I think that the "Trump Coalition" - like all cults of personality - will only last as long as the "Dear Leader" remains alive. So there's that anyhow...
I agree completely. But the poison he has unleashed - the racism, sexual and gender discrimination - as well as the harm that will be done, both locally and internationally, by his clown car of cabinet picks, will live long past him.
Pre-election, you had written (paraphrasing) that Trump would underperform a generic Republican in the current environment. Have you revisited that view, or is there some way to reconcile it with the actual outcomes, including the Senate results noted today?
Look at what President Trump did, something that hasn’t been done in 100 years, winning non consecutive terms AND doing so with the MSM and the Justice Department decidedly against him!
President Trump has taken over the Republican Party and made it his party. This is such a phenomenal and historic event, not sure President Trump gets the credit he deserves. Thankfully the Dems ran an absolutely awful candidate that made the heavy lift that much easier. “Price controls” “turn the page” “my values haven’t changed” “Nothing comes to mind” he he he
While Trump is spewing out his extremist and unqualified appointees -- and demanding the Senate rubber stamp them by going into recess -- he has yet to hold a press conference. He's not going to like it when the Senate, instead, rejects one or more of his appointees. And Americans aren't going to like it when he tanks the economy with his "massive tariffs." Truth be told, Trump is the real "RINO."
You have more faith in Senata Republicans that I do. I think they'll ultimately cave to Trump, because so far they've always ultimately caved to Trump.
They're going to rubber stamp nearly all of these unqualified miscreants, but I think at least one of them -- probably Gaetz -- will be rejected in a puny assertion of Senate authority.
I remain baffled about this absurd narrative that trump had some major landslide victory. He managed an exact 50% majority, and won by about 1.7%. That is neither a mandate nor a landslide. All we heard last time from the media was how Biden barely won by a few hundred thousand votes here and there. Okay, Trump won the total popular vote but about 2.5 million votes. Well guess what, Biden won in 2020 by 7 million votes, and 4.5%. Where was his new and cry of a “mandate” and a popular vote landslide? Trump wins by less, and yet all I hear about is an “electoral landslide” and how he has some huge popular mandate to hire Dr. Oz and Matt Gaetz.
In fact, as of Monday afternoon, Trump was at 49.94 percent of the nation's popular vote, while Harris was at 48.26, according to the Cook Political Report that Chris uses so much. That is NOT the mandate Trump seems to boast amount.
And the nation voted for Trump not because he can appoint morons like Gaetz, Oz, Hegseth, etc. It's because eggs cost too much.
I was using The NY Times, but the point is the same. But, it proves the point. The president of the U.S. is not in charge of the price of eggs, and the price being high reflected significant culling due to bird flu. But it also shows where his win actually came from — he dominated the vote among people who said they rarely or never pay any attention to the news. He won among the ignorant, which I would argue is one of the fastest growing demographics in the U.S.
Actually, presidents can have massive effects on the economy. NAFTA was pretty impactful. The Reagan tax cuts were really impactful -- both near-term and long-term. If we want to test that theory, let's wait and see if Trump starts putting tariffs on all imports, and 60% tariffs on China. We can also wait and see if he does mass deportation, in which case a lot of domestically manufactured goods, and almost all of the agricultural sector will experience massive price inflation.
Biddenomics was more of an attempt to reverse the perception that the economy was doing poorly. The reality was that the stock market was high, inflation was dropping, unemployment was low, manufacturing jobs were up, wages were up, and GDP was up. While presidents do not control inflation, it can easily be argued (and many economists do) that passage of the infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act did inject additional investment into the U.S. economy, which reduced unemployment, and led to the U.S. hitting that "soft landing" than many forecasters like Moody's did not think was a likely outcome. In fact, both the Fed and Moody's projected a mild to moderate recession that never materialized. We outpaced pretty much the entire industrialized world. The Bidenomics pitch was an attempt to tell people that the economy was actually doing quite well -- which it was.
The problem politically was that it was taking ownership of something the public just didn't feel very good about. Inflation was still not deflation, and they resented the added costs. Also, the average American understands just slightly more about the economy and macroeconomics as your average poodle understands about astrophysics.
You're talking mostly legislation (NAFTA, Reagan tax cuts, CHIPS act, etc), not unilateral actions by POTUS.
And your last sentence illustrates once again (as if that were needed) how Democrats regard the People as deplorable ignoramuses. As Dr. Phil likes to say, how's that workin' for ya?
Who said anything about it having to be unilateral? I just said that presidents can and do impact the economy, and in the old days they got credit or blame for it. In this case, policies enacted under Biden were actually successful, and he got no credit for it. Part of that is because Trump was just out there declaring that we were in an economic hellscape, and part is because most people have no idea how macroeconomics work, or even what the metrics of the economy are. You said it yourself -- they thought eggs were expensive.
As for thinking they are ignorant, I don't think that is really debatable. I didn't call them deplorable, that was you. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. I was specifically referring to specific polling that showed that a whole lot of people in this country self identify as rarely or never following politics or following the news -- and Trump won that cohort *overwhelmingly*. But, you appear to once again have mistaken Trump's people for "The People". The dude isn't even going to get a majority of the vote. He is going to win by about a point and a half. 48.5% of "the People" think he is an grifting idiot.
But, since you brought up deplorables, Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies, and found liable for sexual assault. People still voted for him because of... [checks notes] "egg prices". He has now nominated 3 people with sexual assault allegations, a SecDef with white power tattoos and no experience running a large organization. An AG who has no law enforcement experience. A Director of National Intelligence who has no intel experience and may be a Russian asset. A Secretary of HHS who has no public health or medical background, and a dead worm in his brain, who has pushed nonsense debunked conspiracy theories. An Administrator of CMS who is responsible for dispensing about 20% or more of the federal budget, and has no experience running a large enterprise, has no experience in health finance policy, and also pushed debunked conspiracy theories and quack medicinal supplements for personal gain. A Secretary of Education who has no education background, or experience running a large organization, and is most notable for kicking her husband in the balls and slapping her daughter in a wrestling ring.
None of these buffoons are qualified, yet that doesn't seem to bother his hordes of followers -- who I remind you are self-professedly ignorant, and in polling always show up as the least informed factually (Fox News viewers). And your defense of all this total nonsense is: 'we're winning, so haha, the joke is on you, you loser'? And you wonder why the 48%+ of voters in the country think the Trump base has a lot of dumb and shitty people in it? My answer would be that we still recognize reality. We still say that if it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, and says racist, misogynistic, stupid, and false things -- then it is a stupid, racist, misogynistic, lying duck.
Here’s a big question to think about…. The Texas state board of education is voting on something called the Bluebonnet Curriculum that weaves Bible/Jesus stories into school learning lessons. How? For example, a unit teaching kindergartners how to place events in chronological order, Bluebonnet uses the story of God establishing the world in six days — creating light on the first day and humans on the last — as a sequencing task. I’m tiring of the election stories when the religious Right continues to move forward with their agenda, as one issue I am concerned about. Time for all the “new” journalists out there, the non-main street media types, to get back to work and cover stories that matter….. Is this “indoctrination?” A violation of the First Amendment? These are the BIG questions that need to be covered..
I think that the”macho” vote is under appreciated. I’m afraid a significant portion of the electorate isn’t ready for a female president. I think that helps explain some of the republican gains particularly in young males.
I'd argue it's a Trump Coalition for low-propensity voters and not for "high-information" voters. A generic Republican would do better among the regular voters but I have doubts they turn out the low-propensity voter - I think the mid-terms (2018/2022) pretty much show that.
Loved this Chris. I think this has to be considered going forward. I do think the celebrity of Trump was/is a big consideration. He has developed a following that does not see him for what he truly is. I think it all came down to him convincing people that the economy was better when he was president and he used his brand to do that. Trump has always been a lot of bluster. I think it all that over the next 12 months of his first term, especially if he gets to implement some of the things he wants, that people will see he may not be the best choice for the economy.
I think that as long as he is here a lot of people will follow him. It will be interesting to see if he can maintain control after he leaves office in four years.
It is, was, and will be all about Trump. DeSantis, Haley, and any other Republican could not do what Trump has done. His lack of coattails in those four swing states must be maddening to the RSCC. How does that happens? It happened because voters were attracted to Trump as a leader compared to Harris. Policies had very little to do with his victory. Those four states, and NC, point to that.
These stats are very odd, because there was a widespread belief before the election that Trump was the WORST possible of the serious Republican candidates, and a Nikki Haley would be winning this thing by the metaphorical mile. And yet here we are discussing Trump’s personal OVERperformance vs GOP senate candidates in 4 states. Seems to me we all badly underestimated Trump’s personal vote-pulling power?.
I think the answer is somewhere in between, and that it would depend on who Republican candidate is. Here is why I say so. If you perform a thought experiment and count those 4 states for the Democrat presidential candidate, the Republican candidate would still have won the Electoral College. This suggests that although the victory was driven in large part by Trump, there may be some wiggle room for the "right" future Republican candidate to piggy-back upon similar voter issues and potentially win.
On a tangential note, it is striking how many potential 2028 Republican presidential candidates have been nominated for Trump cabinet positions. Any thoughts on this?
Chris - I overall agree with your assessment this may be more of a Trump coalition, and nothing more.
However, I think we must also factor in gender. According to the Reykjavik Index for Leadership (published by Forbes), the study indicated in the US, only 47% of US respondents are comfortable with having a female leader versus a male leader, the lowest level since the Index was started in 2016 (survey was from Sept. & Oct. of this year).
Donald Trump has only won elections against the only two female major party candidates, and lost against a male candidate. Further, he lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020, and is virtually tied in 2024. DJT’s vote totals did not change much between 2020 and 2024 - however, many Democratic voters stayed home instead of voting for Harris.
It begs the question - would DJT have won if he had run against a male candidate without the baggage Biden was saddled with?
I believe this adds to the assessment - it is not a sustainable coalition - just a Trump phenomenon.
Chris – Thanks for these insights, but good analysis that shows that this election showed the presence of a strong Trump coalition, but not necessarily a GOP coalition.
I think that the "Trump Coalition" - like all cults of personality - will only last as long as the "Dear Leader" remains alive. So there's that anyhow...
I agree completely. But the poison he has unleashed - the racism, sexual and gender discrimination - as well as the harm that will be done, both locally and internationally, by his clown car of cabinet picks, will live long past him.
Yes, thankfully!
Pre-election, you had written (paraphrasing) that Trump would underperform a generic Republican in the current environment. Have you revisited that view, or is there some way to reconcile it with the actual outcomes, including the Senate results noted today?
That’s a great point Michael!
Look at what President Trump did, something that hasn’t been done in 100 years, winning non consecutive terms AND doing so with the MSM and the Justice Department decidedly against him!
President Trump has taken over the Republican Party and made it his party. This is such a phenomenal and historic event, not sure President Trump gets the credit he deserves. Thankfully the Dems ran an absolutely awful candidate that made the heavy lift that much easier. “Price controls” “turn the page” “my values haven’t changed” “Nothing comes to mind” he he he
While Trump is spewing out his extremist and unqualified appointees -- and demanding the Senate rubber stamp them by going into recess -- he has yet to hold a press conference. He's not going to like it when the Senate, instead, rejects one or more of his appointees. And Americans aren't going to like it when he tanks the economy with his "massive tariffs." Truth be told, Trump is the real "RINO."
You have more faith in Senata Republicans that I do. I think they'll ultimately cave to Trump, because so far they've always ultimately caved to Trump.
They're going to rubber stamp nearly all of these unqualified miscreants, but I think at least one of them -- probably Gaetz -- will be rejected in a puny assertion of Senate authority.
Possibly, but I'd take a low-stakes bet against it.
Fair enough, especially given spineless worms like Susan Collins.
I remain baffled about this absurd narrative that trump had some major landslide victory. He managed an exact 50% majority, and won by about 1.7%. That is neither a mandate nor a landslide. All we heard last time from the media was how Biden barely won by a few hundred thousand votes here and there. Okay, Trump won the total popular vote but about 2.5 million votes. Well guess what, Biden won in 2020 by 7 million votes, and 4.5%. Where was his new and cry of a “mandate” and a popular vote landslide? Trump wins by less, and yet all I hear about is an “electoral landslide” and how he has some huge popular mandate to hire Dr. Oz and Matt Gaetz.
The media is truly unbelievable.
In fact, as of Monday afternoon, Trump was at 49.94 percent of the nation's popular vote, while Harris was at 48.26, according to the Cook Political Report that Chris uses so much. That is NOT the mandate Trump seems to boast amount.
And the nation voted for Trump not because he can appoint morons like Gaetz, Oz, Hegseth, etc. It's because eggs cost too much.
I was using The NY Times, but the point is the same. But, it proves the point. The president of the U.S. is not in charge of the price of eggs, and the price being high reflected significant culling due to bird flu. But it also shows where his win actually came from — he dominated the vote among people who said they rarely or never pay any attention to the news. He won among the ignorant, which I would argue is one of the fastest growing demographics in the U.S.
Both parties push the falsh narrative that POTUS largely controls the economy. Remember Bidenomics?
Actually, presidents can have massive effects on the economy. NAFTA was pretty impactful. The Reagan tax cuts were really impactful -- both near-term and long-term. If we want to test that theory, let's wait and see if Trump starts putting tariffs on all imports, and 60% tariffs on China. We can also wait and see if he does mass deportation, in which case a lot of domestically manufactured goods, and almost all of the agricultural sector will experience massive price inflation.
Biddenomics was more of an attempt to reverse the perception that the economy was doing poorly. The reality was that the stock market was high, inflation was dropping, unemployment was low, manufacturing jobs were up, wages were up, and GDP was up. While presidents do not control inflation, it can easily be argued (and many economists do) that passage of the infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act did inject additional investment into the U.S. economy, which reduced unemployment, and led to the U.S. hitting that "soft landing" than many forecasters like Moody's did not think was a likely outcome. In fact, both the Fed and Moody's projected a mild to moderate recession that never materialized. We outpaced pretty much the entire industrialized world. The Bidenomics pitch was an attempt to tell people that the economy was actually doing quite well -- which it was.
The problem politically was that it was taking ownership of something the public just didn't feel very good about. Inflation was still not deflation, and they resented the added costs. Also, the average American understands just slightly more about the economy and macroeconomics as your average poodle understands about astrophysics.
You're talking mostly legislation (NAFTA, Reagan tax cuts, CHIPS act, etc), not unilateral actions by POTUS.
And your last sentence illustrates once again (as if that were needed) how Democrats regard the People as deplorable ignoramuses. As Dr. Phil likes to say, how's that workin' for ya?
Who said anything about it having to be unilateral? I just said that presidents can and do impact the economy, and in the old days they got credit or blame for it. In this case, policies enacted under Biden were actually successful, and he got no credit for it. Part of that is because Trump was just out there declaring that we were in an economic hellscape, and part is because most people have no idea how macroeconomics work, or even what the metrics of the economy are. You said it yourself -- they thought eggs were expensive.
As for thinking they are ignorant, I don't think that is really debatable. I didn't call them deplorable, that was you. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. I was specifically referring to specific polling that showed that a whole lot of people in this country self identify as rarely or never following politics or following the news -- and Trump won that cohort *overwhelmingly*. But, you appear to once again have mistaken Trump's people for "The People". The dude isn't even going to get a majority of the vote. He is going to win by about a point and a half. 48.5% of "the People" think he is an grifting idiot.
But, since you brought up deplorables, Trump has been convicted of 34 felonies, and found liable for sexual assault. People still voted for him because of... [checks notes] "egg prices". He has now nominated 3 people with sexual assault allegations, a SecDef with white power tattoos and no experience running a large organization. An AG who has no law enforcement experience. A Director of National Intelligence who has no intel experience and may be a Russian asset. A Secretary of HHS who has no public health or medical background, and a dead worm in his brain, who has pushed nonsense debunked conspiracy theories. An Administrator of CMS who is responsible for dispensing about 20% or more of the federal budget, and has no experience running a large enterprise, has no experience in health finance policy, and also pushed debunked conspiracy theories and quack medicinal supplements for personal gain. A Secretary of Education who has no education background, or experience running a large organization, and is most notable for kicking her husband in the balls and slapping her daughter in a wrestling ring.
None of these buffoons are qualified, yet that doesn't seem to bother his hordes of followers -- who I remind you are self-professedly ignorant, and in polling always show up as the least informed factually (Fox News viewers). And your defense of all this total nonsense is: 'we're winning, so haha, the joke is on you, you loser'? And you wonder why the 48%+ of voters in the country think the Trump base has a lot of dumb and shitty people in it? My answer would be that we still recognize reality. We still say that if it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, and says racist, misogynistic, stupid, and false things -- then it is a stupid, racist, misogynistic, lying duck.
Here’s a big question to think about…. The Texas state board of education is voting on something called the Bluebonnet Curriculum that weaves Bible/Jesus stories into school learning lessons. How? For example, a unit teaching kindergartners how to place events in chronological order, Bluebonnet uses the story of God establishing the world in six days — creating light on the first day and humans on the last — as a sequencing task. I’m tiring of the election stories when the religious Right continues to move forward with their agenda, as one issue I am concerned about. Time for all the “new” journalists out there, the non-main street media types, to get back to work and cover stories that matter….. Is this “indoctrination?” A violation of the First Amendment? These are the BIG questions that need to be covered..
I think that the”macho” vote is under appreciated. I’m afraid a significant portion of the electorate isn’t ready for a female president. I think that helps explain some of the republican gains particularly in young males.
There was an opinion piece in the Washington Post today about this, particularly the young male Latino vote. It makes some sense.
I'd argue it's a Trump Coalition for low-propensity voters and not for "high-information" voters. A generic Republican would do better among the regular voters but I have doubts they turn out the low-propensity voter - I think the mid-terms (2018/2022) pretty much show that.
Loved this Chris. I think this has to be considered going forward. I do think the celebrity of Trump was/is a big consideration. He has developed a following that does not see him for what he truly is. I think it all came down to him convincing people that the economy was better when he was president and he used his brand to do that. Trump has always been a lot of bluster. I think it all that over the next 12 months of his first term, especially if he gets to implement some of the things he wants, that people will see he may not be the best choice for the economy.
I think that as long as he is here a lot of people will follow him. It will be interesting to see if he can maintain control after he leaves office in four years.
It is, was, and will be all about Trump. DeSantis, Haley, and any other Republican could not do what Trump has done. His lack of coattails in those four swing states must be maddening to the RSCC. How does that happens? It happened because voters were attracted to Trump as a leader compared to Harris. Policies had very little to do with his victory. Those four states, and NC, point to that.
These stats are very odd, because there was a widespread belief before the election that Trump was the WORST possible of the serious Republican candidates, and a Nikki Haley would be winning this thing by the metaphorical mile. And yet here we are discussing Trump’s personal OVERperformance vs GOP senate candidates in 4 states. Seems to me we all badly underestimated Trump’s personal vote-pulling power?.
President Trump was rated as a 3 as a general election candidate prior to the election if you recall!
Irregardless of Trump's popularity, he is a morally bankrupt human being. Yet you and so many others support him.
To be fair, he's ALSO intellectually bankrupt.
Hi @ChrisCillizza,
I think the answer is somewhere in between, and that it would depend on who Republican candidate is. Here is why I say so. If you perform a thought experiment and count those 4 states for the Democrat presidential candidate, the Republican candidate would still have won the Electoral College. This suggests that although the victory was driven in large part by Trump, there may be some wiggle room for the "right" future Republican candidate to piggy-back upon similar voter issues and potentially win.
On a tangential note, it is striking how many potential 2028 Republican presidential candidates have been nominated for Trump cabinet positions. Any thoughts on this?
I am hoping that tRump and his gaggle of weak followers end their run in 2026 and his “demise” happens sooner vs. later.
Chris - I overall agree with your assessment this may be more of a Trump coalition, and nothing more.
However, I think we must also factor in gender. According to the Reykjavik Index for Leadership (published by Forbes), the study indicated in the US, only 47% of US respondents are comfortable with having a female leader versus a male leader, the lowest level since the Index was started in 2016 (survey was from Sept. & Oct. of this year).
Donald Trump has only won elections against the only two female major party candidates, and lost against a male candidate. Further, he lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020, and is virtually tied in 2024. DJT’s vote totals did not change much between 2020 and 2024 - however, many Democratic voters stayed home instead of voting for Harris.
It begs the question - would DJT have won if he had run against a male candidate without the baggage Biden was saddled with?
I believe this adds to the assessment - it is not a sustainable coalition - just a Trump phenomenon.
Chris, I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit as well, not only in terms of whether Trump’s coalition can be transferred, but also in terms of whether it could be expanded even further in the future. I think it can be, but it won’t. Be easy for Republicans. In fact, I wrote about this last week in my weekly column for the Portland Press Herald: https://www.pressherald.com/2024/11/17/jim-fossel-election-reflections-surprises-speculation-and-a-possible-fresh-start/
What do you think about the rising questions that the election was hacked or stolen?
https://open.substack.com/pub/planetcritical/p/cyber-security-experts-warn-election-hacked?r=e18kq&utm_medium=ios
Stop the steal! Storm the Capitol on Jan.6! Hang the VP! (Oh wait ...)
Chris – Thanks for these insights, but good analysis that shows that this election showed the presence of a strong Trump coalition, but not necessarily a GOP coalition.
Agree 100%