New research provides evidence that an endorsement from former President Donald Trump can reduce the likelihood of voters supporting a Republican candidate in a general election. Interestingly, the impact of Trump’s endorsement appears to vary significantly between parties, affecting Democrats more than Republicans. The findings have been published in PS: Political Science & Politics.
Prior studies have shown that presidential endorsements can significantly impact electoral outcomes, particularly in intraparty primary elections. However, Trump’s unique blend of celebrity and political influence suggests that his endorsements might play an especially critical role.
The new study builds on earlier research which found that Republican candidates endorsed by Trump in the 2018 midterms generally performed worse than those without his endorsement. This phenomenon has prompted further investigation into whether Trump’s endorsements help or hinder candidates in the broader context of general elections.
“We conducted this experiment right before the 2022 midterms, which many journalists and pundits were framing as an inflection point for Trump’s continued influence in the GOP. We wanted to provide experimental evidence to try and inform this debate knowing that it was likely to persist well beyond 2022,” said study author Scott Blatte, a research professional at the University of Chicago.
The researchers conducted an online experiment involving 1,346 American adults, ensuring the sample was representative across various demographics. Participants were presented with a scenario involving a hypothetical Republican candidate named Terry Mitchell, who was either endorsed by Trump, not endorsed, or received no mention of Trump at all. The scenarios also varied Mitchell’s policy positions to include both typical Republican stances (such as lowering taxes and limiting government involvement in healthcare) and those aligning more closely with Democratic policies.
The key question posed to participants was how likely they were to vote for Mitchell, with responses measured on a scale from unlikely to very likely. This setup allowed the team to isolate the effects of Trump’s endorsement from the candidate’s policy positions.
The endorsement by Trump reduced the overall support for Mitchell among the study participants. The impact was most pronounced among Democrats, who showed a significant 11-point drop in their likelihood to support Mitchell when he was endorsed by Trump. Interestingly, while Republicans showed a 5-point increase in their likelihood to vote for Mitchell following a Trump endorsement, this increase was not statistically significant, suggesting that the endorsement did not have a uniform or strong positive effect within his own party.
When examining the combined effects of Trump’s endorsement and policy alignment, the researchers found that policy stances tended to have a stronger influence on voting likelihood than Trump’s endorsement alone. This was particularly true for Republicans and Independents, who showed a preference for policy alignment over Trump’s endorsement.
For Democrats, however, there was no significant difference in their response to policy versus endorsement, indicating that their aversion to Trump might be equally strong as their opposition to Republican policies.
“The headline finding is that Trump’s endorsement suggestively reduces the likelihood to vote for the endorsed candidate,” Blatte told PsyPost. “But we also tested whether an endorsement or aligned policy stances mattered more to voters. For Republicans, we found evidence that policy matters more, but for Democrats, they are as opposed to a ‘Trump’ candidate as they are to a candidate with conventional Republican views.”
“Still, for both parties, we find evidence that policy stances do continue to matter in predicting the likelihood to vote for a candidate, even when voters seem to be influenced heavily by Trump’s opinion on that candidate.”
“We were most surprised that the parties did not have equal and opposite reactions to a Trump endorsement and policy alignment,” Blatte added. “Trump was (and is) incredibly popular among self-identified Republicans, and the perception is that where he goes, his voters follow. For that reason, it is interesting that his endorsement influences Democrats more than Republicans.
“One possible explanation is that Republican voters assume that any Republican candidate in a general election is aligned with Trump, so explicitly mentioning his endorsement only reinforces what voters already assume until proven otherwise.”
The study’s experimental procedure allowed the researchers to draw causal conclusions about the impact of a Trump endorsement. However, it also imposed limitations. The hypothetical setup might not fully capture the complexities and dynamics of actual voting behavior in real elections.
“This study centered around a hypothetical election scenario,” Blatte explained. “It is not based on real candidates, and it should not be interpreted as reflective of any single election. We intentionally did not identify or describe the opposing candidate(s) because we wanted to make identifying this effect as simple as possible.”
“Understanding what goes into the voter’s calculus continues to be of great importance,” Blatte said. “There is really strong evidence that there are fewer and fewer swing voters. Combine that with the unique cult of personality that Trump has built, and we think continuing to explore why people vote for who they do in the modern context will yield insightful findings.”
The study, “The Causal Effects of a Trump Endorsement on Voter Preferences in a General Election Scenario,” was authored by Scott Blatte, Danielle Piccoli, and Matthew Zachem.
