The 2024 U.S. presidential election has taken unexpected turns, revisiting the saga of the so-called "blue wall" states which were once viewed as impenetrable to Republican challengers. This time, former President Donald Trump is making headlines again, having successfully claimed these Democrat strongholds to secure his victory over Vice President Kamala Harris. David Schultz, a political science professor at Minnesota's Hamline University, remarked, "It appears Trump has breached the blue wall, or at least enough of it, to win the presidency." But what led to this remarkable turn of events?
To understand the dynamics of this election, one cannot ignore the concept of the “red mirage.” Historically, Republican voters tend to cast their ballots on election day, often resulting in early leads for GOP candidates. Conversely, more Democrats opt for mail-in votes, which can take longer to be counted. After the polls closed, observers feared they were witnessing another red mirage, similar to what was experienced during the contentious 2020 election. Back then, Trump claimed victory prematurely, only to see Democrat Joe Biden secure his win as the mail-in votes were counted.
By early Wednesday morning, the Associated Press declared Trump the victor with 277 Electoral College votes, having won pivotal battleground states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, all part of the infamous blue wall. These states are significant as they historically voted Democrat between 1992 and 2012, but Trump flipped three of these states during the 2016 election, winning them once again this year.
A blue wall state is one where the Democrats have enjoyed consistent success over the years, including Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Following the 2020 election, Biden seemed to restore the blue wall by reclaiming these states. Yet, the tides turned again with Trump's recent victory, raising the question: how did this happen?
Trump's strategy has been multi-faceted. One key factor was the economic sentiment among voters. An early exit poll indicated 31% of voters prioritized economic issues when deciding whom to support, with many favoring Trump over Harris. Schultz argues, "Economic issues along with feelings of being ignored drove the Trump victory." He noted the Democratic campaign did not effectively convey how their policies would benefit the middle class, which may have swayed voters toward the former president.
The handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was another battleground. While Biden reclaimed swing states back four years ago largely due to perceptions of Trump’s pandemic management, polling indicated voters today appear to be moving past the pandemic's chaos. Many voters are more concerned about living costs and economic recovery. Harris's campaign failed to resonate with key demographics, primarily working-class voters who might have felt overlooked.
The candidate selection also played its part. Melissa Deckman, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, critiqued Harris's choice of running mate. She suggested the selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who hails from a predominantly Democrat state, did little to help Democrats win over swing states. Some analysts claim Harris lost not only the working class but also suburban and young voters, many of whom are wrestling with rising healthcare costs. Wisconsin, particularly, has been hit hard by the opioid crisis, leaving voters anxious and searching for solutions.
Examining how Trump managed to flip states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan shows the impact of local issues mingled with broader themes. For Pennsylvania, rather than focusing solely on women's rights and abortion issues—having campaigned heavily on the latter following the overturned Roe v. Wade—Harris neglected broader economic concerns driving her own constituents. While she managed to secure 54% of women’s votes, this was shy of Biden’s 57% back in 2020. It revealed fault lines between the Democratic narrative and the interests of working-class voters.
Wisconsin has remained fickle since flipping red following Trump’s 2016 success. This election, not surprisingly, echoed previous trends. Trump had long ago positioned himself as the champion of working-class voters who were grappling with healthcare burdens and economic stagnation. Harris's commitments to lowering prescription costs and reworking the Affordable Care Act did not seem to sway voters concerned about the immediate realities of rising costs and health crises.
When it came to Michigan, its historic complexity showed through once more. Generally, Michigan is recognized as having competitive key contests, as it has been split between sending Democrats and Republicans to office for decades. This year, demographic changes and international events, such as the conflict involving Israel and Gaza, have played significant roles. Many Arab American voters were dissatisfied with both candidates’ positions on these issues, leading some to favor third-party candidate Jill Stein, who had advocated for renewed policies concerning the conflict. This shift may have contributed to Harris’s defeat as well, with Deckman warning Harris’s campaign should have carefully considered Stein's presence and impact.
It wasn't just the choices made by the Harris campaign or the actions of Trump’s followers; it also involved the third-party impacts. Stein’s appearance on the ballot garnered notable attention, even if she didn’t capture massive wins—she pulled enough votes to raise alarms for the Democrats. Reports suggest she won notable shares of the vote, particularly within battleground states, effectively siphoning off potential votes from Harris.
Notably, local grievances persist. The opioid crisis spiraled out of control with 2022 reports citing over 1,800 overdose deaths across Wisconsin, underscoring the hopelessness residents feel. Many voiced their trepidation toward Harris’s healthcare proposals, favoring the promise of systemic change from Trump, who questioned the very structure of the Affordable Care Act.
Trump’s win, showcasing his prowess at rallying voters behind traditional conservative values, merged with rage against COVID restrictions and the growing unease surrounding economic policy shifts. The disconnect between Democratic messaging and voter sentiments suggests the Harris campaign miscalculated significantly. They could not restore the blue wall or connect deeply with voters who needed tangible solutions to their woes.
While victory celebrations herald the success of one party, they also lay bare the challenges and aspirations of numerous constituents left wondering about their futures. Many folks are likely re-evaluing their political identities after Trump's return, reflecting on lessons learned—both by Harris and the Democrats—and considering how they might respond to voices calling for change.
The road ahead remains uncertain. With litigation and potential recounts on the horizon due to the close nature of results, it’s likely America will experience extended debates on issues both candidates failed to address adequately. 2024 has demonstrated how quickly things can change, revisiting prior political debates and redefining allegiances, leaving voters with many questions about what lies at the intersection of power, policies, and progress.
