The Trends I’m Watching During Election Week (Part 1)
Examining the factors that will tell the story of this election.
One week from today, we could very well know who the next president of the United States will be, though the final result may not be known for a few days. In the weeks that follow, pundits, operatives, and analysts alike will be pouring over the data to discern what the “story” of the election was. More partisan types will likely be looking for ways to spin the outcome in their favor, especially those on the winning side.
To help better focus these conversations on relevant considerations, I want to share some questions I’ll be seeking to answer as the results become clearer and historical trends I’ll be comparing this year’s results against. Fair warning: there are many! So below I’ll offer the first bunch, and next Monday, before Election Day, we’ll post the second half of them. After we have results and other election data, I will come back to these questions and see if we can answer them.
The gender gap among young voters
Democrats have long held an advantage among voters aged 18–29. They have won these voters in presidential elections by at least nine points all but once since 19921 and by at least 20 points since 2008. What’s more: in contrast to other age groups, both young women and young men have supported Democratic candidates. In 2020, 18–29-year-old men were the only male age cohort to support Joe Biden, doing so by an 11-point margin, 52–41 (young women, meanwhile, supported Biden by a much larger 35 points, 67–32).
There are some signs that this dynamic could be changing. According New York Times/Siena College polling, Donald Trump now leads Harris among young men, and it’s not particularly close: 58–37. But Harris’s lead among young women is even wider: 67–28 (this is also wider than Biden’s advantage was four years ago). If this polling is accurate, it’s unclear how a growing divide like this might impact the final results, but suffice it to say that it’s a wild card.
However, it’s not clear that Republicans do have an advantage among young men. The latest Harvard IOP poll of young voters found that in fact Harris continues leading with this cohort by 10 points. Moreover, the younger men who support Trump also appeared to be less certain that they would vote, while Harris held a 17-point lead among likely voters.
Key questions:
Which survey do the early exit polls suggest was more accurate: polling from the Times’ or Harvard?
Does the data show both young men and women moving further from their 2020 baselines or only one of those groups?
Does a potential growing gender gap extend to other age brackets as well?
Racial depolarization
A trend we at TLP have been watching for some time has been the rightward movement of nonwhite voters. For example, between 2016 and 2020, Hispanic, a Democratic-leaning group, swung toward Trump by 12 points. This cycle, Hispanics as well as black Americans appear to be moving even further rightward. The latest polling crosstab averages from both the Cook Political Report and Democratic pollster Adam Carlson show that Harris’s advantage with black voters is roughly 19–20 points below Biden’s, and with Hispanics she is 8–11 points behind. These swings could make a big difference in battleground states where the final margin is only a point or two.
Meanwhile, though, there have been signs that Harris is making up ground among white Americans, who have traditionally voted more Republican than Democratic and constitute an outsized share of the electorate (72 percent in 2020). This includes white non-college voters, who are overrepresented in swing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania as well as their college-educated peers. If Harris outperforms Biden with white voters, it will mark the second straight election in which the Democratic nominee has done better than their predecessor.
One thing to watch is whether the nonwhite voters moving in Trump’s direction are are among those who are slightly less likely to vote. As the Times’ Cohn has observed previously, Trump’s support with these voters may be coming from those who are less politically engaged. Extensive reporting has also indicated that Trump’s ground game and turnout operation are wanting, which means he may have trouble turning his poll support into actual votes. So it’s unclear whether the extent to which his gains with these groups will ultimately materialize—or the impact it will have if they do.
Key questions:
Do the polls showing Trump’s substantial gains with nonwhite voters square with the final results?
If Trump does make further gains with nonwhite voters relative to 2020, do they make the difference in any state?
If Harris loses ground with black or Hispanic voters but improves with white voters, is that enough to offset the former losses?
The growing class divide
Another topic we have covered extensively is how the rise of educational polarization has come to reshape the two parties’ coalitions, with Democrats increasingly becoming the party of the college-educated class while the Republicans earn more votes from working-class voters. After Obama won non-college voters by four points in 2012, they swung to Trump in 2016, backing him by six. They did so again by roughly the same margin in 2020. College-educated voters have moved in the opposite direction, voting Democratic at the presidential level by margins of four (2012), 15 (2016), and 18 (2020) points. This cycle, both college- and non-college-educated voters have moved rightward relative to four years ago by roughly 2–3 points, a sign that this gap isn’t likely to shrink much, if at all.
There appear to be similar movements happening when looking at household income. Between 2012 and 2020, voters whose median earnings below $50,000 annually swung rightward by 12 points, going from backing Obama by 22 to supporting Biden by just 10. At the same time, the wealthiest Americans (those earning at least $100,000) have moved toward Democrats, going from a Romney +10 group to narrowly breaking for Democrats by two points in each of the previous two elections. The latest polling averages show Harris doing about the same as Biden among high income earners but underperforming among low-income households by 10–12 points.2
Finally, one other constituency whose performance may offer more context to the picture of class in America is union households. For decades, union voters have been strongly Democratic, but since 1992, that support (and the group’s vote share) have steadily declined. After Bill Clinton won them by around 30 points, they backed Obama by roughly 19. Hillary Clinton then carried them by only nine before Biden, who regularly touted his support for organized labor, bounced back, taking them by 15 points. The picture this cycle is a little murky, with little pre-election polling on this group. But the party’s struggles with this core constituency are undeniable.
If these trends hold on Election Day, it may be bad news for the Democrats. Working-class and union voters are overrepresented in several pivotal states, while, college-educated and higher-income voters both represent small (though reliable) shares of the electorate.
Key questions:
Will recent class trends continue to change the makeup of the two parties’ coalitions, or will one or both claw back ground they have lost?
Does Harris hold the line with union voters, or was the Teamsters’ internal polling a canary in the coal mine for further rightward drift?
Is there a racial component to the class divide? (E.g., Do white working-class voters swing left but non-white ones swing right, or not?)
The impact of geography
In addition to educational attainment, the other growing fault line in American politics has been the politics of place—namely, whether you live in an urban, rural, or suburban area. These communities tend to be deeply Democratic, deeply Republican, and a mix of both, respectively. However, what’s become more interesting in the last few elections is the directions in which each one is trending.
Though urban areas across America are reliably Democratic, almost without exception, the party has seen some erosion of support in these places. As I wrote in my inaugural TLP piece last year, major cities in key swing states have experienced a decline in voter turnout as well as Democratic support. To be sure, they continue to vote blue by huge margins, but even these small losses matter. For example, in 2016, had Hillary Clinton simply matched Obama’s vote totals in Detroit and Milwaukee, she would have carried Michigan and Wisconsin. The latest polling averages indicate that Democrats may be losing further ground in urban America, with Harris underperforming Biden by nearly 12 points.
Meanwhile, much of rural America has become extremely hostile territory for Democrats over the previous decade. In 2008, John McCain only won rural counties by about eight points. By 2020, Trump carried them by 23. Democrats’ image in this part of the country is a longstanding problem. However, recent polling averages indicate that the party might be bouncing back.3 Carlson’s tracker has shown Harris over-performing Biden’s 2020 margins every month, usually by around seven or eight points. If her urban losses do materialize, gains in rural America could help her stay competitive.
Finally, suburban areas are likely where this election will be won or lost, just as they have in most elections. Since at least 2008, suburban voters have composed a whopping 55 percent of the electorate, and as they have gone, so too has the election. The latest polling averages show Harris narrowly winning them this time around by about three points. Though this might sound like good news for her, it represents a six-point decline from Biden’s 2020 performance.
Key questions:
Are the polling crosstab averages showing Trump gaining in urban areas accurate? And if he eats into Harris’s margins in places like Detroit or Milwaukee, does she make up ground elsewhere?
Does Harris do better than Biden in rural communities? If so, is there anything we can glean from the ones where she achieves this? (E.g., have they grown in population since the COVID pandemic?)
If Harris carries the suburbs but by a lower margin than Biden did, is that enough to win?
The lone exception was the 2000 election, when Democrats only won them by two.
Averages for middle income earners are not readily available, though this is historically a Republican-leaning group.
Interestingly, this improvement began while Biden was still in the race, which may serve to counter claims that picking Tim Walz as her running mate helped Harris bounce back.
1) I have seen zero data that Harris is "overperforming" with blacks. Quite the contrary, she's losing black men at an atrocious rate. I don't know who your tracker on all thigs black is, but I'd fire him.
2) At some point, Ruy, you and everyone else will have to come to grips with the ballot requests/early vote. It's devastating for Democrats. In AZ yesterday we crossed the R+103,000 margin. AZ MAY BE CALLED AT 8:01 . . . BY FOX . . . FOR TRUMP. I've done the calculations. Harris now is nearly having to get 65% of Is even assuming more Ds don't vote Trump than Rs vote Harris (not a chance). AZ will end around R 6.6.
3) Same thing is happening in Nevada, where Rs have run up a near 40,000 lead. This is a 71,000 flip from this time in 2020. NV likewise may be called very, very early. You know if John Ralston is panicking, it's over.
5) The data coming out of PA is stunning. Ds may finish with UNDER 100,000 "firewall" when most concede they need a minimum 400,000, except I (and Richard Baris and Robert Barnes) have all calculated they really need more than 600,000---and again this assumes every single D stays D. Not likely. I believe in PA of all states you will see the highest number of Ds voting Trump anywhere.
6) GA is trending the same way, not quite as fast. But watch Duval Co., FL, which is a perfect proxy for GA and always has been---it is over 1.5% R in early voting. THIS MARGIN WILL GROW, and GA likewise will finish R+5. By the way, all that truly stupid nonsense about FL being "close?" Rs may finish +15 to 17 there and Trump may win by as much as 11. Same in TX. Utterly not competitive, never was.
7) Despite D hopes that the western Carolina area, destroyed by the hurricane, wouldn't turn out . . . it is. Rs actually LED in early voting (don't know where it is today). This, like NV, is a FIRST EVER where Rs have led. NC is not close, and will come in R+4.
8) Harris pulled ads out of NC for . . . VA. So you know it's over. However VA is absolutely not safe. Last poll had it a tie and early voting---where Ds lead---has seen their lead (as in PA) chipped away with every single drop.
9) MI and WI are harder to call definitively because of no voter ID, but the geographical analysis of which counties are voting at what levels shows a serious red wave there, esp. in WI, where the red counties are ALREADY at 87% of their 2020 levels. In MI, the massive shift of the Mulsim vote pretty much seals that one.
10) Finally, do away with the "Rs are cannibalizing their vote" nonsense. In AZ for example, even though they trail by 103,000, Ds have actually USED UP MORE of their base than Rs (remember, the R base has a 300,000 registration advantage). Rs trail Ds by 1.5% in turnout, meaning they are building their lead on "low propensity voters." They still have an even bigger ED reserve. Same is true in PA and NV from the data.
11) The trends I aam watching confirm what I've stated since July: Trump is already sitting on 312 sure electoral votes and is VERY close in MN, NM, VA, ME, and NH. If I had to guess, I'd say he wins MN and VA, barely loses ME and NH. NM is a true tossup.
Oh, and I predicted that WHEN the Rs win the "early vote" as they are pretty much poised to do (or make such massive inroads it is no longer a Democrat advantage, Ds will suddenly find the early in person or mail in voting "racist" and will demand we return to election day only voting. To which Rs should say "Hallelujah."