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.
