave to republicans.
        The Wikileaks emails showed a great deal of cooperation between the Hillary campaign and a number of reporters, and other media figures from various mainstream media conglomerates. They were sending stories to the campaign for editing and approval, and even suggesting stories they could report if it would help the cause of getting Hillary elected. Of course, their employers aren’t going to report that cooperation, because it would shine the light on what little credibility they have.

        Then, if you want to be intellectually honest, you have to examine the many personal relationships between the Obama administration and various media companies; From WaPo>

        ABC News President Ben Sherwood, is the brother of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, a top national-security adviser to President Obama.
        CBS news division president David Rhodes, is the brother of Benjamin Rhodes, a key foreign-policy specialist.
        That’s 2 of the 3 big networks where the president of the news division is either married to or a close blood relative of one of Obama’s employees.

        CNN’s deputy Washington bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Tom Nides, who until earlier this year was deputy secretary of state under Hillary Rodham Clinton. No wonder CNN never delved into the depth of the Wikileaks emails while Hillary was running.

        White House press secretary Jay Carney’s wife is Claire Shipman, a veteran reporter for ABC.

        NPR’s White House correspondent, Ari Shapiro, is married to a lawyer, Michael Gottlieb, who joined the White House counsel’s office in April.

        The Post‘s Justice Department reporter, Sari Horwitz, is married to William B. Schultz, the general counsel of the Department of Human Services.

        [VP] Biden’s current communications director, Shailagh Murray (a former Post congressional reporter), is married to Neil King, one of the Wall Street Journal‘s top political reporters.

        That is one incestuous group of media/govt relationships. Few people are going to report a story which damages their significant other, or a close family member and those who employ them.

        As per, the overall trend of campaign contributions, shows that all the media conglomerates donated disproportionately more to Democrats from 1990 to 1994. In 1996, they began to favor Republicans with an average margin of about 8 percentage points until 2008, when Democrats had all six (including News Corp. owner of Fox) giving them half, or more, of all donations.

        You are either disingenuous, or outright clueless to claim that being “billionaires” and or “corporations” automatically precludes them from supporting democrats. Ever heard of Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Silicon Valley, Google, Starbucks, Capital One, Wall Street, Peter Lewis and Progressive Insurance etc? They all supported Hillary and other down ticket democrats. Hell, even the NY Times said they were going to make changes to their political reporting going forward as they acknowledged their failure in this election.

        No wonder no conservative bothered to take the time to detail to you, the obvious bias of the MSM towards democrats. No one wants to get into an argument with someone who isn’t capable of digesting facts.

        • MeanValueTheorem

          I got one substantial question that debunks all your bs:

          Who signs the checks?

          Here’s another clue you failed to pick up on:
          Democrats are not liberal. They’re a wing of the Republican Party. Those guys signing the checks that pay the MSM are the same ones signing the checks that run the Republican and Democratic Parties.

          You’re still playing rep v dem on a chess board where there is only one War Party, only one Wall Street Party, only one Drug War Party, only one Free Trade Party.

          I’ve never met a Conservative who could explain how it is that the multi-billion dollar corporations that run the MSM would compromise their own interests by running a “liberal media” which opposes those interests. Corporate Tyranny is to Republicans as Predator was is to Marines. No matter how many of them are killed off by the Corporate State, they fail to see the invisible murderer right in front of them, until it’s too late.

          Democrats today are to the right of Nixon. LMAO! This guy thinks Democrats are liberal. You can’t make this crap up.

  • DParton

    your forgetting two important facts: you can be sexist and be a woman, you can be racist and be a “colored ‘person. To equate Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky to Trump’s over the top abuse of women throughout his career and indignant remarks publicly, speaks to the level of prejudice behind the scenes you don’t see, and whats to come. Furthermore, the people who vote with their pocket book over basic human rights, are racist, because basic human rights don’t matter to them as much as their jobs.
    You can be any class and race and sex and be sexist and or racist.
    Welcome to the third world, created by the republicans of the world over the last 50 years. Reap the rewards, and blame the neo cons.
    Blacks stayed home in record numbers because of their own race war against the white man. Look at Kaepernick for more clarity on that.
    So to say it wasn’t racism all around is delusional and below what i thought i would read here.
    Religious freedoms have been completely trampled, as well as basic human rights like equality for the sexes and genders, right to basic healthcare and retirement, all in the name of a job in a factory?! get an education for gods sake! throw all that away because you dont trust Clinton’s financial dealings? that is a rationalization for deep seeded racism, and fears of multiculturalism, not globalism. Not a job.
    white america/world dying and on a population decline.

    • Chuck Haggard

      Third world you say?

      You mean places like Detroit, Chicago, Gary IN, …….? Places being run strictly via Democrat politics for decades?

      Homing in on Bill’s “affair” with Monica certainly leaves out the other well known and not so well known issues he has had in the past with blatant assault and generally being a sexual predator.

      I was personally on a protection detail for Bill in which his inability to control himself placed his safety, his Secret Service agents’ safety and my team’s safety in jeopardy, all because he had a young attractive blond pinned in a corner and the agents had a hell of a time getting him to move on with the scheduled events.

  • BillyDe ”°º×»-(¯`v´¯)-» ♥ ♥

    > Question: Does saying that I think the vast majority of African Americans are far too sensitive make me a racist? If so, I take it back.

    • MeanValueTheorem

      Only one way to find out.