Everyone has bad days, but after the 2016 presidential election, many people living in Democratic states had more of them than usual.

That’s according to a new study by researchers at UCSF and Duke University, who found that residents in states that supported Hillary Clinton experienced, on average, an additional half a day of poor mental health in the month following the election (December) — a collective uptick of 54.6 million more days — compared to the month preceding it (October).[aside postID="arts_13881725,news_11808968,news_11841065" label="Mental Health Resources"]

Researchers also found that depression rates among residents in blue states rose in January 2017, when Trump was inaugurated. Residents 65 and older, women and white people were the groups most impacted overall, the study found.

The research team combed through reams of data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, an annual national mental health phone survey of nearly 500,000 participants, to identify the number of poor mental health days people reported experiencing before and after the 2016 election.

The study’s findings could help guide mental health providers in the wake of another divisive, emotionally fraught election, its authors say.

“I think what’s important about this study is we don’t traditionally think of elections themselves being a public health issue, but our study finds evidence that at least the 2016 election likely worsened mental health in a clinically significant way for voters of the candidate that lost,” said study lead author Brandon Yan, a UCSF researcher.

Meanwhile, adults in states that voted for Trump reported no statistically significant change in their mental health — not even an improvement.

[ad fullwidth]“My hypothesis for why we don’t see an improvement in mental health in states that voted for Trump is that in general we know from behavioral economics that losses are felt much more heavily than victories,” Yan said. “Especially when you think about the 2016 election, the outcome was rather unexpected.”

As has been widely reported, 2020 has already brought about a national mental health crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased social isolation, while reducing the number of physician visits. And that means fewer opportunities for health care providers to help patients facing psychological distress, Yan said.

Yan hopes his study will help clinicians take a proactive approach in caring for a population that is already struggling.

“The implication, at least from a health care perspective, is that patients could potentially benefit from clinicians and mental health providers screening for election-related stress and offering interventions when appropriate,” he said.

Elections 2026

The Bay

Emma’s Must-Sees

Videos from KQED Live

Donor-Advised Funds

Cori Brosnahan

KQED Contributor

Mental Health Suffered in Blue States After Trump's 2016 Win, New Study Finds