Politics

The false narrative at the heart of Trump’s victory over Harris

Published

1 year ago

November 11, 2024

The false narrative at the heart of Trump’s victory over Harris

Since Tuesday night’s election results were tallied, there has been a recurrent refrain as to why Democrats lost so badly — they ignored the working class, both white and nonwhite.

In what amounted to the proverbial act of coming down to the battlefield and shooting the survivors, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., labeled the Kamala Harris campaign “disastrous” and said Democrats should not be surprised that “a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.”

There are a couple of problems with Sanders’ argument. The most obvious and glaring is that it simply isn’t true that Democrats abandoned the working class.

It simply isn’t true that Democrats abandoned the working class.

During his nearly four years in office, President Joe Biden was arguably the most pro-union president since FDR. He literally walked a picket line, supported union organizing efforts, increased funding for the National Labor Relations Board. He infused $36 billion into the Teamsters Union pension plan (an act that Sanders praised).

Biden’s attention to the working class went far beyond the symbolic. The Inflation Reduction Act, the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the CHIPS Act all led to a fertile job creation environment — and a significant increase in manufacturing jobs, which declined during Donald Trump’s presidency. (It bears noting that all of this legislation passed in the U.S. Senate with the support of the senior senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.)

Indeed, since Biden took office, the U.S. economy has added more than 16 million jobs — which starkly contrasts Trump’s negative job growth rate. As for wages, the working class saw a higher increase in their pay than any other group of Americans, so much so that it undid one-third of the growth in wage inequality since 1980.

During Biden’s administration, subsidies for Obamacare grew. He forgave billions in student loan debt, much of which went to community college students. His Department of Labor changed overtime eligibility rules, boosting wages for more than 4 million workers and also increased pay for construction workers on federal projects.

Critics like Sanders would likely argue that these successes weren’t messaged properly to working-class Americans. That’s not true either. As the New Republic’s Greg Sargent pointed out earlier this week, the Harris campaign poured $200 million into ads that focused on her economic message. In fact, she outspent the Trump campaign by around $70 million on ads about the economy.

What was the content of these ads? Calls to end corporate price gouging, lower housing costs, cut middle-class taxes and protect Social Security and Medicare. Other Harris ads accused Trump of only looking out for his billionaire pals and corporations and attacked him for enacting tax cuts that were primarily directed at the wealthiest Americans.

This is the definition of an economic populist message.

Critics like Sanders would likely argue that these successes weren’t messaged properly to working-class Americans. That’s not true either.

Yet, Biden’s record and the disparity in the two candidates’ economic messages didn’t increase the party’s support among working-class voters (which are defined here as those without a college degree). Arguably, it improved Harris’ margins in swing states where these ads predominately ran, but according to preliminary exit polls, Trump won them by 14 percentage points over Harris (56%-42%), a 6-point improvement over his performance in 2020.

Harris only did one point worse than Biden among white working-class voters, but she was still mired in the low 30s with them. Instead, her losses came among the nonwhite working class, a group with which she did 16 points worse than Biden — and 26 points worse than Hillary Clinton.

In short, under Biden, Democrats adopted one of the most pro-working class policy agendas in recent political memory, enacted much of it — and accrued no electoral benefit.

As for Trump, his main economic agenda item was a pledge to increase tariffs, which by increasing costs on imported items, would have disproportionately harmed low-wage workers. Did he have a plan for lowering housing or dealing with health care? What about lowering inflation?

What Trump essentially offered the working class were attacks on undocumented immigrants, which his campaign blamed for much of the nation’s ills.

As in 2016, Trump served as a political voice channeling the fears, cultural grievances and resentments of working-class Americans — and, as has been the case for much of the past 60 years for Republicans, it worked.

Of course, it’s not just Trump. The GOP’s attention to the white working class is overwhelmingly symbolic. They offer nothing substantive on policy. They oppose expanding health care access or raising the minimum wage.

During Trump’s tenure in office, his major legislative accomplishments were a tax cut for the wealthy and the further tilting of the economic playing field in favor of corporations and not workers. While some working-class voters drifted away from him in 2020, he easily won them back in 2024 (and of course, won the majority of such voters in both elections). None of his policy positions mattered much at all.

During Trump’s tenure in office, his major accomplishments were a tax cut for the wealthy and further tilting the economic playing field in favor of corporations, not workers.

Take, for example, what happened in Missouri on Election Day. Voters in the Show Me State didn’t just narrowly support a referendum enshrining a right to abortion in the state constitution by a 58%-42% margin, they backed a ballot measure raising the minimum wage and requiring employers to provide paid sick leave. Yet, at the same time, only 40% of the state’s voters cast a ballot for Harris, who, unlike Trump, supports both policy initiatives.

Democrats are a party of “doing stuff” with an electorate utterly indifferent to the stuff they do.

As Larry Mishel, former president of Economic Policy institute, who has written extensively on politics and the working class, said, there is a glaring lack of connection between material reality, even material gains, and recognition or appreciation for such gains. “Partisanship shapes perceptions. There is simply a disconnect between policy, outcomes, and political rewards.”

Is there a path for Democrats to reverse their declining support with the working class? The short and depressing answer is that they likely can’t.

Appeals to the working class might have worked for Democrats when the Republican presidential nominee was a blue blood like Mitt Romney or even a creature of Washington like George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole. But when facing off against a racist demagogue like Trump, it’s a nearly insurmountable challenge.

Moreover, the Democrats’ political coalition is liberal and overwhelmingly Black (even with the inroads Trump made on Tuesday), which only compounds the challenge. The party can’t run against undocumented immigrants or retreat on cultural issues like guns, LGBTQ and civil rights, or abortion, which are such powerful political drivers among the working class.

In 1992, Bill Clinton could get away with naked appeals to white voters, like when he attacked the rapper Sister Souljah. Back then, the Democratic Party was around 80 percent white. Today, the number is closer to 56 percent.

Quite simply, the Democratic coalition as presently constructed doesn’t allow for the kind of political appeal that might (but probably wouldn’t) win back the working class.

Indeed, when I recently asked a red state Democrat what the national party would need to do to win over working-class Republicans, he joked, “Firebomb an abortion clinic.” The cultural divide is so intense — and Republicans are so hostile toward the left — that it’s hard to see any reasonable way for Democrats to bridge it.

If there is any path for Democrats to return to national power, it might be in doubling down on what produced such significant political gains for the party in 2018, 2020 and 2022 — college-educated suburban voters. At the same time, they need to find ways to arrest their slide with minority voters. Or considering the fact that the last four presidential elections have gone Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican —which hasn’t happened in America since the late 19th century — maybe they should just wait for an inevitable anti-Trump backlash.

But if Democrats think they can win back the loyalty of the working class, they likely should think again.

Michael A. Cohen

Michael A. Cohen is a columnist for BLN and a Senior Fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He writes the political newsletter Truth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, the most recent being “Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.”

Politics

Former ICE official falls short in Ohio battleground district GOP primary

Published

1 hour ago

May 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Former ICE official Madison Sheahan lost a GOP primary in a battleground Ohio House district on Tuesday, a relief to Republicans who worried she could sabotage their chances of flipping the seat.

Former state Rep. Derek Merrin won the GOP nomination in the 9th Congressional District for the second cycle in a row, and will face Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur in November. He lost to Kaptur by less than one percentage point in 2024.

Republicans see the seat as a prime pickup opportunity after the Ohio legislature redrew the state’s congressional map to make the district more favorable for Republicans.

Merrin’s victory comes with a sigh of relief from Republicans in the state who raised concerns about Sheahan’s background — she served as former deputy ICE director under former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — being a soft target for Kaptur in a general election.

Sheahan drew attacks from fellow Republicans in the primary for her role in overseeing President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement operations in major cities, which triggered violent confrontations and protests.

Those clashes culminated in the killing of two American citizens by immigration officials in Minneapolis. Sheahan launched her campaign days after the killing of Renee Good, but before the death of Alex Pretti.

Trump didn’t endorse ahead of the primary, but the race was defined in part by candidates seeking to be the most MAGA candidate in the field. Sheahan ran TV ads touting her role at ICE and her connection to the Trump administration. Merrin went up with an ad in the race’s final days highlighting the endorsement he received from Trump during his 2024 campaign.

Kaptur starts the general election fight with a significant resource advantage over Merrin. Federal Election Commission filings from mid-April showed Kaptur with $3.1 million in cash on hand, dwarfing Merrin’s $189,000 in reserves.

Both the DCCC and the NRCC are expected to invest significantly in the race.

Politics

‘The Kamala Harris problem’: Vance’s 2028 hopes hinge on Trump, Iowa Republicans say

Published

2 hours ago

May 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

DES MOINES, Iowa — Vice President JD Vance was greeted warmly by Republicans in Iowa on Tuesday, with would-be caucus goers and strategists optimistically curious about his potential as a 2028 presidential contender.

But first, they’re hoping he can help turn the economy around.

Vance’s fate is unavoidably linked to President Donald Trump’s. He’ll either carry the mantle of Trump’s accomplishments all the way into his own term in the White House — or be dragged down by Trump’s dismal approval ratings, which have spiraled amid an unpopular war in Iran and voters’ economic pessimism.

During Vance’s first trip as vice president to the early caucus state — where he was campaigning for Republican Rep. Zach Nunn at a rally in a manufacturing warehouse in this battleground House district — Vance’s close ties with Trump were on full display. He credited the president repeatedly for tariffs, tax cuts and agriculture industry aid. And he avoided any mention of 2028.

But his association with Trump’s agenda presents a high-risk, high-reward proposition that could make or break his political future, operatives and rallygoers said.

“That’s the risk of being part of an administration,” Iowa GOP strategist David Kochel said. “This is the Kamala Harris problem.”

Rep. Randy Feenstra, who is running for governor, said in between shaking hands with attendees that Iowans “absolutely” associate Vance with Trump and expressed confidence that the White House can deliver outcomes that benefit the state.

“We’re all in this together,” he said. “We trust Trump and the vice president and what they’re doing, and things are going to be great.”

Republicans in Iowa are loath to turn their back on Trump, the 2024 caucus winner who remains deeply popular among the base. Faded Trump-Vance campaign signs still line the rural roads around the state, and Iowa Republicans said they remained largely optimistic that Trump, with Vance by his side, can steer the economy in the right direction.

In a brief post-rally interview, Nunn said part of the benefit of the vice president’s trip was allowing Iowa Republican officials to “share what they want to see out of the next leader in 2028.”

But Americans’ patience for the administration’s economic policy to have a positive effect is wearing thin. A Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll released on Sunday found 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy and 76 percent disapprove of Trump’s handling of cost of living issues. And even as Vance blamed former President Joe Biden’s administration for the teetering economy, an April POLITICO Poll found 46 percent of Americans feel Trump bears at least some responsibility for the state of the economy.

And the economic effects of Trump’s policies are particularly hard felt in Iowa’s vast agriculture industry. Trump’s tariff regime blocked off markets that had been reliable purchasers of U.S. agriculture goods, while the war in Iran has spiked the cost of diesel, which farmers depend on heavily.

Jake Chapman, a former president of the Iowa Senate who has advised multiple Republican presidential candidates in Iowa, said the conflict and the trade negotiations with other countries are top of mind for Iowa Republicans.

“A lot of people are thinking about foreign policy in particular, and how that impacts ag inputs and our agriculture economy,” he said.

In his speech, Vance acknowledged that the Trump administration hasn’t fully delivered on its economic promises. “We got a lot more work to do,” Vance told the crowd of hundreds. “We recognize that work. We’re excited about that work. That’s why you sent us to Washington, D.C.”

Still, those negative feelings towards Trump appear to be spilling over to Vance. That same poll found 48 percent of Americans disapprove of Vance — slightly worse than other senior Trump administration officials, including FBI Director Kash Patel, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and fellow potential 2028 candidate Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Rubio’s ascension in the 2028 shadow primary — both in the eyes of Americans and in standing with Trump’s inner circle — further complicates Vance’s path to the nomination. Eric Branstad, the son of former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad and adviser to Trump’s three presidential campaigns in Iowa, said Vance’s portfolio may not resonate with Iowans as much as Rubio’s in an administration juggling multiple high-profile foreign conflicts.

“They’ve watched the secretary of state completely perform. He’s been put in all of the tough spots, and he has overperformed,” Branstad said. “The vice president is performing great. It’s just not been as noticeable as the secretary of state.”

Vance, however, has gotten an early start on building a campaign infrastructure, should he so choose to activate it. He has been a frequent surrogate and fundraiser for the GOP’s midterm operation and has campaigned for Republicans in battleground seats around the country. On Tuesday, he voted in Ohio’s competitive 1st District GOP primary and headlined a fundraiser in Oklahoma before travelling to Iowa.

“He’s the man who’s leading the charge to win the midterms,” Nunn said during his remarks.

Even as Vance stayed focused on this year’s elections on Tuesday, some Republicans are ready to look beyond the midterms. GOP gubernatorial candidate Adam Steen said on the outskirts of the rally he thinks Iowa Republicans are eager to organize around the next generation of party leadership.

“I don’t know why not just start talking about 2028,” Steen said. “We need to know who we’re going to be getting behind. And if they did that now, I don’t think it’d offend anybody. I think it’d be a great thing.”

The vice president’s office declined to comment on Vance’s thinking about a future presidential campaign.

Whether or not the vice president can carry the ideological torch for Trump’s political movement may depend on how closely Vance — or any 2028 hopeful — can align with Trump. Iowa GOP Chair Jeff Kaufmann said at the rally he doesn’t believe the next Republican presidential nominee necessarily has to appeal directly to Trump’s base to be successful.

“The Republican Party is multifaceted,” Kaufmann said. “We have MAGA voters… We have Christian evangelicals, we have business, we have Libertarians. I think all of them together are going to unite around some of the basic principles that everybody shares.”

Yet being Trump’s vice president brings certain advantages with Republican voters. Even if Vance isn’t afforded the goodwill that brought the president a dominant wire-to-wire favorite in the 2024 Republican primaries, Kochel said Vance “gets one of the gold tickets” in the contest.

“[Vance] will be the front-runner going into any caucuses that we have here in Iowa,” GOP governor candidate and state Rep. Eddie Andrews said on the sidelines of Tuesday’s rally.

But Iowa caucusgoers are notoriously scrupulous when vetting future world leaders. And Nunn acknowledged that Vance will at some point need to forge his own path to leading the party.

“Nobody can walk in Donald Trump’s footsteps, because it’s Donald Trump,” Nunn said.