No. The swing against Trump with college educated whites, especially women, was primarily due to his personal flaws (temperament, Access Hollywood, etc) as opposed to a fundamental rejection of his policy proposals or the GOP at large. That's part of why so few republican incumbents lost their House seats in normally lean R districts where Trump narrowly lost or ran even.
What about what happened in Virgina? Incumbency didn't save most of the Clinton college educated suburban districts.
2016 was supposed to be a Republican leaning year but Donald Trump nearly screwed it up. 2018 and 2020 won't be so favorable towards these republican incumbents.
Also reminder that a socialist unseated a republican in a wealthy educated district.
I'm talking about Congress, not local elections. Republicans in VA gerrymandered the districts to have huge numbers slightly leaning R. They failed to account for how quickly immigration was turning NOVA blue and relied on the assumption that they'd keep getting Obama era results with him gone. They shot themselves in the foot there.
It's also expected that the party in the White House lose seats at lower levels. After the unprecedented gains they made under Obama, the GOP was inevitably going to slide back to equilibrium. That would be just as true if we had president Cruz or Rubio or Kasich or Bush (assuming they could have even won). I fully expect modest democrat gains in the House come 2018, but they're unlikely to get a majority. Could their anger at Trump cause a reverse 2010? Yes, but we don't know just yet and its certainly at odds with history to say fairly elastic suburban voters will never swing back to the right.
