One single trait reliably predicts whether American voters support Trump

If I asked you what most defines Donald Trump supporters, what would you say? They’re white? They’re poor? They’re uneducated?

You’d be wrong.

In fact, I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.

That’s right, Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it’s very possible that Trump’s fan base will continue to grow.

My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.

Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened. From pledging to “make America great again” by building a wall on the border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations.

Summary 

It is now clear that the authoritarian personality theory of Adorno et al. (1950) has not withstood empirical testing. It remains popular therefore only because of the agreeableness of its conclusions. An alternative theory is presented that attempts to integrate psychology with political history. Ideological Leftism is seen as a desire for constant change that is motivated in most instances by strong ego needs -- principally needs for attention, power and excitement. Leftists generally gain satisfaction of these needs by advocating equality of various sorts and by proposing that an ever-increasing government role in society is needed to ensure equality. This enthusiasm for imposing an ever-widening nimbus of government regulation on all human activity is quintessentially authoritarian. Conservatives, by contrast, are primarily motivated by a desire for individual liberty and a concomitant dislike of government activism so are quintessentially anti-authoritarian.

Conservatives, by contrast, are primarily motivated by a desire for individual liberty and a concomitant dislike of government activism so are quintessentially anti-authoritarian

Didge wrote:I am centre conservative and do not want to ban gay marriage ben and I actually am all for equality, and I certainly do not want religious control so where does that leave your view point?

Didge wrote:So one in four democrats also were against gay marriage, which makes even more your argument to castigate a whole group poor do you not think?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:So one in four democrats also were against gay marriage, which makes even more your argument to castigate a whole group poor do you not think?

Two in three conservatives are against gay marriage -- the real problem is on their side.

IndependentThoughts wrote:I think Didge's link is not only more succinct in it's explanation, but is also A LOT more true and real-life.

Look at the “political correctness” of the Left.  They try to cram it down your throat.  Assimilate and conform to their way of thinking, or deal with our pithy temper tantrums.  What do we see here?  Authoritarian personalities.

Hell, we don’t have to look past this site to see examples of this.  When I criticize Obama, the inevitable: “Aw, man, not cool.  You must be a conservative/Republican cuz you hurt our liberal feelings. Waaaahhhh!!!”  Yep, another example of Authoritarian personalities.  You politically disagree with me, so therefore I must shun/shame/embarrass/lie about/become hostile towards/hate you until you change your way of thinking.

I see this crap happen on both sides of the political fence, but see it FAAAAARRRRR more from the lefties/liberals.  They love nothing more than to cram their idiot-ology (errr, I meant "ideology") down others' throats, and get all butt hurt when others call them out for lame and pitiful stances.

IndependentThoughts wrote:I agree with you, Didge.  As an Independent, I see myself aligned with the Democrats on social issues (sans their false sense of entitlement to other people's  money), and more aligned with Republicans on economic and defense issues.

I also agree that Obama changing his stance was a good one, but I firmly believe that his change was the result of political pressure, not from a sincere personal revelation or epiphany; it was born from political necessity, rather than personal growth and evolution.

Didge wrote:I share your views Independent on social issues and Tory on economic issues. What is clear to me, is you have been wrongly castigated and labelled as well for being in disagreement it seems also to then be cast as a Republican. Sadly some people only see things in black and white and cannot expand beyond this tunnel vision.

 Lets face it though many PM's have bowed to political pressure where the most important aspect I am sure you will agree is that change did happen. If I am being honest I do not have an issue with Obama on in the US but his foreign policy which I think has been suicidal.

I also think its time the US had a change with an Independent President.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:I share your views Independent on social issues and Tory on economic issues. What is clear to me, is you have been wrongly castigated and labelled as well for being in disagreement it seems also to then be cast as a Republican. Sadly some people only see things in black and white and cannot expand beyond this tunnel vision.

 Lets face it though many PM's have bowed to political pressure where the most important aspect I am sure you will agree is that change did happen. If I am being honest I do not have an issue with Obama on in the US but his foreign policy which I think has been suicidal.

I also think its time the US had a change with an Independent President.

Never gonna happen. In order to get elected you need the massive machinery that a political party has to reach voters and the media, and no independent is going to be able to construct something like that in the short time that would be required.

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:I share your views Independent on social issues and Tory on economic issues. What is clear to me, is you have been wrongly castigated and labelled as well for being in disagreement it seems also to then be cast as a Republican. Sadly some people only see things in black and white and cannot expand beyond this tunnel vision.

 Lets face it though many PM's have bowed to political pressure where the most important aspect I am sure you will agree is that change did happen. If I am being honest I do not have an issue with Obama on in the US but his foreign policy which I think has been suicidal.

I also think its time the US had a change with an Independent President.

Never gonna happen. In order to get elected you need the massive machinery that a political party has to reach voters and the media, and no independent is going to be able to construct something like that in the short time that would be required.

They said the end of slavery would never happen and it did end.

They said the end of Apartheid in South Africa would never happened and it did

Its always a big mistake to say its never  gonna happen

Didge wrote:Or be better to say highly unlikely in this present election, but then again funnier things have happened. I hope neither Trump, Cruz and Clinton get in as it would be a disaster for the US if they did.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:Or be better to say highly unlikely in this present election, but then again funnier things have happened. I hope neither Trump, Cruz and Clinton get in as it would be a disaster for the US if they did.

I, on the other hand, think this is Clinton vs. Trump, with Clinton winning by at least five percentage points. I've actually thought about setting up a bet here about this

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:Or be better to say highly unlikely in this present election, but then again funnier things have happened. I hope neither Trump, Cruz and Clinton get in as it would be a disaster for the US if they did.

I, on the other hand, think this is Clinton vs. Trump, with Clinton winning by at least five percentage points. I've actually thought about setting up a bet here about this

lol well I am not going to bet on either, so you would have to add in some others for people to chose

I also think you have judged Independent poorly, well that is my opinion on that matter



Anyway time to leave you so wish you both a enjoyable day, whilst I leave for the night