Mutz's research indicates that the "left behind" thesis inadequately explains Trump's 2016 victory; instead, status threat, particularly related to changing demographics, played a more pivotal role in shaping voter preferences.
According to Diana C. Mutz's study titled "Status Threat, Not Economic Hardship, Explains the 2016 Presidential Vote," the "left behind" thesis, which posits that economic hardship drove support for Donald Trump, is insufficient to explain his electoral victory in 2016. Mutz argues that status threat, particularly perceived threats to the social status and dominance of white Americans, played a more significant role.
Mutz's research suggests that individuals who felt their social status was under threat were more likely to support Trump. This threat perception was linked to concerns about the changing racial and ethnic demographics in the United States, which some voters viewed as a challenge to their traditional status. Economic factors, such as personal financial hardship or economic inequality, did not emerge as significant predictors of Trump support.
The study emphasizes the role of cultural and identity-based factors in shaping political preferences, highlighting the importance of understanding the dynamics of status threat in explaining Trump's appeal. Mutz's findings challenge the conventional wisdom that economic grievances were the primary driver of Trump's electoral success, emphasizing the significance of social and cultural anxieties.