The Trump Realignment
Not a Red Wave but a Red Shift?
While I’m skeptical of the utility of exit polls in an era when a huge chunk of the electorate votes before Election Day, they’re all we have. And, after three straight presidential elections featuring Donald J. Trump as the Republican nominee, it seems safe to say that our two major parties have both shifted rather considerably since the 2012 election.
That was, not coincidentally, the last one in which I voted for the Republican nominee. And, frankly, while I thought Mitt Romney a decent enough fellow, I had already become increasingly disenchanted from my longtime party. Indeed, in my election postmortem, I noted, “I voted for Romney reluctantly and mostly because of a complex web of personal loyalties that are unlikely to exist in 2016.” I further elaborated on that in a follow-up post.
Still, especially with Hillary Clinton as the nominee, I’d have likely voted for any of the plausible non-Trump nominees in 2016. While there were clearly antecedents to Trump in the Tea Party movement and, to a lesser extent, Newt Gingrich, Trump was in so many ways—both stylistically and policywise—a radical break from the party’s presidential nominees.
While I’ve been voting Democrat ever since, I’ve largely understood the die-hard Republicans who’ve stuck with the party under Trump. Since the fall of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago, there was no unifying foreign policy message. And, while I’m relatively socially conservative, I’ve never been a religious conservative or overly motivated by the abortion issue.
But it’s increasingly clear, too, that it’s relatively easy for folks like me (or David Frum, Tom Nichols, and other conservative intellectuals) to make that switch because, over time, the Democratic Party policy agenda has been crafted by and targeted to people like us.
If the exit polls are to be believed, 59% of us with an advanced degree voted for Harris, as did 53% of those with even a bachelor’s degree. Conversely, Trump won 56% of those with only an associate’s degree and a whopping 63% of those who never attended college.
Historically, Republicans were the party of the managerial and entrepreneurial classes and Democrats were the party of the blue-collar class and of racial minorities. Yet 51% of those in households making $100,000 or more voted for Harris, compared to 47% ($100,000-199,999) and 45% ($200,000 or more) for Trump. Conversely, 53% of households earning $30,000-$49,999 voted for Trump, compared to 45% for Harris. Relatedly, a whopping 65% of those who had personally served in the U.S. military voted for Trump, compared to only 34% for Harris.
Harris still dominated among Black women, earning 91% of their vote. And, while there has been a steady migration of Black men into Trump’s camp, 77% still voted for Harris compared to only 21% for him. But Trump won a majority of Latino men (55% to 43%.)
Clinton’s chief rival for the Democratic nomination in 2016, Bernie Sanders, takes to the platform formerly known as Twitter to express his frustration:
It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well.”
Of course, he and Trump have wildly different agendas for dealing with these problems. Indeed, it’s quite likely that Trump’s policy proposals, including tariffs, will actually hurt the working class. But Trump is speaking to them in language that resonates with them, even as it repulses so many conservative-leaning intellectuals.
Regardless, the Trump coalition is simply considerably different demographically than the one that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1988 or even George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. There’s considerable overlap, to be sure. The New York Times has taken to labeling it a “Red Shift,” which seems right to me.
As their polling had identified a few weeks out, Trump has significantly increased his showing even in traditionally Blue states and metro areas. The vote was closer in New Jersey than in Arizona. And, while I was baffled by his late-cycle rally in Madison Square Garden even aside from the racist nonsense being spewed from the speakers, he radically improved his showing in New York City.
I’m not by any means suggesting that this ushers in some permanent new MAGA majority. But I am suggesting that the two parties have at least temporarily settled on new coalitions.
Fun to see the military vote for Trump.. watch him decrease their active-duty pay, cut the VA so they’ll be disabled the rest of their lives, and retreat from all the wars because those wars are fighting the authoritarian strongmen Trump wants to suck up to. One of my best friends in the world is on the list to soon be promoted to full-bird-colonel and just lost 2 good people because the Army wouldn’t fund GS10 spots for them.
It’s fine to want “a revolution” .. but they picked the wrong solution.
It’d be nice if “good policy” wins — Biden did more populist policies than any Democrat in the last 30 years — but it’s obviously not just about policy. In the couple of blind policy polls that happened, Kamala polled over 80% favorable.. and she lost.
Yes, Democrats need a better and simpler policy vision — Example: Universal basic healthcare and UBI — but Democrats also need a bold, controversial, charismatic leader who communicates clearly and unapologetically.
Jon Stewart for President?
I’ve always contended that the Republican Party is turning into the George Wallace party. There are a lot of similarities: states rights, blatant racism, blue collar attraction, isolationist foreign policy. The ultimate culmination of the Southern Strategy.
George Wallace 1968 presidential campaign
One of the greatest challenges for both parties is our continued attempt to treat an ethnic group “Latinos/Hispanics/Etc” as a racial category (see also “Asians”). In part, that’s a result of Americans seeing all “races” through the lens of Black chattel slavery and then the Black civil rights movement.
I wish I could say I knew the answer for this (other than a generational shift and steps like changing the way we collect demographic information).
Beyond all of that, I agree, in general, with the idea that shifts are occurring, though not necessarily at the scale people historically predicted. That said, when you are talking about groups at the margins, small changes can have being impacts.
I also think local context needs to be taken into account as I’m seeing some early reports of different voting shifts depending on state and location.
Again, this is one where I’m waiting for more data to come out before adding my lukewarm takes.
Historically, Republicans were the party of the managerial and entrepreneurial classes and Democrats were the party of the blue-collar class and of racial minorities. Yet 51% of those in households making $100,000 or more voted for Harris, compared to 47% ($100,000-199,999) and 45% ($200,000 or more) for Trump. Conversely, 53% of households earning $30,000-$49,999 voted for Trump, compared to 45% for Harris. Relatedly, a whopping 65% of those who had personally served in the U.S. military voted for Trump, compared to only 34% for Harris.
Kinda refutes the idea that there’s a cultural bubble in America regarding Trump and class. 53-45 is not a drastic number meriting endless rhetoric about what the elite are missing about Real Americans.
I’m not surprised that Trump won, or that he won a majority. And I’m not surprised about Jersey or Trump voters in NYC. But I’m not surprised because I pay attention to things. When a member of the Trumpy law-and-order Common Sense Caucus in New York bit a cop at a rally, I wasn’t surprised at how Trumpy and law-and-order they are. That’s just the coalition coming out of this ‘red shift’.
Side note:
Over the past few days I’ve been thinking a lot about the concept of “coalition” in the US context and I’m just not sure it works. Or rather, at least for me, it implies things that I am not sure accurately capture the voters who increasingly seem to push one candidate or the other over the top in an every four-year election cycle–by that, I mean the Obama to Trump to Biden to Trump voters.
Again, this is a thought that needs more baking, but I increasingly think, because of our system, these are the people who ultimately decide elections.
@Scott: There is a Wallace faction of the overall GOP coalition. It never went away and now it is dominant, or at least part of the Trump coalition that controls the party.
And the populist appeal to the working class is helping fuel it.
@Matt Bernius: It is a shift of relatively small numbers.
I also wonder how much is specific turnout patterns in given elections (i.e., what does the electorate look like from election to election, because it shifts).
@Steven L. Taylor: As James noted the Democratic party was traditionally blue collar and the Republican Party traditionally that of big business. The problem for the Republicans was that there are a lot more wage workers than plutocrats. Sometime in the last fifty years, certainly by the time Reagan ran for president, the Republicans recognized that there were groups of one issue voters who would ignore anything else to the contrary and vote the Republican ticket if the party would support that issue. That’s why the Republican party successfully went after and captured those one issue voters, the gun nuts, the right to life, prayer in school and most importantly the bigots and racists. The biggest shift in party allegiance came when the Lyndon Johnson Democrats with a little help from progressive Republicans were able to enact the civil rights and voting rights acts. In one fell swoop the solid Democratic South switched allegiance to the Republicans. It was not mere chance that Reagan opened his campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi, the site of the then most recent lynching.
I think I’ll just be ill. I have to say though it looks like Biden going for a 2nd term was a mistake. I wonder who might have emerged as the candidate. Maybe Harris? But who else might have won and been a better choice?
Symbolic capitalist vs the “normies”. Article was written last December, but we see the observations were accurate after Tuesday
The problem Democrats have is some of the symbolic capitalists are starting to stop and think as well. Many of them voted for Trump
In looking at the data, Harris lost PA, MICH and WI by a very roughly 1%. Also, 10% or Dems voters did not vote in this election as compared to 2020. I’m guessing a good number stayed home because of their disgust with what’s happening in Gaza, so yes, one could say Bibi affected the outcome of the US election. The sooner Dems realize how toxic Israel can be to US politics, the better.
Sure he didn’t serve; sure he repeatedly denigrates those who served; sure he mocked those who were captured and tortured; sure he hates the generals who lead our armed forces ….
… but we love him.
What a country.
Bernie’s xeet is so irritating, because it just feeds the false narrative that the Democrats have abandoned working class people. The Democrats have done so much for them from a policy perspective, especially compared to Republicans.
Let me offer a few points of view:
James Madison feared unscrupulous elites stirring up “the democracy”, to seize power.
Peter Turchin sees a recurring pattern in history. A prosperous, stable, society develops what he calls a “money pump” moving wealth upward, popular immiseration provides a pool of malcontents, overproduction of elite individuals (as a position in society, not ability), leading to fierce competition for the relatively stable number of elite slots, leading to rivalries, cheating, and perhaps violence. Ultimately some sort of chaos occurs. Some societies reorganize with relatively little damage, some collapse.
Jane Mayer says that in 1980 the Koch Brothers realized that the glibertarianism they were selling would never convince an electoral majority, so they set out to buy minority rule, figuring out how to exploit our anti-majoritarian Constitution. The key purchase was SCOTUS. Along the way we’ve produced a whole lot more billionaires.
I say that in 1964 Goldwater’s businessman backers decided they could use the same mass marketing techniques they used to sell soap and cars to sell their candidate. They failed, but they didn’t give up. In 1996 Rupert Murdoch started FOX News with the goal of making a lot of money by telling conservatives what they want to hear. If you’re a party with nothing positive to offer and no ethics, faux populism and blood and soil nationalism are the easiest thing to sell.
Note I’ve said nothing about Harris, Trump, or issues. Just structure. Yes, I fear we’re seeing a red shift. My only hope for stopping it is that Trump and his boy oligarchs screw up quickly and obviously, without doing fatal damage. ETTD.
Which answers the question, will the military follow Trump orders to shoot Americans?
@reid:
Yup. No president in my memory has been as pro-labout as Biden. And their policies are almost entirely middle and lower class based.