scholarly journals Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anton Gollwitzer ◽  
Cameron Martel ◽  
William J. Brady ◽  
Philip Pärnamets ◽  
Isaac Freedman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Population Density ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Median Income ◽  
County Level ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Fox News ◽  
Conservative Media ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Over Time

Numerous polls suggest that COVID-19 is a profoundly partisan issue in the U.S. Using the geotracking data of 15 million smartphones per day, we found that U.S. counties that voted for Donald Trump (Republican) over Hillary Clinton (Democrat) in the 2016 presidential election exhibited 14% less physical distancing between March and May 2020. Partisanship was more strongly associated with physical distancing than numerous factors, including counties’ median income, COVID-19 cases, population density, and racial and age demographics. Contrary to our predictions, the observed partisan gap strengthened over time and remained when stay-at-home orders were active. Additionally, county-level consumption of conservative media (Fox News) related to reduced physical distancing. Finally, the observed partisan differences in distancing were associated with subsequently higher COVID-19 infection and fatality growth rates in pro-Trump counties. Taken together, these data suggest that U.S. citizens’ responses to COVID-19 are subject to a deep—and consequential—partisan divide.

Average Joe, Crooked Hillary and the unStable Narcissist: Expert Impressions of 2016 and 2020

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Book ◽  
Beth Visser ◽  
Anthony Volk
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Psychopathic Personality ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Average Profile ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. 2020 presidential election has, like the 2016 election, brought attention to the two candidates’ personalities. We invited HEXACO researchers to complete observer-report inventories for Joe Biden’s and Donald Trump’s public personalities. Given previous comparison of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump prior to the 2016 election, we are also able to compare the 2020 candidates to the 2016 candidates. Our ratings reveal a relatively average profile of personality traits for Joe Biden, including higher ratings than Trump for Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness. Biden also scores higher on all traits than Clinton other than her slightly higher scores for Conscientiousness and Openness. In comparison to his 2016 ratings, in 2020 Trump is rated as having lower Extraversion and much lower Conscientiousness along with higher Emotionality (especially Fearfulness). Overall, our data once again suggest a Narcissistic profile for Trump, with elements of psychopathic personality traits, while Biden presents as an outgoing individual with slightly above average prosocial traits.

Trump Territory

2019 ◽  
pp. 49-75
Author(s):  
Seth C. McKee ◽  
Daniel A. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
County Level ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Florida County

This chapter assesses changes in presidential election returns at the Florida county level between 2012 and 2016. Florida has been a perennial swing state since 1992, and it was once again a toss-up in 2016 when Republican Donald Trump narrowly defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton. We show that, with respect to density, Democratic presidential nominees fare much better in Florida’s most urban counties whereas Republican candidates are much stronger in the greater number of counties with less metropolitan population.

scholarly journals EFFECT OF 2008 AND 2016 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE INDONESIAN STOCK MARKET

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn Evelyn ◽  
Sautma Ronni Basana
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Stock Market ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
The Other ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Black President ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Presidential election was an event that received widespread attention across the globe. In the 2008 presidential campaign, Barrack Obama nominated to be the first black President. In 2016, Hillary Clinton poten­tially becomes the first woman President in American history, while the other can­di­da­te, Donald Trump, ma­de some unpopular and controversial proposals. The purpose of this paper is to ana­­­lyse whether the 2008 and 2016 election were considered as the rele­vant information in the Indonesian Stock Market (IDX). The daily closing prices of all all share listed in IDX wo­uld be examined used event stu­­­dy method. The results provide insight about the res­pon­si­­­veness of IDX parti­ci­pants to the U.S. Pre­si­den­­tial election event that could be used in decision making.

scholarly journals Playing the Trump Card: Masculinity Threat and the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 237802311774069 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily K. Carian ◽  
Tagart Cain Sobotka
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Potential Mechanism ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
The Status ◽  
Masculinity Threat ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Differential Support

Using an experimental study fielded before the U.S. 2016 presidential election, we test one potential mechanism to explain the outcome of the election: threatened gender identity. Building on masculine overcompensation literature, we test whether threat to masculinity can explain differential support for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton among men, and adjudicate between two mediators: desire for a male president and desire for a masculine president. As predicted, we find that masculinity threat increases desire for a masculine president (but not desire for a male president), which in turn increases support for Trump and decreases support for Clinton among men. This study empirically documents the role masculinity threat may have played in the 2016 presidential election and politics more generally. This study also contributes to theory by providing evidence that masculine overcompensation works symbolically to reassert the status of masculinity over femininity rather than to simply emphasize maleness over femaleness.

Understanding Michigan's Electoral Competitiveness: Swing Counties 1976-2018

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-201
Author(s):  
JOHN S. KLEMANSKI ◽  
DAVID A. DULIO ◽  
DOUGLAS A. CARR
Keyword(s):  
Voting Behavior ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
County Level ◽  
Major Focus ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Media Attention ◽  
Election Results ◽  
Gubernatorial Election ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Electoral Competitiveness

ABSTRACT Considerable media attention was given to the so-called “pivot counties” in the U.S. and in Michigan that flipped from supporting Barack Obama twice to voting for Donald Trump in 2016. We first summarize theories of voting behavior and speculate about why Michigan has been consistently competitive over the years. We explore 40 years' worth of county-level presidential and gubernatorial election results in Michigan to determine how frequently counties have flipped across a large number of elections. We find that a number of Michigan counties frequently flip between elections, but the number of competitive Michigan counties has substantially declined in recent decades. Turnout in larger counties can affect election outcomes, and large counties that swing have been key bellwethers in past elections, and should be a major focus of research on future elections in Michigan.

scholarly journals Don’t Republicans Tweet Too? Using Twitter to Assess the Consequences of Political Endorsements by Celebrities

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-160
Author(s):  
Jan Zilinsky ◽  
Cristian Vaccari ◽  
Jonathan Nagler ◽  
Joshua A. Tucker
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
The Social ◽  
Decision To Stay ◽  
Presidential Election Campaign

Michael Jordan supposedly justified his decision to stay out of politics by noting that Republicans buy sneakers too. In the social media era, the name of the game for celebrities is engagement with fans. So why then do celebrities risk talking about politics on social media, which is likely to antagonize a portion of their fan base? With this question in mind, we analyze approximately 220,000 tweets from 83 celebrities who chose to endorse a presidential candidate in the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign to assess whether there is a cost—defined in terms of engagement on Twitter—for celebrities who discuss presidential candidates. We also examine whether celebrities behave similarly to other campaign surrogates in being more likely to take on the “attack dog” role by going negative more often than going positive. More specifically, we document how often celebrities of distinct political preferences tweet about Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, and we show that followers of opinionated celebrities do not withhold engagement when entertainers become politically mobilized and do indeed often go negative. Interestingly, in some cases political content from celebrities actually turns out to be more popular than typical lifestyle tweets.

Losing (to) Misogynists

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Manne
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Male Counterpart ◽  
Left Wing ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Leadership Positions ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Protective Mechanisms ◽  
The Right

This final chapter applies the analysis of misogyny to the 2016 presidential election, in which Hillary Clinton was defeated by Donald Trump, despite the latter being vastly underqualified and temperamentally and morally unsuited to the position. There was also a great deal of misogyny directed toward Clinton not only by Trump and others on the right but also from left-wing sources. It is argued that much of this misogyny and even the outcome were to some extent predictable, on the basis of evidence of misogynistic biases against women who compete for male-dominated leadership positions. Research in social psychology shows that, when a woman cannot be judged less competent than her male counterpart in such contexts, many people will hold that, although they are equally competent, she is less likable than he is. Women are just as likely as men to reject high-achieving women in this manner, due to ego-protective mechanisms.

Voters’ Perceptions of Trust in 2016 Presidential Candidates, Clinton and Trump: Exploring the Election’s Outcome

2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (7) ◽  
pp. 856-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela S. Shockley-Zalabak ◽  
Sherwyn P. Morreale ◽  
Carmen Stavrositu
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
The Third ◽  
General Trust ◽  
Registered Voters ◽  
The U.S

This study explored voters’ perceptions of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump regarding their general trust in the two 2016 presidential candidates, voters’ demographics, five underlying drivers of trust, and important campaign issues. The study also examined how perceptions of trust on issues were evidenced in the popular vote and in key swing states and the Electoral College. The study used two online census-representative surveys to examine registered voters’ perceptions: one survey of 1,500 respondents conducted immediately before the first presidential debate (September 7-15, 2016) and a second survey of a different sample of 1,500 immediately after the third debate (October 20-31), 2016. Analysis of the results confirmed relatively low-trust levels for both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and an electorate divided demographically about their trust in the two candidates. The five trust drivers yielded statistically significant differences between the candidates. Clinton was evaluated as more competent, concerned, and reliable, and a person with whom participants identified. With the second survey, Trump statistically surpassed Clinton for openness and honesty. Regarding the three issues of most importance in the campaign, Clinton and Trump had equivalent trust evaluations for dealing with the U.S. economy/jobs, but Trump was more trusted regarding terrorism/national security and Clinton was more trusted regarding health care. The overall trust evaluations for Clinton, coupled with intentions to vote, contribute to understanding Clinton’s popular vote victory. However, the importance of terrorism/national security in swing states and Trump’s trust advantage on that issue contributes to understanding the Electoral College vote by comparison with the popular vote.

scholarly journals Deconstructing Nonviolence and the War-Machine: Unarmed Coups, Nonviolent Power, and Armed Resistance

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 421-433
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Finlay
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Democratic Institutions ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Civil Resistance ◽  
War Machine ◽  
The Face ◽  
The U.S

AbstractProponents of nonviolent tactics often highlight the extent to which they rival arms as effective means of resistance. Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, for instance, compare civil resistance favorably to armed insurrection as means of bringing about progressive political change. In Ethics, Security, and the War-Machine, Ned Dobos cites their work in support of the claim that similar methods—organized according to Gene Sharp's idea of “civilian-based defense”—may be substituted for regular armed forces in the face of international aggression. I deconstruct this line of pacifist thought by arguing that it builds on the wrong binary. Turning away from a violence-nonviolence dichotomy structured around harmfulness, I look to Richard B. Gregg and Hannah Arendt for an account of nonviolent power defined by non-coercion. Whereas nonviolent coercion in the wrong hands still has the potential to subvert democratic institutions—just as armed methods can—Gregg's and Arendt's conceptions of nonviolent power identify a necessary bulwark against both forms of subversion. The dangers of nonviolent coercion can be seen in the largely nonviolent attempts at civil subversion by supporters of Donald Trump during Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the U.S. presidential election in 2020, while the effectiveness of noncoercive, nonviolent power is illustrated by the resistance of U.S. democratic institutions to resist them.

scholarly journals Micro-Expressions of Fear During the 2016 Presidential Campaign Trail: Their Influence on Trait Perceptions of Donald Trump

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick A. Stewart ◽  
Elena Svetieva
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Contrast Study ◽  
Leadership Traits ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Policy Positions ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
National Convention ◽  
Acceptance Speech

The 2016 United States presidential election was exceptional for many reasons; most notably the extreme division between supporters of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In an election that turned more upon the character traits of the candidates than their policy positions, there is reason to believe that the non-verbal performances of the candidates influenced attitudes toward the candidates. Two studies, before Election Day, experimentally tested the influence of Trump’s micro-expressions of fear during his Republican National Convention nomination acceptance speech on how viewers evaluated his key leadership traits of competence and trustworthiness. Results from Study 1, conducted 3 weeks prior to the election, indicated generally positive effects of Trump’s fear micro-expressions on his trait evaluations, particularly when viewers were first exposed to his opponent, Clinton. In contrast, Study 2, conducted 4 days before Election Day, suggests participants had at that point largely established their trait perceptions and were unaffected by the micro-expressions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document