IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v101y2020i3p1115-1131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Latinos por Trump? Latinos and the 2016 Presidential Election

Author

Listed:
  • Álvaro J. Corral
  • David L. Leal

Abstract

Objective This article examines the unresolved puzzle of the Latino vote in the 2016 presidential election. The National Election Pool (NEP) estimated that Trump received 28 percent, which surprised many given Trump's rhetoric, but it was just one of several estimates (ranging from 18 to over 30 percent). Methods We analyze the 2016 and 2012 American National Election Study, Pew's 2016 and 2012 National Survey of Latinos, the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, and various media polls. Results The data indicate that (1) Trump improved on Romney among key groups of Latinos (Protestants, low income, and the third generation) but lost ground among others; (2) Clinton underperformed Obama across multiple dimensions; and (3) many Latino undecided voters and third‐party supporters broke late for Trump. Conclusion Trump did better than expected among Latinos. This highlights an increasingly diverse Latino electorate and complicates our understanding of the political implications of demographic change.

Suggested Citation

  • Álvaro J. Corral & David L. Leal, 2020. "Latinos por Trump? Latinos and the 2016 Presidential Election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(3), pages 1115-1131, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:3:p:1115-1131
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12787
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12787
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12787?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wendy K. Tam Cho & Brian J. Gaines, 2004. "The Limits of Ecological Inference: The Case of Split‐Ticket Voting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 152-171, January.
    2. Luana Russo, 2014. "Estimating floating voters: a comparison between the ecological inference and the survey methods," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 1667-1683, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kaeser, Aflatun & Tani, Massimiliano, 2023. "Do immigrants ever oppose immigration?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Jennifer Lopez & R. Michael Alvarez & Seo‐young Silvia Kim, 2022. "Latinos, group identity, and equal opportunity on the 2020 California ballot," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(7), pages 1572-1586, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antonio Forcina & Davide Pellegrino, 2019. "Estimation of voter transitions and the ecological fallacy," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1859-1874, July.
    2. Pablo Sandoval & Silvia Ojeda, 2023. "Estimation of electoral volatility parameters employing ecological inference methods," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 405-426, February.
    3. Lang, Corey & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna, 2022. "Aggregate data yield biased estimates of voter preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    4. Bernard Grofman & Matt A. Barreto, 2009. "A Reply to Zax's (2002) Critique of Grofman and Migalski (1988)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(4), pages 599-617, May.
    5. Baodong Liu, 2007. "EI Extended Model and the Fear of Ecological Fallacy," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 36(1), pages 3-25, August.
    6. Prendergast, Patrick & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna & Lang, Corey, 2019. "The individual determinants of support for open space bond referendums," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 258-268.
    7. Matt Barreto & Loren Collingwood & Sergio Garcia-Rios & Kassra AR Oskooii, 2022. "Estimating Candidate Support in Voting Rights Act Cases: Comparing Iterative EI and EI-R×C Methods," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(1), pages 271-304, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:3:p:1115-1131. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.