Dem
47
GOP
53
Time for us to (slowly) resume this series; we still have a lot to say on this subject. Many Democrats are bracing for the end of the world as we know it as Donald Trump takes office again. Some of them expect to be in the wilderness, well, forever, especially since many young Black and Latino voters voted for Trump. They were supposed to save the Democrats and didn't. A key question is: How deep is the wound, and is it fatal?
In an apocryphal tale, Eleanor Roosevelt once asked Zhou Enlai what he thought of the French Revolution. He is said to have replied: "It is too early to tell." Maybe that applies here, too. Here are the electoral vote maps for 1964 (left) and 1988 (right):
In 1965, the Republicans thought the sky was falling and that was the end of them. Nevertheless, in 1968, Richard Nixon (R) was elected president. In 1989, Democrats thought the end was nigh. Nevertheless, in 1992, Bill Clinton (D) was elected president. The moral is that Mao was right: don't jump to conclusions too fast.
That said, Thomas Edsall has an interesting column about how deep the wound is. It is largely based on a poll from a centrist Democratic think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute. They polled 5,098 working-class (i.e., noncollege) voters in the swing states and another 881 in other states to get a feel of what they are thinking.
On the economy, immigration, and crime, the respondents think the Republicans will do a better job. This is not so unusual. Republicans generally do better on immigration because they want to stop it and on crime because they want to unleash the police and give felons harsh sentences. On the economy, many working-class voters want more economic growth and don't care what the environmental costs are, and that puts them at odds with the Democrats.
Two key questions were whether the parties were in touch with them and whether they were strong or weak. A large majority (53-34) said the Democrats were out of touch and weak (50-32). Also, on the question of whether the party would "fight for people like me," the Republicans won 50-36. Historically, Democrats won on this question.
The $64,000 question: Is the takeover of the Democratic Party by affluent college-educated types fatal? Certainly, Franklin Delano Roosevelt would never recognize the modern Democratic Party. But does it have any chance of regaining a majority of working-class voters?
The problem isn't economic policy. Joe Biden created more manufacturing and construction jobs than any president since Lyndon Johnson, and many of the jobs were in red states. Thanks to government subsidies, Intel is building a $100 billion semiconductor fab in Ohio—yet Harris lost Ohio and so did Sherrod Brown. TSMC is building a $40 billion plant in Arizona—yet Harris lost Arizona, although Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) did win (albeit against a deeply flawed opponent). Biden's economic plan is working. In 2020, the 2,548 counties that voted for Trump accounted for 29% of national GDP. In 2024, the 2,553 counties that voted for Trump accounted for 38% of national GDP. Biden's administration improved the economy of Trumpland by 30%. Economic output there went up by $3.7 trillion. That is a huge increase. Yet Trump did better this time than in 2020. Didn't the Trumpers realize that Biden was a godsend for them? Was it poor messaging on Harris' part?
Various political scientists say that economics is not the real problem. Trump voters are very upset by demographic changes and new gender norms and they see their way of life under assault—led by the Democrats. The most effective ad Trump ran was about the two federal prisoners who got taxpayer-financed gender-changing surgery. The tag line of the ad was: "Kamala is for them/they; President Trump is for you." The ad was devastating. Were Harris' positions morally correct? We are not taking a stand here, but the voters were clearly saying: I do not want them, Sam I am.
The Democrats' perceived elitism isn't just about education, but also about lifestyle and values. Democrats generally oppose a public role of religion, oppose gun rights, accept gay people as equals, and believe trans girls should be allowed to play on girls' sports teams. They also value the environment over jobs. Many working-class voters strongly oppose all of these views. For them, these factors are more important than the Biden economy, which created jobs and beat down inflation.
In Europe, the same scenario is playing out. Few of the E.U. countries have a left-leaning government and the left-of-center E.U. bloc has only 136 of the 720 seats in the European Parliament. How come? One theory relates to Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, first described in 1943, as follows.
In places like Sudan and Yemen, where getting enough food to make it to tomorrow is a real struggle, who uses which bathroom is not on the agenda at all. Where there is enough food but there is chaos everywhere—say, Haiti—people worry about personal safety and order. Once order has been attained—say, in poorer areas of the U.S.—people think about (the lack of) community and related matters. After that is achieved, more or less, people have the luxury of worrying about cultural issues, like who uses which bathroom. In many Western countries, the bottom three levels are now taken as a basic right, something that wasn't true at all 100 years ago. Consequently, in almost every sufficiently wealthy country, the cultural issues are becoming the main political battleground. Liberalism planted the seeds of its own destruction by making the people well fed enough that they can be concerned with cultural issues.
In addition to all this, Donald Trump's victory was helped by his having an "enemy," namely the "woke elites." The Democrats didn't really have a boogeyman, other than Trump himself, but every party generally demonizes the other party. The unanswered question here: Is there any way out for the Democrats or are they doomed to be a minority forever? But before answering, study the two maps above and the election results 4 years later.
If the Democrats can find the right candidate and/or the right issue, they are not necessarily toast in 2028, but they have to watch out for election chicanery. Maybe a folksy Southern governor (a modern-day Bill Clinton) could do the trick. They even have a couple of them available and interested: Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) and former governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina. Maybe the Democrats could run some other candidate but make the whole campaign about "the billionaires vs. the people," with Elon Musk playing the starring role of Darth Vader here. Four years is a long time. (V)