It was very easy to see that Florida was gonna be a dumpster fire based on early vote numbers and one really had to twist themselves into a pretzel to shrug off the Nevada early vote data as well. The fact that the early vote in so many Republican counties outperformed the total number of votes cast in 2020 was also a warning sign that o…
It was very easy to see that Florida was gonna be a dumpster fire based on early vote numbers and one really had to twist themselves into a pretzel to shrug off the Nevada early vote data as well. The fact that the early vote in so many Republican counties outperformed the total number of votes cast in 2020 was also a warning sign that once again Trump would outperform expectations. I think the biggest factor this cycle in why Trump's vote was underestimated was the swing in the nonwhite vote wasn't sufficiently factored into the polling models. It was no coincidence that the most heavily Hispanic states were the ones where the polls were the furthest off (Texas, Florida, Arizona).
If the Democrats continue to run campaigns where the managerial class is the target audience, then you can definitely put more states on the board for the 2028 battleground. The problem is that they now depend on the managerial class votes to even get their 226 electoral vote baseline. Minnesota would be as red as Iowa right now if they hadn't co-opted 3M and Best Buy executives from upscale suburbs into their coalition. And it's gonna be incredibly hard to wrestle back the industrial towns even if Trumpism 2.0 is an abysmal failure as, in just three Presidential cycles, the Democratic Party isn't even a consideration for millions of two-time Obama voters.
It was clear to me in 2016 that trading coalitions was gonna be an electoral loser, and it's only gotten worse since then given that diploma divide has crossed racial and ethnic lines....and as college enrollment overall plummets. There were only so many votes to be found by repeatedly doubling down on the managerial class, and Democrats found pretty much all of them they were gonna get in 2020. Governing always cleaves majority coalitions so there will be vulnerabilities in Trump's 2024 coalition, but right now it's very difficult to see how Democrats find their way back until a uniquely charismatic figure fosters the next generational realignment.
Yes although I think it would be beneficial that as Trump is being Trump, running against Trump shouldn't be the sole thing Democrats should think about heading to the 2026 midterms.
I think you should always offer a positive message but the reality is that turning the national campaign into a Trump referendum is the best strategy in my view
Agreed. I think though that at some point after Trump leaves office Democrats are going to have to realize that they can no longer run against Trump or Trumpism anymore if they want to ensure their viability towards voters.
But yes, there is going to be plenty of ammunition Democrats have with the 2026 midterms a bit over two years away.
We'll probably get a lot of ammunition for 2026 and 2028. But while we might win a lot of voters back as a result ,they'll be essentially "on loan".
To really assemble a majority, or at least winning, coalition that we can depend on we'll need more than Republican blunders, or issues related to personality or candidate quality. Such circumstances may produce temporary wins but inevitably a lot of the coalition drifts away over two or four years.
Valid points you're making. This particularly applies to the Hispanic voters, plenty of whom are not sold on the anti-Trump agenda as it hasn't specifically targeted the bread and butter issues that are near and dear to them.
The politics of health care is dicey but with costs continuing to spiral out of control and hospitals closing in smaller communities throughout the country, I think the issue gives Democrats an opening to be heard again by voters who have tuned them out completely, especially if Trump repeals any part of Obamacare.
Beyond that, Democrats are gonna have to accept that voters aren't gonna tolerate illegal immigration, so the yearslong effort to blur the lines by whatever means necessary have fallen flat and will continue to if they haven't learned their lesson.
Voters recoiling at overreach in one direction doesn't meant that they want an ideological activist agenda the other way. They were appalled at children being separated and put into cages, but that doesn't mean they want all border crossing decriminalized or that making that part of the Dem platform is a good idea. And I say that as someone who wants more (legal) immigration.
As for health care, that is not and is unlikely to be a GOP strength. They don't have to go for full Obamacare repeal to take the brunt of voter anger over higher costs and/or lesser service, given their previous record and that they won't be able to blame it on a Dem WH or either house of Congress.
Mark, you know I have great respect for your ability to predict elections.
However, I really wish you wouldn't call college-educated voters the "managerial class". Most of them are not managers (and there are plenty of managers who don't have a college degree). These people are doctors/nurses, lawyers, teachers/professors, accountants, scientists, engineers, tech workers, even finance people. I know plenty of these people, and many of them actively dislike the person whose job it is to manage them.
That being said, I agree that the trading of coalitions hasn't been great for us. If the trade was just college-educated voters for the WWC, that would've been fine, but when the Hispanic and Asian working class moves to right as well, that's a big problem for us.
The issue is - Democrats had little choice but to trade coalitions. The GOP has increasingly become the party of cultural conservatism and anti-immigrant nationalism.
Its why Trump could so easily cast off free trade as a defining GOP feature, or Josh Hawley, in bright red Missouri can run on antitrust issues. Because ultimately their voters really want to keep the current cultural tide at bay, limit immigration, and ban abortion.
But Democrats - the party where most cultural liberals reside and that was the favorite of non-whites (at least broadly) couldnt really turn its back on those cultural issues.
I would also note - this is the first time since 1980 that Democrats have had to run with an unpopular incumbent. Just like 2008 wasnt indicative of how elections going forward would go, neither was 2024.
The idea that we cant get back 2% of the vote in PA, and 1% in MI and WI seems a little overwrought.
One interesting thing is that young people are moving towards the GOP. It makes sense. For all of liberals concerns about Trump, ultimately his term was good for most people economically (peace and prosperity) and if you are young COVID likely meant you skipped school for a year too. Then they reached adulthood during Biden's term and wow, they cant afford rent or food. Bummer.
Plus liberals are now the fogey establishment (one reason we absolutely need to ditch all of these oldsters - get anyone over 60 out of leadership).
But this actually might make things a little easier for Dems to transition towards a more culturally populist message. So much of the drive for change that I mentioned above comes from young people - we needed to do student loan foregiveness, and maximal immigration policy, and focus on climate change to appease young college grads.
If they are already less liberal, then we can ignore them a little more in favor of doing things that are broadly more popular, but less popular with young college students.
Of course the problem doesnt entirely go away - young college students are still a big part of the coalition (as we are seeing with I/P) but it might help.
I get what you're saying but the danger comes with the multiplier effect. The more that upscale suburbanites define the Democratic base, the more we tend to speak to them exclusively. This is why Harris's closing message was limited to reproductive rights, preserving democracy, and fascism. They convinced themselves that the swing voter they needed to reach couldn't be reached with kitchen table issues, and that if they litigated kitchen table issues they'd risk risk losing the microscopic "Nikki Haley voter" demographic that they delusionally believed held the keys to the kingdom.
Beyond that, as Gretchen Whitmer pleaded with the Harris campaign last month to include more economic messaging in their advertising, several people here openly mused that that was a bad idea as it was too deferential to working-class whites and didn't stay on message about abortion rights.
This is the multiplier effect that compounds losses. First you lose the storyline...and then you make decisions that ensure the storyline remains lost by convincing yourselves that those you've lost are to be ignored moving forward.
And while you're technically right that bouncing back from 1-2% losses in just enough places to thread an Electoral College needle remains possible for a party whose coalition is in retreat, that strategy only works in cycles where you're unambiguously on offense. Typically, once places start trending against you, it gets harder to turn that tide once it's in motion. Until there's a complete overhaul in Democratic messaging, I don't see sustained growth in the coalition.
One thing that frustrates me about Democratic messaging is that much of the party seems unable to consistently put forth positive messages about what we stand for and have accomplished. Many of our most effective electoral arguments are about not letting Republicans get their way on issues like abortion or health care; even the ACA only really became an asset politically after Republicans nearly repealed it and we could run on "don't let them take it away".
That's especially so when we're in office and trying to defend it. We may have an easier time with messaging over the next few years as much of it will be devoted to criticising Republican policy and politicians, but while that might temporarily bring a significant number of voters back it won't make for "sustained growth". Absent a change in messaging--both in what we say and how and where we say it--at best we can get back into power only to go through the same "wash, rinse, repeat" cycle.
I mean . .I don't know about other places but Harris had tons of economic-focused ads here in Georgia (likely knowing the electorate here is more conservative on abortion). It definitely wasn't a "2014 Cory Gardner" campaign it's being made out to be.
It’s also a global phenomenon playing out in plenty of other countries, at that (Canada in particular, as the BC results show). So it’s something we need to adapt to because it’s not something we can reverse alone here.
I think this is a little too reductionist and simplified. Outside of immigration, the Biden Administration was the most WWC-friendly administration since at least LBJ, literally rejuicing entire rural and small-town areas through revitalized mnaufacturing via CHIPS and the IRA, building on the ACA and expanding health care access to the working class, and aiding unions including a billion-dollar pension bailout. Pretty progressive agenda for a coalition supposedly dominated by "Best Buy executives."
80% of the switch is due to vibes, and yes IMO Dems will need to engage in some Sista Souljah moments with the more extreme parts of their coalition on immigration, trans issues, and criminal justice, but I think that is eminently doable (already happening organically on the latter issue as Dems oust the post-Floyd LW DAs) and a lot of that will fade to the background anyway as voters again have to re-learn they actually don't like 90% of MAGA policy. Concurrently, we did much better below the POTUS line and the non-Trump elections are showing we can hold together a lot of the Obama coalition when Trump isn't on the ballot.
I don't disagree with you about the policy, but it was so poorly communicated that it was tantamount to a tree falling in the forest and nobody hearing it.
I mean, Biden & his admin were out doing ribbon cuttings, speeches etc. touting everything they were doing for the past 3 years but the media just ignored it. I'm honestly not sure what else they could've done. The press wanted Trump back so badly (and you can see it in the coverage of the Trump cabinet picks . .they fucking LOVE the "palace intrigue" of it all it's sick) & now they have their wish.
It was very easy to see that Florida was gonna be a dumpster fire based on early vote numbers and one really had to twist themselves into a pretzel to shrug off the Nevada early vote data as well. The fact that the early vote in so many Republican counties outperformed the total number of votes cast in 2020 was also a warning sign that once again Trump would outperform expectations. I think the biggest factor this cycle in why Trump's vote was underestimated was the swing in the nonwhite vote wasn't sufficiently factored into the polling models. It was no coincidence that the most heavily Hispanic states were the ones where the polls were the furthest off (Texas, Florida, Arizona).
If the Democrats continue to run campaigns where the managerial class is the target audience, then you can definitely put more states on the board for the 2028 battleground. The problem is that they now depend on the managerial class votes to even get their 226 electoral vote baseline. Minnesota would be as red as Iowa right now if they hadn't co-opted 3M and Best Buy executives from upscale suburbs into their coalition. And it's gonna be incredibly hard to wrestle back the industrial towns even if Trumpism 2.0 is an abysmal failure as, in just three Presidential cycles, the Democratic Party isn't even a consideration for millions of two-time Obama voters.
It was clear to me in 2016 that trading coalitions was gonna be an electoral loser, and it's only gotten worse since then given that diploma divide has crossed racial and ethnic lines....and as college enrollment overall plummets. There were only so many votes to be found by repeatedly doubling down on the managerial class, and Democrats found pretty much all of them they were gonna get in 2020. Governing always cleaves majority coalitions so there will be vulnerabilities in Trump's 2024 coalition, but right now it's very difficult to see how Democrats find their way back until a uniquely charismatic figure fosters the next generational realignment.
In your opinion, what would be the best way to move on from our seemingly too narrow appeal?
Only speaking for me; my strategy is simple; Let Trump Be Trump
Yes although I think it would be beneficial that as Trump is being Trump, running against Trump shouldn't be the sole thing Democrats should think about heading to the 2026 midterms.
I think you should always offer a positive message but the reality is that turning the national campaign into a Trump referendum is the best strategy in my view
Agreed. I think though that at some point after Trump leaves office Democrats are going to have to realize that they can no longer run against Trump or Trumpism anymore if they want to ensure their viability towards voters.
But yes, there is going to be plenty of ammunition Democrats have with the 2026 midterms a bit over two years away.
We'll probably get a lot of ammunition for 2026 and 2028. But while we might win a lot of voters back as a result ,they'll be essentially "on loan".
To really assemble a majority, or at least winning, coalition that we can depend on we'll need more than Republican blunders, or issues related to personality or candidate quality. Such circumstances may produce temporary wins but inevitably a lot of the coalition drifts away over two or four years.
Valid points you're making. This particularly applies to the Hispanic voters, plenty of whom are not sold on the anti-Trump agenda as it hasn't specifically targeted the bread and butter issues that are near and dear to them.
heh, fellow JVL/Bulwark reader!
The politics of health care is dicey but with costs continuing to spiral out of control and hospitals closing in smaller communities throughout the country, I think the issue gives Democrats an opening to be heard again by voters who have tuned them out completely, especially if Trump repeals any part of Obamacare.
Beyond that, Democrats are gonna have to accept that voters aren't gonna tolerate illegal immigration, so the yearslong effort to blur the lines by whatever means necessary have fallen flat and will continue to if they haven't learned their lesson.
Voters recoiling at overreach in one direction doesn't meant that they want an ideological activist agenda the other way. They were appalled at children being separated and put into cages, but that doesn't mean they want all border crossing decriminalized or that making that part of the Dem platform is a good idea. And I say that as someone who wants more (legal) immigration.
As for health care, that is not and is unlikely to be a GOP strength. They don't have to go for full Obamacare repeal to take the brunt of voter anger over higher costs and/or lesser service, given their previous record and that they won't be able to blame it on a Dem WH or either house of Congress.
Mark, you know I have great respect for your ability to predict elections.
However, I really wish you wouldn't call college-educated voters the "managerial class". Most of them are not managers (and there are plenty of managers who don't have a college degree). These people are doctors/nurses, lawyers, teachers/professors, accountants, scientists, engineers, tech workers, even finance people. I know plenty of these people, and many of them actively dislike the person whose job it is to manage them.
That being said, I agree that the trading of coalitions hasn't been great for us. If the trade was just college-educated voters for the WWC, that would've been fine, but when the Hispanic and Asian working class moves to right as well, that's a big problem for us.
What term would be better? I used to say "college boys" but I thought was more reductive and insulting.
Also our base has more college girls than college boys.
How about just "college-educated voters"? Or is that too cumbersome?
pretty simple imo
There seems to be an itch of disparagement that "college-educated voters" just won't scratch.
Is it that college folks are the "target" - or is it more "the group who is willing to listen?"
The issue is - Democrats had little choice but to trade coalitions. The GOP has increasingly become the party of cultural conservatism and anti-immigrant nationalism.
Its why Trump could so easily cast off free trade as a defining GOP feature, or Josh Hawley, in bright red Missouri can run on antitrust issues. Because ultimately their voters really want to keep the current cultural tide at bay, limit immigration, and ban abortion.
But Democrats - the party where most cultural liberals reside and that was the favorite of non-whites (at least broadly) couldnt really turn its back on those cultural issues.
I would also note - this is the first time since 1980 that Democrats have had to run with an unpopular incumbent. Just like 2008 wasnt indicative of how elections going forward would go, neither was 2024.
The idea that we cant get back 2% of the vote in PA, and 1% in MI and WI seems a little overwrought.
One interesting thing is that young people are moving towards the GOP. It makes sense. For all of liberals concerns about Trump, ultimately his term was good for most people economically (peace and prosperity) and if you are young COVID likely meant you skipped school for a year too. Then they reached adulthood during Biden's term and wow, they cant afford rent or food. Bummer.
Plus liberals are now the fogey establishment (one reason we absolutely need to ditch all of these oldsters - get anyone over 60 out of leadership).
But this actually might make things a little easier for Dems to transition towards a more culturally populist message. So much of the drive for change that I mentioned above comes from young people - we needed to do student loan foregiveness, and maximal immigration policy, and focus on climate change to appease young college grads.
If they are already less liberal, then we can ignore them a little more in favor of doing things that are broadly more popular, but less popular with young college students.
Of course the problem doesnt entirely go away - young college students are still a big part of the coalition (as we are seeing with I/P) but it might help.
imo your 60 number is ridiculous (getting where you are coming from but 60???)
I get what you're saying but the danger comes with the multiplier effect. The more that upscale suburbanites define the Democratic base, the more we tend to speak to them exclusively. This is why Harris's closing message was limited to reproductive rights, preserving democracy, and fascism. They convinced themselves that the swing voter they needed to reach couldn't be reached with kitchen table issues, and that if they litigated kitchen table issues they'd risk risk losing the microscopic "Nikki Haley voter" demographic that they delusionally believed held the keys to the kingdom.
Beyond that, as Gretchen Whitmer pleaded with the Harris campaign last month to include more economic messaging in their advertising, several people here openly mused that that was a bad idea as it was too deferential to working-class whites and didn't stay on message about abortion rights.
This is the multiplier effect that compounds losses. First you lose the storyline...and then you make decisions that ensure the storyline remains lost by convincing yourselves that those you've lost are to be ignored moving forward.
And while you're technically right that bouncing back from 1-2% losses in just enough places to thread an Electoral College needle remains possible for a party whose coalition is in retreat, that strategy only works in cycles where you're unambiguously on offense. Typically, once places start trending against you, it gets harder to turn that tide once it's in motion. Until there's a complete overhaul in Democratic messaging, I don't see sustained growth in the coalition.
One thing that frustrates me about Democratic messaging is that much of the party seems unable to consistently put forth positive messages about what we stand for and have accomplished. Many of our most effective electoral arguments are about not letting Republicans get their way on issues like abortion or health care; even the ACA only really became an asset politically after Republicans nearly repealed it and we could run on "don't let them take it away".
That's especially so when we're in office and trying to defend it. We may have an easier time with messaging over the next few years as much of it will be devoted to criticising Republican policy and politicians, but while that might temporarily bring a significant number of voters back it won't make for "sustained growth". Absent a change in messaging--both in what we say and how and where we say it--at best we can get back into power only to go through the same "wash, rinse, repeat" cycle.
I mean . .I don't know about other places but Harris had tons of economic-focused ads here in Georgia (likely knowing the electorate here is more conservative on abortion). It definitely wasn't a "2014 Cory Gardner" campaign it's being made out to be.
It’s also a global phenomenon playing out in plenty of other countries, at that (Canada in particular, as the BC results show). So it’s something we need to adapt to because it’s not something we can reverse alone here.
I think this is a little too reductionist and simplified. Outside of immigration, the Biden Administration was the most WWC-friendly administration since at least LBJ, literally rejuicing entire rural and small-town areas through revitalized mnaufacturing via CHIPS and the IRA, building on the ACA and expanding health care access to the working class, and aiding unions including a billion-dollar pension bailout. Pretty progressive agenda for a coalition supposedly dominated by "Best Buy executives."
80% of the switch is due to vibes, and yes IMO Dems will need to engage in some Sista Souljah moments with the more extreme parts of their coalition on immigration, trans issues, and criminal justice, but I think that is eminently doable (already happening organically on the latter issue as Dems oust the post-Floyd LW DAs) and a lot of that will fade to the background anyway as voters again have to re-learn they actually don't like 90% of MAGA policy. Concurrently, we did much better below the POTUS line and the non-Trump elections are showing we can hold together a lot of the Obama coalition when Trump isn't on the ballot.
I don't disagree with you about the policy, but it was so poorly communicated that it was tantamount to a tree falling in the forest and nobody hearing it.
I mean, Biden & his admin were out doing ribbon cuttings, speeches etc. touting everything they were doing for the past 3 years but the media just ignored it. I'm honestly not sure what else they could've done. The press wanted Trump back so badly (and you can see it in the coverage of the Trump cabinet picks . .they fucking LOVE the "palace intrigue" of it all it's sick) & now they have their wish.
I don’t like this comment but I think we need to listen to it.