解释2020年对特朗普的支持:反穆斯林、亲警察和反blm态度的作用

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Nazita Lajevardi , Jan Zilinsky
{"title":"解释2020年对特朗普的支持:反穆斯林、亲警察和反blm态度的作用","authors":"Nazita Lajevardi ,&nbsp;Jan Zilinsky","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>For at least 75 years, social scientists have pointed to racial attitudes as a dominant force in American politics. But the relative positioning of outgroups can be dynamic, suggesting that attitudes toward one group might be predictive of vote choice in one electoral context, but not another. Here, we estimate which group attitudes in the U.S. were correlated with presidential vote choice from 2012–2020. Panel data at four time points during this period indicates that attitudes towards Muslims were the strongest predictor of Republican presidential support until 2019, but faded in substantive importance in 2020 when anti-BLM attitudes became highly prognostic. High-frequency weekly data from 2019-2020 pinpoints when this shift occurred: anti-Muslim prejudice shaped Trump approval from 2019 through May 2020. After the George Floyd murder, pro-police and anti-BLM attitudes immediately become the most important predictors of Trump approval, whilst the effect of anti-Muslim attitudes diminished.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 102888"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Explaining 2020 Trump support: The role of anti-Muslim, pro-police, and anti-BLM attitudes\",\"authors\":\"Nazita Lajevardi ,&nbsp;Jan Zilinsky\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102888\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>For at least 75 years, social scientists have pointed to racial attitudes as a dominant force in American politics. But the relative positioning of outgroups can be dynamic, suggesting that attitudes toward one group might be predictive of vote choice in one electoral context, but not another. Here, we estimate which group attitudes in the U.S. were correlated with presidential vote choice from 2012–2020. Panel data at four time points during this period indicates that attitudes towards Muslims were the strongest predictor of Republican presidential support until 2019, but faded in substantive importance in 2020 when anti-BLM attitudes became highly prognostic. High-frequency weekly data from 2019-2020 pinpoints when this shift occurred: anti-Muslim prejudice shaped Trump approval from 2019 through May 2020. After the George Floyd murder, pro-police and anti-BLM attitudes immediately become the most important predictors of Trump approval, whilst the effect of anti-Muslim attitudes diminished.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"volume\":\"93 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102888\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026137942400146X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026137942400146X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

至少75年来,社会科学家一直指出,种族态度是美国政治中的主导力量。但外围群体的相对定位可能是动态的,这表明对一个群体的态度可能在一个选举背景下预测投票选择,但在另一个选举背景下则不然。在这里,我们估计了美国哪些群体的态度与2012-2020年的总统投票选择相关。在此期间的四个时间点的小组数据表明,在2019年之前,对穆斯林的态度是共和党总统支持率的最强预测因素,但在2020年,当反blm态度成为高度预测因素时,其实质性重要性逐渐减弱。2019-2020年的高频每周数据精确地指出了这种转变发生的时间:从2019年到2020年5月,反穆斯林偏见影响了特朗普的支持率。在乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)谋杀案之后,支持警察和反对土地管理局的态度立即成为特朗普支持率的最重要预测因素,而反穆斯林态度的影响减弱了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Explaining 2020 Trump support: The role of anti-Muslim, pro-police, and anti-BLM attitudes
For at least 75 years, social scientists have pointed to racial attitudes as a dominant force in American politics. But the relative positioning of outgroups can be dynamic, suggesting that attitudes toward one group might be predictive of vote choice in one electoral context, but not another. Here, we estimate which group attitudes in the U.S. were correlated with presidential vote choice from 2012–2020. Panel data at four time points during this period indicates that attitudes towards Muslims were the strongest predictor of Republican presidential support until 2019, but faded in substantive importance in 2020 when anti-BLM attitudes became highly prognostic. High-frequency weekly data from 2019-2020 pinpoints when this shift occurred: anti-Muslim prejudice shaped Trump approval from 2019 through May 2020. After the George Floyd murder, pro-police and anti-BLM attitudes immediately become the most important predictors of Trump approval, whilst the effect of anti-Muslim attitudes diminished.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信