Editor’s note: This article is a companion piece to Zerek Laghari’s analysis of the Democratic Party’s loss in the 2024 Presidential Election.
After Donald Trump’s 2024 win over Democrat Kamala Harris in last year’s presidential election, pundits and political analysts across the political spectrum have been theorizing and making explanations for how Trump pulled off his second term victory, and Harris’ overall loss in both the popular vote and Electoral College vote.
However, unlike Trump’s upset victory in 2016, the results this time felt much more predictable and in line with several trends that have been going on over time, and not like a completely random surprise.
In order to understand the success of Trump in 2024, we must understand why Trump was successful in 2016. The 2016 election is definitely one of the strangest, most unique, and perhaps most impactful elections within the last 30 years. Two immensely unpopular candidates resulted in big shifts in voter patterns and have changed the way we understand both parties and their demographics, even to this day. The nomination of Trump as the Republican nominee in retrospect was a breath of fresh air compared to typical, moderate Republicans that the GOP was betting hard on at the time in the early 2010s (those like Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and lesser-known names like Rick Santorum come to mind). However, at the time, Trump was deeply unpopular not only among the general public but also was divisive within the Republican Party, such as with Ted Cruz (the runner up in the 2016 Republican primary) famously not endorsing him at the Republican National Convention and telling the audience to “make up their minds”. Trump pushed forward despite the opposition and was deemed an eccentric populist who gained a cult-like fan base over time. We know that in the end, Trump was ultimately able to win despite the odds due to his pivotal surprise victories in the Rust Belt states that typically were always considered “likely” for Democrats to win. This marked a shift in the Rust Belt, a heavily pro-union and blue-collar region, famous for its reputation for featuring swing states like Ohio and Iowa, along with solidly Democratic states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. The Trump victory in these regions proved his popularity among a demographic that formerly were supporters of Democrats or were capable of swinging towards them. This could be attributed to the unpopularity of Hillary Clinton; however, in 2016, she still won the popular vote by around 2 points. What this proved to analysts was that Trump had a certain gravity that appealed to voters in this specific region that Democrats typically attracted.
In contrast, Democrats were perhaps more disorganized than even the Republicans were. A contested Democratic Convention saw the nomination of Hillary Clinton, who previously ran for the Democratic nomination in 2008 against Barack Obama. This was controversial at the time due to the popularity and cult-like fanbase of Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont, who was the runner-up in the primaries against Clinton. To many, Clinton was seen as largely out-of-touch and a “member of the establishment” rather than a potential agent of change like Sanders. Sanders famously branded himself as a populist and a “democratic socialist,” which gained support among young, progressive, and also some rural and working-class voters. Sanders supporters refused to support or vote for Clinton in the general election, and famously, some voted for Trump, which that phenomenon in and of itself, has become a popular topic of study for those interested in the 2016 election. We know that in retrospect, the division on the Democratic side ultimately was part of the reason for their loss 8 years ago. However, there were still bright spots for Dems as they did gain support from Georgia, Texas, and Arizona, three formerly strong Republican-voting states, which indicated they could eventually win them one day. Today, we know that Georgia and Arizona are both swing states at a federal level, with both states each having two Democratic senators and both states voting for Biden in 2020. Texas, meanwhile, is part of a different story here.
We’ve established what went wrong for Democrats and what went right for Republicans in 2016, but how does this relate to 2024? Well, the 2024 results seem to mirror the trends we saw in 2016, but they accelerated the trends favorable to Republicans and reversed trends favorable to Democrats. This might suggest a party switch, or when the demographics of who votes for certain parties change over time.
As mentioned previously, Democrats had previously attracted blue-collar voters, usually in the Upper Midwest. However, this seems to have flipped with 2024, where Rust Belt areas like Ohio and Iowa (which were formerly competitive for Democrats) voted in wide margins for Trump in line with their support of Trump in the past. This time, there were new gains in deep blue states like New York and Illinois, which are part of the Rust Belt. Trump made gains of around 6 points compared to 2020. Strangely, in previous bright spots like Arizona and Texas, there were big reversals back to the Republican column, where Arizona was won by Trump by over 5 points, even larger than his 2016 performance in the state, and Texas was won over by 14 points, an 8-point improvement from 2020. This can be allotted to Trump’s success with minority voters, especially Latinos in particular, a voting bloc that Democrats took for granted as solid supporters of their party. This Latino shift to the right can be chalked up to initial opposition to Trump in 2016 from Latinos worried about his immigration policies, which shifted to become more favorable to Trump with Democrats failing to earn their support in the following years.
However, the most important shift was with college-educated voters, who historically have tended to be more Republican, and have recently shifted in large numbers to support Democrats. Meanwhile, non-college-educated voters, who have been reliably Democratic, have shifted to become part of the Republican base. The second most important shift was that young voters, especially younger portions of Gen Z, who are much more friendly towards Trump than previous “young” generations, and their support of past Republican candidates. However, at the same time, voters who were 65+ in age shifted slightly towards Democrats in 2024, which points to reversals in both parties’ demographics in terms of education and age.
So what caused these trends? Well, they can be described with a few characteristics. The first relates to the unpopularity of the Biden presidency and economic uncertainty regarding post-pandemic inflation and prices, which led to many flocking to Trump as an antidote to Democratic rule or for a “change”. The second relates to Republican narratives being more successful within the last four years than in previous years. An ecosystem of conservative-leaning creators, podcasters, YouTubers, and influencers online has been built up through grassroots and artificial means over the years, with Democratic attempts to counter their influence failing to be effective. This resulted in Republicans being able to control the media narrative with issues and concerns they highlighted, which echoed throughout their media ecosystem, eventually bubbling over into the mainstream. Whether it be through Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and future endorsements of Republicans and Trump, or Joe Rogan’s more conservative tendencies and him being the face of the most famous podcast in the world, this type of media was able to thrive and influence many online towards right-wing opinions, even those who wouldn’t typically engage in politics. Of course, this isn’t anything new, with previous conservative narrative makers like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh famously being the voice of the American right-wing. However, this new type of media is different due to its sheer influence, scope, and decentralization. This eventually resulted in many being favorable to Trump due to mainstream conservative narratives that originated from the online ecosystem of right-wing spaces, and it especially appealed to younger voters and those who aren’t engaged in politics.
Overall, the factors of minority voters being more favorable to Republicans, an uncertain economic situation from an unpopular sitting president, and an acceleration of trends from previous elections, which were favorable to Trump, helped to make him get a second term.
However, politics changes quickly, and Trump’s popularity isn’t a guarantee. His approval rating is slowly dropping off and is at the lowest of any recent President within their first 100 days in office, which could be credited mainly to the unpopularity of his signature tariff policy and due to Democratic opposition to his administration’s plans to severely cut government spending and agencies. Ironically enough, we are in a situation of economic uncertainty right now, with some economists theorizing the chances of recession in the near future, the same situation we found ourselves in during the 2024 election, and the situation that got Trump in office. The main question now is whether or not Trump turns this around or if Democrats can successfully mount a comeback based on this environment.
Democratic leaders have suggested a return to the old perception of the Democratic Party as a populist party of the working class and have seemingly studied their failures in 2024, such as vice presidential candidate Tim Walz criticizing the Harris campaign and hoping to reflect on its loss for the future. Whether or not they can actually pull this off and find effective leadership is to be seen. Until then, we will continue to feel the impacts of why Trump won in the first place.
