What Structures Political Behavior? Evidence from Latino Voters, 2016–2024

What structures political behavior, and which distinctions persist across elections? This study examines what differentiates Latino voters who supported Donald Trump from those who supported other presidential candidates in 2016, 2020, and 2024. Using Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Surveys, random forests, and SHAP, it identifies which variables most clearly distinguish these voters across three nested models that progressively exclude election-proximate and direct partisan measures. Across all three elections, judgments concerning racial justice and immigration consistently emerge among the most informative distinctions. These racialized judgments appear alongside other important differences involving economic expectations, ideology, and evaluations of political events. The analysis also finds that racialized judgments extend beyond policy preferences to perceptions of political parties. Together, these findings underscore racialization as a sociopolitical process shaping political judgments across elections and political environments, including within ethnoracial groups.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2026-11-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33774/apsa-2026-0ztdp
Primary Topic
Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
preprint

What Structures Political Behavior? Evidence from Latino Voters, 2016–2024

Jessala Grijalva
Electoral Systems and Political Participation
preprint

What Structures Political Behavior? Evidence from Latino Voters, 2016–2024

Jessala Grijalva
preprint en

Abstract

What structures political behavior, and which distinctions persist across elections? This study examines what differentiates Latino voters who supported Donald Trump from those who supported other presidential candidates in 2016, 2020, and 2024. Using Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Surveys, random forests, and SHAP, it identifies which variables most clearly distinguish these voters across three nested models that progressively exclude election-proximate and direct partisan measures. Across all three elections, judgments concerning racial justice and immigration consistently emerge among the most informative distinctions. These racialized judgments appear alongside other important differences involving economic expectations, ideology, and evaluations of political events. The analysis also finds that racialized judgments extend beyond policy preferences to perceptions of political parties. Together, these findings underscore racialization as a sociopolitical process shaping political judgments across elections and political environments, including within ethnoracial groups.

Harvard University (US)
Electoral Systems and Political Participation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon