The Secret of Trump's Success

• 12.06.2016, 14:17
• Liana Hovhannisyan
•  America,  "Insight" Analytical Center ,  World

The results of recent US presidential elections came as a surprise to many people. However, many questions receive their answers, when you compare and analyze the results of the elections according to the statistics of voting of different social groups and try to understand the causes of such a choice.

Here we tried to do a similar analysis using the statistics received from the survey conducted by ''Edison Research for the National Election Pool'' (association of several organizations - ABC News, The Associated Press, CBS News, CNN, Fox News and NBC News) after the presidential elections. The survey was conducted in 350 polling stations, including 24 537 people.

Voting According to Revenue

Considering the election statistics on income, we get a pretty interesting picture. It should be noted that if, in other groups, the difference in the voices was mainly big, reaching in some cases 40 percent or more, in this case the biggest difference - 12%, was recorded for those who have an annual income of 30,000 dollars or less (for Clinton - 53%, for Trump - 41%). The difference of numbers of voters is almost indistinguishable, when voters have an annual income of $ 250 000 and above (48% are for Trump and 46% for Clinton). The picture does not change significantly either for people with average income, 50 000 - 99 999 dollars a year (50% are for Trump, 46% for Clinton). 48% of those with an annual income of $ 100 000-199 999 voted for Trump, and 47% for Clinton.

In order to explain such statistics it is enough to refer to the positions of candidates from the Democrats and Republicans on this issue. It is interesting to note that they have, at first glance, completely contradictory positions: Republican candidate Donald Trump is for the establishment of privileged tax conditions for large businesses, and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is for increasing taxes for the latter.

Such distribution of votes in the electorate speaks of "two-edged" nature of the proposed solutions. How much contradicting, at first sight, the both proposals are, in case of introduction of any of them, people with both low and high income would benefit.

The establishment of privileged tax conditions for large businesses would make country more attractive for businesses that operate outside the country, on the grounds of their investments in their own country. As a result of which, receiving preferential tax treatment, people with high incomes would surely benefit. On the other hand, people with medium or low incomes could benefit by opening new jobs for them.

Though in the short term Clinton's proposal could seem less beneficial for people with high income, for example, for businessmen, in the long run they would have a guarantee from "migration" of new competitors.

Voting According to Ideology 

The results of voting for this category lead to a number of interesting conclusions. For Liberals, the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is ahead of Republican candidate Donald Trump (84% of liberals voted for Clinton and only 10% for Trump). For Conservatives, we have the opposite picture: 81% vote for Trump, and 15% for Clinton. Voices of moderated ones were divided almost equally between the candidates: 52% for Clinton, 41% for Trump. Analysis of the results of such a vote is very similar to the analysis of the vote according to the sexes. It also suggests that a large part of the conservative Americans are not yet ready to see a woman president.

Voting According to Religious Groups

Most of the protestants and other Christian groups voted for Trump (58% against and 45% for Clinton). With few exceptions, the picture is the same for Catholics, most of whom also supported Trump (52% against and 39% for Clinton).

Among the Jews the opposite picture is seen (71% for Clinton, while only 24% for Trump). For comparison, in 2008 (78%) and in 2012 (69%) Jews respectively voted for the Democratic candidate - Barack Obama. It is likely because of the position of both Clinton and Obama concerning Palestinian conflict.

In the case of other religious groups, Clinton is ahead of her opponent. In this group, 68% of voters support her and only 26% support Trump. In this group there are also Muslims, less than 1% of which have the right to vote in USA. Thus it was difficult for researchers to identify their vote in separate statistics.

The results of the vote of religious groups also have their explanation. Trump's whole campaign was built on contradictions between religious groups.

Summarizing, we can come to the following conclusion: Trump, throughout his campaign was able to make maximum use of the protest voters, successfully playing on the contradictions between the various segments of the population. Going against women, he directly opposed the idea of ​​having a woman president, which could not fail to impress a pretty large number of voters with conservative views. Speaking against the migrants, he lured to his side the part of the electorate, which for many years considered themselves affected by illegal immigration. Speaking against African-Americans, he was largely supported by white voters, who constitute the majority of the voters. The list of such contradictions, of course, can be continued...