With the dust settling after the 2024 US presidential election, the narrative around Donald Trump's surprising victory is gaining traction. Many observers are trying to decipher how Trump managed to flip key states and secure more than 270 electoral votes, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris. Surprisingly, he did this by breaching what’s known as the "blue wall," states traditionally secured by Democrats. Understanding this phenomenon is more than just recounting ballots; it involves delving deep down to the roots of political dynamics, economic sentiments, and demographic shifts.
Throughout the election night coverage, notable voices emerged, one being journalist Katie Couric. Couric, right before the results began trickling in, cautioned voters about what she referred to as the "red mirage." This term describes the effect where rural, predominantly Republican areas report their votes early, often leading to misleading results until more urban, Democratic votes are counted. It was her way of telling people not to panic at the early announcements favoring Trump, as the final numbers could shift significantly as urban ballots came flooding in.
Despite these warnings, it soon became clear on election night itself: Trump wasn't just winning; he was claiming back previously blue strongholds, turning the favorable early figures for Harris on its head. Just as Couric had explained, many Democrats came to realize the hard way what the red mirage truly meant – it wasn’t so much about panic but rather adjusting to the new realities of the electoral map.
The states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan were pivotal battlegrounds where Trump’s appeal shattered the blue wall. Each of these states had previously tilted Democratic but saw different socioeconomic dynamics at play this election. David Schultz, a political science professor at Hamline University, echoed this sentiment, noting, “It appears Trump has breached the blue wall, or at least enough of it, to win the presidency.”
Initially, the electoral map mirrored earlier electoral patterns from 2020, where Democrats anticipated dominance thanks to large numbers of mail-in ballots. But as it turned out, this time, different circumstances led to unexpected changes. Trump crossed the Electoral College threshold much earlier than many analysts had predicted. By Wednesday morning, the Associated Press called Michigan, wrapping Trump's electoral count to 277 votes—his definitive win.
The term “blue wall” refers to those states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, which consistently voted Democrat from 1992 to 2012, making them solid blue states. Yet, during the 2016 electoral upset, Trump managed to flip several of these states to red, prompting deep concerns within the Democratic Party for future elections. Joe Biden managed to reclaim those states back for Democrats during the 2020 election, leading many to believe the blue wall had returned. This confidence has now suffered another blow.
The 2024 election results revealed Trump winning Pennsylvania by two percentage points, securing 19 electoral votes. Wisconsin wasn't far behind, with Trump edging out Harris by 0.9 percentage points, capturing another 10 electoral votes. Michigan, carrying 15 electoral votes, also swung yellowway, enhancing Trump’s overall count.
So, what led to this shift? Many analysts point to economic concerns. Voters felt increasingly constricted by rising living costs. Untersuchungen of national exit polls revealed 31% of voters prioritized economic issues over Harris’s strong stance on women’s rights post-Roe v. Wade. "Economic issues, along with feelings of being ignored, drove the Trump victory," noted Schultz. "Democrats failed to execute well, focusing too much on abortion as opposed to the middle class’s economic hardships."
Plus, demographics played a role. The socio-economic status of people affected by rising healthcare costs significantly influenced voting decisions, especially within Wisconsin, where the opioid epidemic loomed large. The crisis led many voters to feel abandoned by both parties, with those affected more likely to align with the candidate promising to address these pressing issues. Harris's plan included lowering prescription drug costs and strengthening the Affordable Care Act, yet these messages didn't seem to resonate effectively, leaving many voters claiming they didn’t feel seen or heard.
Michigan posed another complication for Harris, particularly among Arab American voters. With Michigan being home to over 200,000 Arab Americans, the war on Gaza significantly influenced local political opinions. Amid widespread condemnation from both candidates over the conflict, many Arab American voters chose to abstain from Harris as both candidates appeared dismissive of their concerns. Many of these voters opted for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who campaigned on pledging immediate ceasefires and accountability for Israel.
Changes made on the Democrats’ side also drew scrutiny. Harris’s choice of running mate, Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota, came under fire for not helping the campaign win over any swing states. Melissa Deckman, political scientist and CEO of Public Religion Research Institute, pointed out several Democratic strategies leading up to the election could have been pivotal decisions gone wrong. Harris lost ground, particularly among working-class voters, young people, and women, primarily because the campaign could not effectively communicate how their policies would directly help. "It’s about making messages resonate, and the Harris campaign missed the boat," she said.
Through Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, the narrative weaves through working-class discontentment, healthcare concerns, and demographic specific-strategies gone awry. The electoral map may look different post-election, but each of these states now reflects the consequences of decisions made long before ballots were cast.
Trump's victory has also reignited discussions about the electoral strategies moving forward for both parties. For Republicans, securing the trust of communities previously thought unreachable reignites confidence, cementing Trump’s influence within the party. For Democrats, the emphasis must shift toward meeting the needs of the electorate and reevaluative what their constituents need to feel heard.
Lessons learned from this election will bounce back and forth on social media, political platforms, and within party meetings as both sides analyze the shifts they've experienced. With midterms looming and another presidential campaign just around the corner, both parties must engage, learn, adapt, and potentially redefine their narratives to regain support from voters disillusioned by campaigning tactics and unmet promises. How exactly they’ll approach this task remains to be seen, but it’s certain the 2024 results will echo loudly as both parties seek to adapt to the major shifts and challenges presented by the modern electorate.
