Obama 2x-Trump 2x voters

[TML]

I recently saw someone post online about how he thinks that any voter who voted for Obama twice should not be considered lost forever for Democrats in the future. Obviously not all such voters are persuadable enough to be brought back into the Democratic fold, but what percentage of Obama 2x/Trump 2x voters do you guys think could still be won over by Democrats in the foreseeable future?

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

0-20% but that's still a significant enough group to potentially swing future elections. Especially since the people in this group are likely clustered in swing states.

[JGibson]

12% of them could be restored into the Dem coalition if the conditions are right.

[Ferguson97]

Someone who voted for Trump twice is gone for good, I'm sorry.

[TodayJunior]

Someone who voted for Trump twice is gone for good, I'm sorry.

So in your mind, Iowa, Ohio, and Florida are GONE gone? Emphasis on the last one there of course.

[Xing]

In the short term, definitely less than 20%, but getting even 5-10% of them instead of 0-1% would make a huge difference for Democrats, and depending on how Democrats play their cards, they may eventually be able to get north of 20%.

[Vice President Christian Man]

20-40% if the GOP returns to neoconservatism (maybe 40-60% if its a Dem with great working class credentials like 2008 Obama), <20% if it sticks with Trumpism or moves into another working-class friendly realm such as communitarianism. I'm pessimistic about the future of the Democratic party but I'm not an ultra partisan and I'm usually turned off by candidates who demand party or platform loyalty, probably because my platform is more aligned with some of the third parties in this country than the two major ones. Sometimes I feel like democracy is on the verge of death and in that case, it can make me very pessimistic or dreadful about voting, at least within the two-party system.

[Schiff for Senate]

0-20% or 20-40%, but likely in the lower half. Depends to an extent on who the GOP nominee is in 2024 - if Trump, he'll naturally do better with these voters than some other GOP candidate (even armed with Trump's endorsement) would.

[Ferguson97]

Someone who voted for Trump twice is gone for good, I'm sorry.

So in your mind, Iowa, Ohio, and Florida are GONE gone? Emphasis on the last one there of course.

Individual voters, not states.

Ohio and Iowa are gone for the foreseeable future though, yes. Florida has a lot more immigrants and people moving there from other states, so it's a bit of a different story.

[TodayJunior]

Someone who voted for Trump twice is gone for good, I'm sorry.

So in your mind, Iowa, Ohio, and Florida are GONE gone? Emphasis on the last one there of course.

Individual voters, not states.

Ohio and Iowa are gone for the foreseeable future though, yes. Florida has a lot more immigrants and people moving there from other states, so it's a bit of a different story.

Sure, but the sum of the parts…yadayadayada. If Dems ran a more populist campaign on economic issues, these people would be at least a 50/50 shot if not more likely to come back. These folks are not traditional conservatives or cultural warriors, so I’d argue it’s not impossible to win these places back. It’s a glaring weakness on account of the Dems’ taking the wokebait from the gop who have nothing to offer the regular people economically.

[Southern Reactionary Dem]

As an Obama 2x, Trump 1X voter..... I'd say 15%.

[Forum explorer]

Not many. Only those who were truely affected by the Capitol disaster. Or who thought Biden actually delivered on his promises.

Down ballot though, it might not be as bad. I could see some of them voting for Baldwin, Brown, Stabenow, and Casey in 2024.

[Cyrusman]

I’m one of them. Voted Obama both times followed by trump both times.

I’ll just say this and speak for myself . Under the current coalition I could never imagine myself voting for a national D.C democrat ever again. The party is WAY to far left for me now and has way more cultural, race issues that turn me off compared to 2008/2012
Of course age is a factor too. I was 18 in 08, and 22 in 2012. The 26 and 30 year versions of me are much more conservative than the 18 and 22 year old version of me

[Politician]

As somebody who used to be progressive and is now moderate-conservative, 15% or less. Most of these voters view the Democratic Party now as extreme especially with their focus on controlling people (wokeness/cancel culture, COVID lockdowns, etc).

[WPADEM]

In most cases, less than 20%. In better scenario's 20-40%. We've largely lost these voters and we really only have ourselves to blame. Most of the Obama/Trump voters were longtime Democrats who were never that Socially Liberal, yet found Republican Economic and Foreign policies not to their liking or benefit. By 2016, even as late as the Spring/Summer, the differences that these voters had with the Democratic party, its base, and the Hillary 2016 campaign were too much.

And even before Hillary and Trump, a lot of the social movements of the 2014/2015 era really antagonized these voters. They saw the Dems acting the way that they had criticized the Republicans for. And being unable (or unwilling) to fix the issues that they had criticized the Republicans for in prior decades. President Obama and his party especially came off as being negligent, if not in denial about Immigration and Terrorism, which ended up being Trump's two biggest issues.

So that's what I think and why.

[Gracile]

~10%-12% at best for the foreseeable future. I think some people underestimate the level of antipathy these voters have for the entire Democratic brand at this point (especially on the cultural front and issues like immigration), as well as the degree to which they would be unwinnable even to presidential candidates who are palatable to their sensibilities on paper.

[有爭議嘅領土 of The Figgis Agency]

~10%-12% at best for the foreseeable future. I think some people underestimate the level of antipathy these voters have for the entire Democratic brand at this point (especially on the cultural front and issues like immigration), as well as the degree to which they would be unwinnable even to presidential candidates who are palatable to their sensibilities on paper.

I would really like the Buttigieg stans on here to explain what appeal Secretary Pete might have to Latino, AAPI, and mixed-race voters (both in the Dem primaries and the general) that VP Kamala would not.

[Ferguson97]

~10%-12% at best for the foreseeable future. I think some people underestimate the level of antipathy these voters have for the entire Democratic brand at this point (especially on the cultural front and issues like immigration), as well as the degree to which they would be unwinnable even to presidential candidates who are palatable to their sensibilities on paper.

I would really like the Buttigieg stans on here to explain what appeal Secretary Pete might have to Latino, AAPI, and mixed-race voters (both in the Dem primaries and the general) that VP Kamala would not.

Non-white, particularly Black, Dems are generally more “pragmatic” in the primaries, and will support someone they think can win over white voters. Many were skeptical about Obama until he won Iowa. It’s part of the reason they supported Biden. So if they think Buttigieg is a better general election candidate than Harris (which I think he is), then they may support him.

As a matter of policy/politics, he’s much more moderate on economic issues and is pretty open about his faith, which could help him with older/moderate Black and Latino voters.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Long-term I could see it cracking 20%. Short-term, not a chance. The Democrats are too far from where they need to be in terms of messaging to win these people back.

[有爭議嘅領土 of The Figgis Agency]

~10%-12% at best for the foreseeable future. I think some people underestimate the level of antipathy these voters have for the entire Democratic brand at this point (especially on the cultural front and issues like immigration), as well as the degree to which they would be unwinnable even to presidential candidates who are palatable to their sensibilities on paper.

I would really like the Buttigieg stans on here to explain what appeal Secretary Pete might have to Latino, AAPI, and mixed-race voters (both in the Dem primaries and the general) that VP Kamala would not.

Non-white, particularly Black, Dems are generally more “pragmatic” in the primaries, and will support someone they think can win over white voters. Many were skeptical about Obama until he won Iowa. It’s part of the reason they supported Biden. So if they think Buttigieg is a better general election candidate than Harris (which I think he is), then they may support him.

As a matter of policy/politics, he’s much more moderate on economic issues and is pretty open about his faith, which could help him with older/moderate Black and Latino voters.

You completely ignored Asians, although your points on economics and religion could also apply to the AAPI Boomers and adult immigrants who get picked up in 2024 primary polls. Props for kind of answering my question.

[有爭議嘅領土 of The Figgis Agency]

I'm more curious what will happen to Obama-Obama-Trump-Trump voters who aren't non-college whites, especially since I get the impression that a large chunk of them are college-educated.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-democratic-appeals-to-the-working-class-are-unlikely-to-work/

What’s clear from the two parties’ approaches is that Republicans mainly think of the working class as a cultural and racial identity, and not an economic one. Democrats, to be sure, are also leaning into a cultural appeal when they pitch themselves to working-class voters — primarily a populist appeal bent on uniting the working class against corporate greed — but it is still rooted more in economics than any national culture-war issue.

“If you have enough money to buy a truck and have enough money to feed your family and have a four-person house, you’re certainly not struggling,” said Daniel Laurison, a sociologist at Swarthmore College. But Republicans and Trump, according to Laurison, have used confusion around class to their advantage. “Being a white person without a college degree makes you a ‘regular guy,’” said Laurison. “It doesn’t make you economically disadvantaged.”

Yet there’s still a tendency, especially among college-educated, urban workers, to assume that those kinds of cultural differences indicate a different class position and that it’s rural voters’ class position — not their cultural attitudes — driving their votes.

But this takes it as a given that the long-term trends in economic outcomes, which have affected many Americans, are what Trump’s voters are responding to. This line of thinking, though, ignores other changes in American life and politics, such as an increase in global trade, a shift toward knowledge work instead of blue-collar labor, a relatively new emphasis on sending students to college and a more expansive view of rights and equalities for racial, ethnic and gender minorities.

These rifts in the kind of work that people do, the lives they live, who their neighbors are and what they think is important are what the educational divide might be picking up as much as income. “We certainly see a lot of mistrust of the elites, of people in positions of power, business leaders and elected leaders,” said Jeffrey Jones, senior editor of Gallup. “Education is a split [that] … we hadn’t seen before.”