We cover an analysis of the 2024 election.
It remains Barack Obama’s most underrated political skill: his appeal to working-class voters, including those who are white.
Obama won most voters without a four-year college degree in his two presidential campaigns. Those majorities helped him win Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in both campaigns. He even won Indiana and North Carolina once.
He did so by both speaking to the economic frustration that resulted from years of slow-growing wages and signaling that he, like most Americans, was moderate on social issues. He made clear that he understood people’s anxiety about the speed of cultural change.
He talked about “an awesome God” in the 2004 speech that made him a national figure. He rejected sweeping new policies like single-payer health care. He traveled to the University of Notre Dame as president and said he wanted to reduce the number of abortions. He supported civil unions rather than same-sex marriage when most voters felt similarly.
He went on MTV and complained about people who wore their pants too low. (“Some people might not want to see your underwear — I’m one of them,” Obama said.) He took a middle ground on immigration, criticizing both family separations and companies that undercut “American wages by hiring illegal workers.”
As time has passed, I think some people have forgotten how conservative Obama could sound. This approach sometimes angered progressives. They called him a sellout, a neoliberal and “the deporter in chief.” But Obama was genuinely moderate in some ways. He also hated treating political disagreements as existential and opponents as the enemy.
“This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically woke and all that stuff — you should get over that quickly,” Obama told young activists after leaving office. “The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws.”
Perhaps above all, Obama liked winning. He understood that a Democratic Party that treated the country’s working-class majority as backward or hateful would probably lose those voters. He recognized that sounding like an economic populist, as Obama often did, was not enough. Many people — rich, middle-class and poor — vote on social issues and values at least as much as on taxes and spending.
Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, yesterday published an analysis of how voting patterns have shifted since Obama’s 2012 re-election. And those numbers demonstrate just how badly the Democratic Party’s post-Obama strategy has fared.
What Obama and Trump share
After Obama, the party moved left on one big issue after another — Medicare, gender, border security, policing and more. It’s true that Kamala Harris tried to move back to the center this year, but her moderation never had the self-assurance that Obama’s did. It could seem tactical and reluctant. She refused to explain why she had changed her mind about fracking, border security and “Medicare for all.” When asked whether she supported any abortion restrictions, she avoided the question.
The Democrats’ post-Obama leftward turn was based on a specific theory of the electorate: that the country’s growing number of voters of color would cover the loss of working-class whites. Under this race-centric theory, Donald Trump looked like a gift to Democrats. He made racist and sexist comments. He resembled a caricature of the backward voters Democrats were happy to leave behind.
But the Democrats’ theory was wrong. As they moved away from Obama’s approach and toward the purer progressivism that’s popular among college professors, pundits and activists, the party didn’t win over more voters of color. Instead, Democrats have lost ground with every major racial group except white voters, as Nate’s analysis shows:
A key reason is that Trump’s anti-establishment populism appealed to working-class voters across racial groups. Trump also helped himself by adopting a mirror image of Obamaism and seeming to reject Republican orthodoxy on subjects like Social Security, Medicare, abortion and foreign wars.
Different though they are, both Obama and Trump approach politics as if class matters more than race. Sure enough, Trump’s biggest gains have come among the nonwhite working-class voters who were Obama’s strongest supporters:
Image
Not simple moderation
As the Democratic Party tries to figure out a way forward, it can’t merely mimic Obama. The country has changed, partly because of Trump. Nor can the party assume that the answer is simply to moderate its position on everything. The Democrats who won tough races this year were more heterodox. They sometimes sounded like Bernie Sanders when talking about foreign trade or corporate America and Joe Manchin when talking about government regulation or social issues. They also sounded authentic.
Still, Obama’s success remains relevant. It highlights the importance of treating working-class voters’ opinions respectfully rather than talking down to those voters. And it’s a reminder that no Democrat since Obama has come up with an approach that works as well as his did.
President Obama: Mandela’s most important lesson
Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was a South African anti-apartheid activist and politician who served as the first president of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. He was the country’s first black head of state and the first elected in a fully representative democratic election
One hundred years ago, Nelson Mandela was born in the South African village of Mvezo.
On Wednesday, I had the honor of celebrating his remarkable life by sharing a few lessons I’ve taken from him with the people of South Africa.
I’d like to share what I believe to be the most important of those lessons today.
I believe that the most important thing that we can take away from Madiba’s life today is that the persistent struggle for hope, for justice and equality—for the long walk to freedom—requires a belief in youth.
As strong as Madiba’s spirit may have been, he would not have sustained his hope had he been alone in his struggle. Part of what buoyed him up was that he knew that, each year, the ranks of young leaders were replenishing. He knew that young men and women—black and Indian and white, from across the countryside, across the continent, around the world—would, in those most difficult days, keep working on behalf of his vision.
Today, more than ever, I believe in Nelson Mandela’s vision: that every generation has the opportunity to remake the world.
Here, in South Africa, my Foundation convened 200 young people from across this continent who are doing the hard work of making change in their communities; men and women who reflect Madiba’s values; the youth who are poised to lead the way.
People like Abaas Mpindi, a journalist from Uganda, who founded the Media Challenge Initiative to help other young people get the training they need to tell the stories that the world needs to know.
People like Caren Wakoli, an entrepreneur from Kenya, who founded the Emerging Leaders Foundation to get young people involved in the work of fighting poverty and promoting human dignity.
People like Enock Nkulanga, who directs the African Children’s Mission, which helps children in Uganda and Kenya get the education they need.
On Thursday, I had the opportunity to join these young leaders in an act of service at the Far North Secondary School in Johannesburg to commemorate the anniversary of Mandela’s birth. Though the work we did was simple—cleaning windows, building benches, painting murals—it left me with a profound sense of hope.
By working together to build a better life for the children of the school, this new generation of leaders was honoring Mandela’s life and legacy. And they reminded me of one of my favorite quotes of his: “There can be no greater gift than that of giving one’s time and energy to helping others without expecting anything in return.”
None of us can rest on the accomplishments of the past, even those as momentous as Mandela’s. But if we live our values and empower our young people, then they can pick up the work of the last 100 years, and lead us into the future.
Thank you.
-Barack
Biggest lesson from my four decades of covering politics: Prepare to be surprised
WASHINGTON — Because they are all-or-nothing contests, American elections lend themselves to over-interpretation.
In 1988, Republican Vice President George H.W. Bush defeated Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, winning more than 400 electoral votes — a mark that seemed routine at the time, but which no presidential candidate in either party has hit since.
The election marked the third lopsided victory in a row for the Republicans. Analysts declared the GOP had a lock on the electoral college.
Bill Clinton picked the lock four years later.
In 2004, Bush’s son, President George W. Bush, won reelection. His electoral victory was much smaller than his father’s, but the coalition he put together seemed robust. His backers, and some nonpartisan analysts, claimed that the GOP had achieved a long-term, stable majority.
That putative majority barely lasted two years. Democrats recaptured the House in the 2006 midterm election, and in 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama shattered the idea of long-term Republican dominance.
With Obama’s victory, it was Democrats’ turn to declare that a long-term majority was within their grasp, courtesy of demographic trends that would make the American electorate less white, more college educated and more liberal.
The demographic trends proceeded as forecast, the political consequences, not so much.
Time to say goodbye
I’ve lived that history.
The 1988 campaign was the first of eight that I’ve covered, and I’ve spent much of the past 36 years writing about American politics as it has become more rigidly polarized, more partisan and more calcified, to borrow a term from political scientists Lynn Vavreck, John Sides and Chris Tausanovitch.
Since September 2015, I’ve written this weekly newsletter/column, aiming to understand and analyze the changing nature of politics in what turned out to be the era of Donald Trump.
This is the last one. After writing on deadline for more than four decades, it’s time to retire.
An election with consequences, but …
Ending brings me back to the beginning — the perils of over-interpretation.
This year’s election brought striking changes to the electorate:
- President-elect Trump won a notably larger share of Latino voters than the Republican norm — 43% according to the AP/NORC VoteCast survey of more than 120,000 voters, 46%, according to the exit poll conducted for major television networks.
- Trump made especially significant gains among young Latino and Black men, the surveys showed.
- The Republican won nearly half, 47%, of voters younger than 45, up from 40% four years ago, the AP survey showed.
- Trump also narrowly won among voters with family incomes of less than $50,000 a year, reversing a long-standing Democratic advantage, the network exit poll showed.
Those numbers describe a big shift toward the GOP, enough for some conservative analysts to proclaim a realignment of U.S. politics and to justify a lot of introspection (and some finger-pointing) among Democrats.
Some other facts don’t fit so neatly into the prevailing narrative:
- For the first time in more than a century, we’ve had three elections in a row in which control of the White House changed parties.
- Trump’s final margin in the nationwide popular vote will end up at around 1.6 percentage points, making this the closest election since 2000 and one of the four closest in the past 100 years.
- After hundreds of millions of dollars spent, control of the House is ending up almost exactly where it started, a 221-214 split. Republicans currently have 219 seats, and with two California districts and one in Iowa still undecided, they’re hoping for 221 again, but may have to settle for 220.
- About three in four voters said on the final NBC News preelection poll that they follow politics closely. Harris was winning those engaged voters by five points, the poll found. Trump was winning by 14 points among the one in four voters who said they mostly don’t pay much attention to politics — a group that, not coincidentally, is younger and less white than the more engaged group.
The first of those findings underscores the volatility of this political era. The next two should inspire caution about declaring a sweeping change.
The last finding highlights Trump’s ability to inspire a big turnout of people who only sometimes cast ballots. It also points out why Democrats have had an advantage in recent low-turnout special elections and may have a boost going into the 2026 midterm elections.
What we don’t know
While those shifts are clear — at least in general outline — a lot remains unknown.
The results of both the 2020 and 2024 elections suggest the country is becoming less polarized by race, for example, which is almost certainly a good thing. But they also suggest greater polarization along lines of education and religion.
How is each of those trends reshaping the U.S. electorate?
Who, exactly, shifted in 2024 and what drove them?
We know, for example, that in 2020, the Latino voters most likely to switch to Trump were politically conservative Latinos, many of whom had cast ballots for Hillary Clinton in 2016 after a Trump campaign that explicitly targeted “Mexicans,” but whose values were a difficult fit in the Democratic Party.
Trump made further gains among Latino voters in 2024. To what extent did that increase go beyond voters who were already ideologically conservative?
How much of Trump’s gains among Latino and Black voters were tied to economics and the rapid inflation of 2022 and early 2023? How much was driven by cultural or values issues, which Republicans sought to highlight by campaigning against transgender individuals?
The COVID-19 pandemic seems to have shifted American attitudes toward government, science and expert opinion, with disruptive consequences for both parties. How far have those shifts gone, and will they last?
How do voters perceive the two parties? What do they now think the Democrats and Republicans stand for?
And beyond the obvious policy preferences such as keeping inflation low, what is it that voters really want politicians to deliver?
The success scenario for Trump
A lot of voters have strong partisan or ideological commitments and will stick with their party through all sorts of ups and downs. The swing voters who decide close elections, however, have only loose partisan tethers. They reward (or punish) parties for performance.
In their eyes, President Biden delivered higher prices and chaos at the border.
As I wrote the week after the election, as best we can tell from surveys, those voters hired Trump to accomplish two things — keep inflation down and reduce the number of immigrants entering the country.
The best scenario for Trump would see steady economic growth, declining interest rates and a reduction of tensions overseas. If that happens, the gains he made in this year’s election could start to solidify, and talk of a realignment of American politics might be justified.
The failure scenario
A lot could go wrong.
Already, Trump’s nomination of former Rep. Matt Gaetz to be attorney general has blown up. The president-elect will still get some benefit from picking Gaetz — the replacement candidate, former Florida Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, will seem far more reasonable by comparison.
Nonetheless, the Gaetz nomination was an early test of strength, and Trump lost.
There’s a risk that losses compound. Gaetz’s decision to bail out early means senators will be able to reject some other nominee, perhaps former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, without risking too much wrath from Trump’s supporters.
Beyond clashes over high-level jobs, Trump faces policy risks.
The cost of housing ranks high among voter concerns — especially for younger voters who are less likely to own a home.
Trump promised in the campaign to “drive down the rates so you will be able to pay 2% again.”
Instead, rates have risen since the election and now sit just below 7% for a 30-year, fixed mortgage. No amount of yelling at Federal Reserve officials will change that. Markets have bid up rates as investors bet that Trump’s economic plans will restart inflation.
Trump’s tax plans risk greatly increasing the federal deficit — adding roughly $9 trillion in red ink over the next decade, according to an estimate by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, longtime advocates for fiscal restraint. At a time when the economy is already operating at or near capacity, that’s inflationary.
Republicans in Congress could try to reduce the deficit by slicing the cost of Medicaid, health insurance subsidies and food stamps — all programs that the GOP has gone after in the past.
In Trump’s first term, however, Republican efforts to cut those programs proved wildly unpopular.
That problem may be even worse for the GOP now.
One consequence of winning more votes among low-income Americans is that more Republican voters now benefit from federal programs. That’s especially true for Medicaid, which, among other things, now pays for more than 6 in 10 residents of nursing homes nationwide and 4 in 10 babies delivered in most states.
Those minefields for Trump can be easily foreseen. Other risks depend on his choices. How the public will respond to mass deportation of immigrants, for example, may depend on what Trump means by “mass.”
Still other risks involve events outside a president’s control.
Here’s one, for example: Many scientists fear that bird flu, which has decimated poultry flocks around the country this year, could evolve to more readily infect humans. If that happens — or if some other, unexpected, pathogen emerges — Trump’s campaigns against public health agencies could suddenly look like a very bad idea to voters who currently don’t care much.
In a closely divided country like the U.S., even small shifts among voters can carry big consequences. Demographic changes matter. So do long-term movements of public attitudes and values, like the three-decade-long trend toward greater acceptance of same-sex marriages.
But so, too, do contingencies and unexpected events — from the skills and personalities of individual candidates to the impact of a world-girdling pandemic.
The result is a kaleidoscope of changing patterns that makes the political picture endlessly fascinating and much less predictable than punditry would have it.
It’s been a privilege to describe that picture for you, our readers. For giving me that opportunity, thank you.
What else you should be reading
Poll of the week: 72% of Americans say U.S. democracy used to be a good example for other countries to follow, but isn’t anymore.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(689x439:691x441):format(webp)/Carly-Pearce-tout-0125-67fb769baafd4cc1a435511663fe7171.jpg?w=1200&resize=1200,0&ssl=1 "Carly Pearce, 34, Says She’s Been Diagnosed with a Heart Condition: ‘I’ve Got to Really Take This Seriously’")
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(762x362:764x364):format(webp)/Elizabeth-Banks-tout-081324-03799356dc7c4d39bb26bc9aa71f5bf0.jpg?w=1200&resize=1200,0&ssl=1 "Elizabeth Banks Is Glowing from Head to Toe on the Skincare Premiere Red Carpet")
