When facts violate headlines

I am somewhat leery of citing political science abstracts as I am not as versed with the players in the field and therefore less sensitive to nuance. However, I have been following Kevin Lewis who appears to be a pretty good screen, sorting the wheat from the chaff. From his site I find Who Put Trump in the White House? Explaining the Contribution of Voting Blocs to Trump’s Victory by Justin Grimmer and William Marble. From the Abstract:

A surprising fact about the 2016 election is that Trump received fewer votes from whites with the highest levels of racial resentment than Romney did in 2012. This fact is surprising given studies that emphasize “activation” of racial conservatism in 2016 — the increased relationship between vote choice and racial attitudes among voters. But this relationship provides almost no information about how many votes candidates receive from individuals with particular attitudes. To understand how many votes a voting bloc contributes to a candidate’s total, we must also consider a bloc’s size and its turnout rate. Taking these into account, we find that Trump’s most significant gains came from whites with moderate attitudes about race and immigration. Trump’s vote totals improved the most among swing voters: low-socioeconomic status whites who are political moderates. Our analysis demonstrates that focusing only on vote choice is insufficient to explain sources of candidate support in the electorate.

This a little circumlocutious. Despite the claims of racial dog-whistles and accusations of personal racism, it appears that the finding is that

Compared to past Republican presidential candidates, Trump attracted fewer votes from those with the highest levels of racial resentment

Alternatively

Trump generates high level of support from those with moderate attitudes about race and immigration.

Worst racist candidate ever.