"At the same time, on many measures the economy has been a lot stronger than voters’ perceptions, so it’s unclear how much we’d expect voting patterns to reflect economic realities. " No! Groceries are up 20%+. Matt's ilk don't notice that sort of thing but common people do.
“But rising home prices make homeowners richer while they reduce affordability for renters, so could be good for some people and bad for others. Controlling for the same set of factors, counties where the Zillow home price index rose faster between 2019 and 2024 swung slightly less toward Trump.”
This worries me. It’s an indication that homeowners are gaining ground as a share of the Dem coalition relative to renters, which would certainly be in line with how higher income voters are becoming more Democratic. If the Democratic base increasingly wants or benefits from rising property values, it could undermine the growth of the YIMBY movement on the left.
This is all interesting. The problem is that it is also very premature. You're making conclusions like "Los Angeles metro area moved 10% toward Trump", etc, except that CA has over 5 million votes still to be counted, a million of which are in L.A. County (and will move that number dramatically, potentially). You're slicing the data wayyyy to think given the info available. I understand there is pressure on public folks to put out an opinion, but you have to be patient and wait for the data to come in as a complete set.
This is all interesting. The problem is that it is also very premature. You're making conclusions like "Los Angeles metro area moved 10% toward Trump", etc, except that CA has over 5 million votes still to be counted, a million of which are in L.A. County (and will move that number dramatically, potentially). You're slicing the data wayyyy to think given the info available. I understand there is pressure on public folks to put out an opinion, but you have to be patient and wait for the data to come in as a complete set.
In 2004 W crushed the Democrats and it was clear that Republicans could run the table forever with Evangelicals and maybe terrorism hawks and the Dems would be in the wilderness forever.
IN 2012 we learned from Obama that demographics were on the Democrats side and as the country became non-white their coalition would be an ever-growing unstoppable juggernaut and the Republicans would be in the wilderness forever.
So...while I agree with MY's general "we should be more centrist" views personally, I kind of feel like "the democrats must do X to avoid being relegated forever" is just going to be wrong in four years and the new coalition just isn't knowable in 2024.
Helpful analysis. Any chance of seeing the regression results? Particularly interested in the manufacturing regression. How much does a one SD increase in manufacturing lower the swing towards Trump?
A question for the commenters here looking at a national driver being post-COVID/post-Floyd increase in low-level social-squalor offenses in big cities as a driver of the results: when and how did this phenomenon - about which a president can do next to nothing - become a driver of a presidential campaign? The emergence of severe problems in urban America from, say, the late 1950s through the early 1990s and the renaissance of urban America from then until,, say, the end of the 2010s (with important punctuation points that foretold progress but didn't solve the problems (around 1978 or so, when New York City's finances more or less stabilized; Dinkins hiring a huge number of new cops in the early 1990s), happened with limited impact on national presidential politics (cities were deteriorating in one way or another under Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush 41, and improving under Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama, without, it seemed to me, all that much national valence). And yet now it is proffered as the second reason after price rises for the Democrats' national losses. Why? What changed?
Very fair point, and shamefully it worked. But when New York City grew more violent - and, importantly, rather less livable, over the 1981-90 period, no one blamed Reagan or Bush, or even, frankly, thought there was very much they could do about it, even taking account of the occasional race-inflected demogoguery.
The starkest, weirdest part of the democrat's strategy is how they paint themselves as the defenders against sexism and racism, yet only manage slim >55% majorities with women and hispanics, the racial group arguably most antagonized by Trump.
I hope this sparks a reckoning about the current strategy.
Right now I'm more mad at Democrats than anyone else because they made me give a shit. So I've decided that as of today, I officially don't give a shit. All I care about is my family and myself. I will enjoy my six figure income and happily accept Trump's forthcoming tax cuts.
We will never have social democracy in this country because there simply isn't an electoral path forward for it. This country is simply too filled with bitter ignorant morons who are angry at the wrong people, and they will probably never get it. Trump is the president this country deserves and the perfect representation of us as a people - narcissistic, dumb, and lacking any attention span.
I don't even care anymore. I only will watch the news to know how to invest. I'm cancelling all of my subscriptions, including Slow Boring. There is no point in spending energy talking about problems that will never be solved.
Maybe I'm just in a really bad mood, but I can't imagine ever getting as invested in politics ever again.
"This country is simply too filled with bitter ignorant morons," says the man who doesn't give a shit and only cares about his family and himself. Get over yourself, grow up and get to work.
I'm honestly not too concerned about 2028 from the POV of a normal GOP vs Dems election. The Dems haven't had a great candidate since Obama. Hillary anointed herself with insider power despite being awful, Biden was merely adequate in 2020, and Harris did fine under the circumstances but was not a top talent.
All of the old Obama/Biden-era insiders are gone now. In 2028, it's going to be a totally open field with a "let the best person win" mentality, which has the chance to produce an actually great candidate. Given a real primary with an opportunity to select a strong, popular candidate with a good economic message, and the GOP nominee stuck defending what will likely be an unpopular and economically tempestuous Trump admin, Dems should be in good shape.
Of course, if Trump lets the authoritarians run wild on the electoral system, it's a different story.
Other than hoping for the anti-incumbency factor to kick in, I'm not sure what kind of economic message Democrats can come up with that'll resonate with a wide range of voters in 2028. They don't want to deregulate or focus on better governance or mess with unions - policies that will help with economic growth. Everything hinges on the fact that Trump will indeed screw up. I'm not 100% sure that'll be the case. This time he has some smart people like Musk and Vance to guide him.
The problem with Trump is not his intelligence, it’s his narcissism. If he spends too much time with people who know more than he does,he throws a tantrum or does something else that draws attention to himself (eg, bleach injection)
That's probably going to be the case but the fact is that the economy hummed along very well during his Presidency till Covid hit in spite of his personality issues. I don't think he's very intelligent in an academic way. He has no interest in reading or learning. He's street smart.
True but the economy performed well more in spite of Trump than because of him; there was no change in trajectory in economic indicators compared to the latter Obama administration. So the question is whether the coming administration will be as feckless as his first term or the Project 2025 folks get their way.
I don't know if this is the right place for this but to my mind if you are not on the record as being a Democrat and working to get Democrats elected you shouldn't be able to "blame" Harris/Democrats for their strategic decisions. This is the example I'm thinking of but there are many others
Coppins uses the idea that Dems are "blameworthy" but will he say he's a registered Democrat trying to elect Democrats? If he's not, why act like Trump winning is something someone needs to get blamed for? I see this with a lot of journalists but also leftists... Democrats are to blame for making decisions, but also I myself am not a Democrat, and will not help them win. But I do care a lot if they win.
I completely agree, and as a lifelong loyal Dem it makes me want to create a space where Dems can be in their own club, where the dem-critical-yet-not dems will not be welcomed.
It woud be something of a silver lining if the idea that gender/ethnic/racial group = political view died and we could get to work murdering rural/urban. GOTV (and polling!) could focus on issues, not demographics.
I think every explanation for the electoral outcome that doesn't mention, let alone give pride of place to, Fox News and its progeny doesn't comprehend what is driving politics in this country.
Matthew, I'm a fan; I subscribe, after all. However, the "inflation/economy" and "progressives hurt Democrats" analyses are wearing thin, though both are probably true on the margins. Why can't white male commentators simply acknowledge that no Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of the white vote since 1965? What happened that year?
You're saying white Americans are upset about 1965 and have been holding onto that grievance in every election since then? The idea is of voting Republican is to roll back the civil rights act and reintroduce segregation?
Simple math says that, in terms of swing, the lower a candidate's baseline vote share, the more "upside" potential they have to improve it. That is, via persuasion you need to convince a much lower share of opponent's voters to switch sides to grow your overall vote share from 10% to 20% vs. 80% to 90%. And, via turnout, you, growing one's vote share from 10% to 20% requires far fewer new voters vs. from 80% to 90%.
The above statement has nothing to do with politics, it's just math. Set up the equation where p is the current voter base, x is the number of voters that need to be persuaded or turned out, and solve for x. Basic 8th grade algebra.
"At the same time, on many measures the economy has been a lot stronger than voters’ perceptions, so it’s unclear how much we’d expect voting patterns to reflect economic realities. " No! Groceries are up 20%+. Matt's ilk don't notice that sort of thing but common people do.
“But rising home prices make homeowners richer while they reduce affordability for renters, so could be good for some people and bad for others. Controlling for the same set of factors, counties where the Zillow home price index rose faster between 2019 and 2024 swung slightly less toward Trump.”
This worries me. It’s an indication that homeowners are gaining ground as a share of the Dem coalition relative to renters, which would certainly be in line with how higher income voters are becoming more Democratic. If the Democratic base increasingly wants or benefits from rising property values, it could undermine the growth of the YIMBY movement on the left.
Surely those numbers show a 5.5 point swing in urban counties, not 10 points?
This is all interesting. The problem is that it is also very premature. You're making conclusions like "Los Angeles metro area moved 10% toward Trump", etc, except that CA has over 5 million votes still to be counted, a million of which are in L.A. County (and will move that number dramatically, potentially). You're slicing the data wayyyy to think given the info available. I understand there is pressure on public folks to put out an opinion, but you have to be patient and wait for the data to come in as a complete set.
This is all interesting. The problem is that it is also very premature. You're making conclusions like "Los Angeles metro area moved 10% toward Trump", etc, except that CA has over 5 million votes still to be counted, a million of which are in L.A. County (and will move that number dramatically, potentially). You're slicing the data wayyyy to think given the info available. I understand there is pressure on public folks to put out an opinion, but you have to be patient and wait for the data to come in as a complete set.
In 2004 W crushed the Democrats and it was clear that Republicans could run the table forever with Evangelicals and maybe terrorism hawks and the Dems would be in the wilderness forever.
IN 2012 we learned from Obama that demographics were on the Democrats side and as the country became non-white their coalition would be an ever-growing unstoppable juggernaut and the Republicans would be in the wilderness forever.
So...while I agree with MY's general "we should be more centrist" views personally, I kind of feel like "the democrats must do X to avoid being relegated forever" is just going to be wrong in four years and the new coalition just isn't knowable in 2024.
Helpful analysis. Any chance of seeing the regression results? Particularly interested in the manufacturing regression. How much does a one SD increase in manufacturing lower the swing towards Trump?
A question for the commenters here looking at a national driver being post-COVID/post-Floyd increase in low-level social-squalor offenses in big cities as a driver of the results: when and how did this phenomenon - about which a president can do next to nothing - become a driver of a presidential campaign? The emergence of severe problems in urban America from, say, the late 1950s through the early 1990s and the renaissance of urban America from then until,, say, the end of the 2010s (with important punctuation points that foretold progress but didn't solve the problems (around 1978 or so, when New York City's finances more or less stabilized; Dinkins hiring a huge number of new cops in the early 1990s), happened with limited impact on national presidential politics (cities were deteriorating in one way or another under Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush 41, and improving under Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama, without, it seemed to me, all that much national valence). And yet now it is proffered as the second reason after price rises for the Democrats' national losses. Why? What changed?
Cadillac driving welfare moms? That was coded for inner city minorities.
Very fair point, and shamefully it worked. But when New York City grew more violent - and, importantly, rather less livable, over the 1981-90 period, no one blamed Reagan or Bush, or even, frankly, thought there was very much they could do about it, even taking account of the occasional race-inflected demogoguery.
The starkest, weirdest part of the democrat's strategy is how they paint themselves as the defenders against sexism and racism, yet only manage slim >55% majorities with women and hispanics, the racial group arguably most antagonized by Trump.
I hope this sparks a reckoning about the current strategy.
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls
David Brooks today: "In 2024 (Trump) built the very thing the Democratic Party once tried to build - a multiracial, working-class majority"
Right now I'm more mad at Democrats than anyone else because they made me give a shit. So I've decided that as of today, I officially don't give a shit. All I care about is my family and myself. I will enjoy my six figure income and happily accept Trump's forthcoming tax cuts.
We will never have social democracy in this country because there simply isn't an electoral path forward for it. This country is simply too filled with bitter ignorant morons who are angry at the wrong people, and they will probably never get it. Trump is the president this country deserves and the perfect representation of us as a people - narcissistic, dumb, and lacking any attention span.
I don't even care anymore. I only will watch the news to know how to invest. I'm cancelling all of my subscriptions, including Slow Boring. There is no point in spending energy talking about problems that will never be solved.
Maybe I'm just in a really bad mood, but I can't imagine ever getting as invested in politics ever again.
"This country is simply too filled with bitter ignorant morons," says the man who doesn't give a shit and only cares about his family and himself. Get over yourself, grow up and get to work.
You're not wrong, but I just can't deal with this.
I'm honestly not too concerned about 2028 from the POV of a normal GOP vs Dems election. The Dems haven't had a great candidate since Obama. Hillary anointed herself with insider power despite being awful, Biden was merely adequate in 2020, and Harris did fine under the circumstances but was not a top talent.
All of the old Obama/Biden-era insiders are gone now. In 2028, it's going to be a totally open field with a "let the best person win" mentality, which has the chance to produce an actually great candidate. Given a real primary with an opportunity to select a strong, popular candidate with a good economic message, and the GOP nominee stuck defending what will likely be an unpopular and economically tempestuous Trump admin, Dems should be in good shape.
Of course, if Trump lets the authoritarians run wild on the electoral system, it's a different story.
Other than hoping for the anti-incumbency factor to kick in, I'm not sure what kind of economic message Democrats can come up with that'll resonate with a wide range of voters in 2028. They don't want to deregulate or focus on better governance or mess with unions - policies that will help with economic growth. Everything hinges on the fact that Trump will indeed screw up. I'm not 100% sure that'll be the case. This time he has some smart people like Musk and Vance to guide him.
My tiered ranking -
Tier 1 - Bill Clinton, Obama
Tier 2 - Hillary Clinton, Biden
Tier 3 - Harris
The problem with Trump is not his intelligence, it’s his narcissism. If he spends too much time with people who know more than he does,he throws a tantrum or does something else that draws attention to himself (eg, bleach injection)
That's probably going to be the case but the fact is that the economy hummed along very well during his Presidency till Covid hit in spite of his personality issues. I don't think he's very intelligent in an academic way. He has no interest in reading or learning. He's street smart.
True but the economy performed well more in spite of Trump than because of him; there was no change in trajectory in economic indicators compared to the latter Obama administration. So the question is whether the coming administration will be as feckless as his first term or the Project 2025 folks get their way.
I don't know if this is the right place for this but to my mind if you are not on the record as being a Democrat and working to get Democrats elected you shouldn't be able to "blame" Harris/Democrats for their strategic decisions. This is the example I'm thinking of but there are many others
https://x.com/mckaycoppins/status/1854166736561402343
Coppins uses the idea that Dems are "blameworthy" but will he say he's a registered Democrat trying to elect Democrats? If he's not, why act like Trump winning is something someone needs to get blamed for? I see this with a lot of journalists but also leftists... Democrats are to blame for making decisions, but also I myself am not a Democrat, and will not help them win. But I do care a lot if they win.
I completely agree, and as a lifelong loyal Dem it makes me want to create a space where Dems can be in their own club, where the dem-critical-yet-not dems will not be welcomed.
It woud be something of a silver lining if the idea that gender/ethnic/racial group = political view died and we could get to work murdering rural/urban. GOTV (and polling!) could focus on issues, not demographics.
I think every explanation for the electoral outcome that doesn't mention, let alone give pride of place to, Fox News and its progeny doesn't comprehend what is driving politics in this country.
Matthew, I'm a fan; I subscribe, after all. However, the "inflation/economy" and "progressives hurt Democrats" analyses are wearing thin, though both are probably true on the margins. Why can't white male commentators simply acknowledge that no Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of the white vote since 1965? What happened that year?
I remember a biracial guy winning two general elections with a 7% and a 4% popular vote margin without winning the white vote.
You're saying white Americans are upset about 1965 and have been holding onto that grievance in every election since then? The idea is of voting Republican is to roll back the civil rights act and reintroduce segregation?
“Generational trauma.”
So what? The Fed can manage the economy better and Progressives can stop hurting Democrats. There is nothing anyone can or should do about 1965.
The data is still early, but it appears the Harris won more of the white male vote than Biden did.
Simple math says that, in terms of swing, the lower a candidate's baseline vote share, the more "upside" potential they have to improve it. That is, via persuasion you need to convince a much lower share of opponent's voters to switch sides to grow your overall vote share from 10% to 20% vs. 80% to 90%. And, via turnout, you, growing one's vote share from 10% to 20% requires far fewer new voters vs. from 80% to 90%.
The above statement has nothing to do with politics, it's just math. Set up the equation where p is the current voter base, x is the number of voters that need to be persuaded or turned out, and solve for x. Basic 8th grade algebra.