Can Democrats keep Hillary margins with wealthy/college educated whites while...

[Pragmatic Conservative]

continuing to moving to the left on economical issues?

Both these trends at least appear to be happening based on 2016 but at least in theory seem to be contradictory. So is their a certain point that if Democrats continues to move left on economics that these voters will just go back to the Republican Party or are they really that open to more leftist policies? I seriously cant see how Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders would do that well in most wealthier suburbs.

[Young Conservative]

No they cannot. They can only campaign with "anti-Trump" rhetoric as long as he is the standard bearer of the party. Eventually, he will no longer be in office and the Democrats will have allowed themselves to move too far left. Republicans will gain in the suburbs at this point; universal healthcare and high taxes are not something upper middle class Americans care for. Regardless, most upper middle Americans are still Republicans.

[Karpatsky]

Only if the Republicans continue to nominate Trump-style candidates.

That said, it's conceivable in the medium-run, because much of the increase in suburban population these days is people from more urban areas moving outwards. While part of Clinton's success was anti-Trump voting, I wouldn't be surprised if a part of it was newly-successful yuppies who were still in college or in the cities in 2012. That cohort would likely still vote for a Sanders type.

[Nyvin]

No they cannot. They can only campaign with "anti-Trump" rhetoric as long as he is the standard bearer of the party. Eventually, he will no longer be in office and the Democrats will have allowed themselves to move too far left. Republicans will gain in the suburbs at this point; universal healthcare and high taxes are not something upper middle class Americans care for. Regardless, most upper middle Americans are still Republicans.

Actually the young people in the country are still to the left of most official democrats.   By the time Trump is out of office (if he makes it to 2020...) then the voters will have moved further left as a result of the younger gens replacing the older ones.

[RINO Tom]

They could continue to keep "high margins" (Hillary's were high for a Democrat, but she still lost these two groups, let us not forget) with "these groups," but there will be lurking variables.  While there is certainly room for short-term growth for Democrats among affluent voters who usually vote GOP, any perceived continuation of these trends will likely have more to do with the fact that Millennials are more likely to be college-educated in the first place, and they also are more liberal.  So, yes, Democrats can continue to do well with college-educated Whites while moving left on economics, but that will largely have to do with the fact that the "college-educated Whites" voting in 2024 will be very different people than the ones who voted in, say, 2004.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

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.

[Virginiá]

Yes, up to a point. Erosion may occur as white Millennial college graduates get older - as in, maybe 50+. I think it will hinge largely on whether they believe Democrats are successful in whatever they are doing, and exactly what the tax/spending situation looks like then.

But if people think these voters are just going to dip out practically overnight, they will probably be disappointed. Future white college graduates will be dominated by Millennials and gen z voters, who are already liberal/looking to be liberal-leaning, so in order for them to move out of the Democratic camp, they'll need to break likely decades of partisan allegiance. That is hard to do.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Probably. What's the alternative, voting for deranged neo-Nazi-defending, pedophiliac-justifying, anti-intellectualistic, faux-populist, rage machines in the name of tax cuts on top of our already fairly low taxes? LOL

     It seems hard to believe that a permanent vacuum can exist in the center of the political spectrum. At some point (coming almost certainly after Trump leaves office, granted), the currently rabid levels of partisanship will de-escalate and the Republicans will move away from Trumpism and back towards more measured forms of right-wing politics. Whether the Democrats also make a move to the center is less clear. This change in partisan dynamics will make it difficult for Sanders or other members of the progressive wing to maintain strong margins with college-educated whites.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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.

[Nyvin]

Probably. What's the alternative, voting for deranged neo-Nazi-defending, pedophiliac-justifying, anti-intellectualistic, faux-populist, rage machines in the name of tax cuts on top of our already fairly low taxes? LOL

     It seems hard to believe that a permanent vacuum can exist in the center of the political spectrum. At some point (coming almost certainly after Trump leaves office, granted), the currently rabid levels of partisanship will de-escalate and the Republicans will move away from Trumpism and back towards more measured forms of right-wing politics. Whether the Democrats also make a move to the center is less clear. This change in partisan dynamics will make it difficult for Sanders or other members of the progressive wing to maintain strong margins with college-educated whites.

What can possibly give you the idea that Republicans will move away from the alt right??   They just elected Roy Moore as their candidate in Alabama even after Trump told them not to!

You have moderate Reps like Flake, Dent and Lobiondo retiring left and right and everything we see on the table right now shows the fringe becoming more and more powerful as time goes on.
 

[Karpatsky]

Probably. What's the alternative, voting for deranged neo-Nazi-defending, pedophiliac-justifying, anti-intellectualistic, faux-populist, rage machines in the name of tax cuts on top of our already fairly low taxes? LOL

     It seems hard to believe that a permanent vacuum can exist in the center of the political spectrum. At some point (coming almost certainly after Trump leaves office, granted), the currently rabid levels of partisanship will de-escalate and the Republicans will move away from Trumpism and back towards more measured forms of right-wing politics. Whether the Democrats also make a move to the center is less clear. This change in partisan dynamics will make it difficult for Sanders or other members of the progressive wing to maintain strong margins with college-educated whites.

What can possibly give you the idea that Republicans will move away from the alt right??   They just elected Roy Moore as their candidate in Alabama even after Trump told them not to!

You have moderate Reps like Flake, Dent and Lobiondo retiring left and right and everything we see on the table right now shows the fringe becoming more and more powerful as time goes on.
 

There is a strong 'alt-right' contingent in the Republican party, but it's not the whole. It really depends on who is winning the nominations; it was entirely possible for Trump to have lost the nomination to a more conventional candidate, just as the primaries in VA and AL between 'alt-right' and more conventional candidates were fairly close. It's true the party as a whole is moving in that direction, but there are other factions.

[mvd10]

All depends on the Republican candidate. Against Trump/Moore/McDaniel? Absolutely. Against Jeb!? Probably not. But postgraduates who identify with the Democratic party actually are the most liberal voters (the higher educated a self-identified Democrat is, the more left-wing he/she is). Within the Republican coalition there isn't really a correlation between education and economic views though (except on questions about the "system"). So overall high-educated voters actually are quite supportive of a left-wing economic agenda.

But wealthy voters and high-educated voters are 2 entirely different groups, I suspect a very left-wing Democratic party would still do pretty well with postgraduate whites but it would do much worse with wealthy whites. You already can see this in a lot of countries (including the US) where high-educated voters usually lean slightly to the left while wealthy voters lean clearly towards the right even though most high-educated voters tend to be wealthy and vice versa. I think during the 2017 elections in the UK Labour (led by literal socialist Jeremy Corbyn) won the university educated vote 49-32 while the Tories still won 60+% of the very wealthy voters (I guess Labour got 20% or so). I guess this is the effect of wealthy old people who never attended university voting Tory and young poor people who got into university voting Labour.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Probably. What's the alternative, voting for deranged neo-Nazi-defending, pedophiliac-justifying, anti-intellectualistic, faux-populist, rage machines in the name of tax cuts on top of our already fairly low taxes? LOL

     It seems hard to believe that a permanent vacuum can exist in the center of the political spectrum. At some point (coming almost certainly after Trump leaves office, granted), the currently rabid levels of partisanship will de-escalate and the Republicans will move away from Trumpism and back towards more measured forms of right-wing politics. Whether the Democrats also make a move to the center is less clear. This change in partisan dynamics will make it difficult for Sanders or other members of the progressive wing to maintain strong margins with college-educated whites.

What can possibly give you the idea that Republicans will move away from the alt right??   They just elected Roy Moore as their candidate in Alabama even after Trump told them not to!

You have moderate Reps like Flake, Dent and Lobiondo retiring left and right and everything we see on the table right now shows the fringe becoming more and more powerful as time goes on.
 

     Roy Moore is firmly entrenched in the Religious Right, which is a different beast from the alt-right. Not necessarily a good one, mind you, but the Religious Right has historically proven somewhat more amenable to establishment control and avoids many of the problems that Trumpism has created (albeit advantages that Roy Moore himself does not embody). Your post seems to suppose that there exists some unified "fringe", which is really not the case.

[Adam Griffin]

If the suburbanites' support levels in 2020 hold generally where they were in 2016, then even in 2024, there will not be a 1:1 snap-back of the rubber band, so to speak. A certain portion of it is going to bake in regardless in such a scenario.

That's arguably the one good thing about suffering this in-flux of atlas.txt "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" types flooding into the party; in 10 years' time, the loyal ones won't vote differently based on whether it's Bernienomics or whatever (at least in a general election).

[Virginiá]

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 think people really underestimate just how little policy can matter in some elections. Not to say it's completely meaningless, but America's electorate is not filled with people who sit down, carefully analyze their choices and make choices independent of partisan considerations. Absolutely not. It's more like, "I've chosen my team, and I'm going to say I'm open to all candidates but that's bs." Like Griff said - if these voters do end up sticking around in 2020, odds are a lot, imo most, will not just snap back in the future. Policy is not going to matter, just like it doesn't seem to matter for millions of Republicans who constantly puzzle liberals by seemingly voting against their self-interest for years and years. At best, it'll probably be a situation where certain demographics do end up trending the other way, but it's a generational movement and not people suddenly waking up and thinking, "hey, I'm going to vote Republican/Democrat."

I'd also note that this is why I don't really like the progressive argument of "we need WWC because upscale/college educated whites are going to screw us on policy." I just don't see it playing out like that.

[mvd10]

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 think people really underestimate just how little policy can matter in some elections. Not to say it's completely meaningless, but America's electorate is not filled with people who sit down, carefully analyze their choices and make choices independent of partisan considerations. Absolutely not. It's more like, "I've chosen my team, and I'm going to say I'm open to all candidates but that's bs." Like Griff said - if these voters do end up sticking around in 2020, odds are a lot, imo most, will not just snap back in the future. Policy is not going to matter, just like it doesn't seem to matter for millions of Republicans who constantly puzzle liberals by seemingly voting against their self-interest for years and years. At best, it'll probably be a situation where certain demographics do end up trending the other way, but it's a generational movement and not people suddenly waking up and thinking, "hey, I'm going to vote Republican/Democrat."

I'd also note that this is why I don't really like the progressive argument of "we need WWC because upscale/college educated whites are going to screw us on policy." I just don't see it playing out like that.

But if policy matters so little, then why did these voters (who presumably voted for the Republicans in nearly all elections pre-2016) change their votes in 2016? I guess Trump's behaviour played a bigger role than his policies but if these voters weren't tribalistically Republican enough to vote Trump in 2016 I doubt they will become tribalistically Democratic to the point they're not even going to vote for a Pence/Cotton/Haley anymore even though they would have voted for such a candidate in 2016. The only way I see these people remaining Democratic is if they like some progressives fear "screw us on policy" (and at that point I'd probably also become a Democrat ).

[Virginiá]

But if policy matters so little, then why did these voters (who presumably voted for the Republicans in nearly all elections pre-2016) change their votes in 2016? I guess Trump's behaviour played a bigger role than his policies but if these voters weren't tribalistically Republican enough to vote Trump in 2016 I doubt they will become tribalistically Democratic to the point they're not even going to vote for a Pence/Cotton/Haley anymore even though they would have voted for such a candidate in 2016. The only way I see these people remaining Democratic is if they like some progressives fear "screw us on policy" (and at that point I'd probably also become a Democrat ).

It's quite possible a lot of the ongoing change is related to white Millennial grads continuing to displace older white college grads. Last I recall from an Atlantic piece, the education divide is strong among Millennials as well, so it makes perfect sense to think that as they grow up, it would shift white college graduates along with them. As for white college grads that were previously Republican-leaning, it's also not a stretch to think that their connection to the GOP was already on tenuous ground pre-Trump, kind of like Democrats and some WWCs. Obama being president and rather unpopular most of the time made it easy for them to maintain that connection. Now that that is no longer the case, and the spotlight is on a deeply unpopular and personally repulsive Republican president, it's allowed the separation between various white college grads and the party to solidify. It's similar to how in Virginia, many Republican delegates held Obama/Clinton districts - some even double digit Obama districts, and yet they kept winning because an unpopular Democratic president demoralized Democrats and made it hard for Virginia Democratic candidates win over other voters. Now that the script has flipped, a massive correction occurred and districts Republicans were destined to lose finally fell.

I actually posted an article with some polling data on Trump supporter's extensive malleability with policy preferences, depending on what they were told Trump supported. The gist was that if Trump supported more liberal policies, these voters would also support more liberal policies, and vice versa. This isn't a new concept, either. It's been shown that many voters will take cues from the political leaders they support. You may think of it along the lines as, "I support the Republican Party, and I'm not a policy expert. If they say this will help, I believe them." Of course, there are some exceptions. Immigration seems to be one for some voters, although I'm not sure to what extent. For instance it doesn't seem most Trump supporters care about his wall, and I think most even supported a pathway to citizenship.

[Devils30]

I think eventually you'll start to see a divide among state school and Ivy grads. The former will be more receptive to the Bernie and demand education reform. If the Dems do things right, it will result in massive student loan reform, investment in public education. At least a partial student loan bailout would probably be in the Dems best interest (a structured one, not a no strings attached scheme). Something that will help stimulate the housing market. The agenda should also include increased taxes on wealthy baby boomers living large on investments while paying low taxes. Stuff like this might annoy the Harvard crowd but is good for the party. The Dems would be wise to invest in their soon to grow NC/GA/FL/AZ/TX wing instead of being the party of NYC/Chicago and DC.

[mvd10]

But if policy matters so little, then why did these voters (who presumably voted for the Republicans in nearly all elections pre-2016) change their votes in 2016? I guess Trump's behaviour played a bigger role than his policies but if these voters weren't tribalistically Republican enough to vote Trump in 2016 I doubt they will become tribalistically Democratic to the point they're not even going to vote for a Pence/Cotton/Haley anymore even though they would have voted for such a candidate in 2016. The only way I see these people remaining Democratic is if they like some progressives fear "screw us on policy" (and at that point I'd probably also become a Democrat ).

It's quite possible a lot of the ongoing change is related to white Millennial grads continuing to displace older white college grads. Last I recall from an Atlantic piece, the education divide is strong among Millennials as well, so it makes perfect sense to think that as they grow up, it would shift white college graduates along with them. As for white college grads that were previously Republican-leaning, it's also not a stretch to think that their connection to the GOP was already on tenuous ground pre-Trump, kind of like Democrats and some WWCs. Obama being president and rather unpopular most of the time made it easy for them to maintain that connection. Now that that is no longer the case, and the spotlight is on a deeply unpopular and personally repulsive Republican president, it's allowed the separation between various white college grads and the party to solidify. It's similar to how in Virginia, many Republican delegates held Obama/Clinton districts - some even double digit Obama districts, and yet they kept winning because an unpopular Democratic president demoralized Democrats and made it hard for Virginia Democratic candidates win over other voters. Now that the script has flipped, a massive correction occurred and districts Republicans were destined to lose finally fell.

I actually posted an article with some polling data on Trump supporter's extensive malleability with policy preferences, depending on what they were told Trump supported. The gist was that if Trump supported more liberal policies, these voters would also support more liberal policies, and vice versa. This isn't a new concept, either. It's been shown that many voters will take cues from the political leaders they support. You may think of it along the lines as, "I support the Republican Party, and I'm not a policy expert. If they say this will help, I believe them." Of course, there are some exceptions. Immigration seems to be one for some voters, although I'm not sure to what extent. For instance it doesn't seem most Trump supporters care about his wall, and I think most even supported a pathway to citizenship.

I was referring to longtime Republicans who defected in 2016. I agree that most college-educated young whites who hated Bush and Trump will mostly remain Democratic, though I do belief they will shift somewhat to the right, the Republican party has to do something to try to appeal to them or they're screwed in the 2030s. See it as the invisible hand of the political free market (but I agree that the vast majority of them will remain D for the rest of their lives, which should worry the Republicans).

Normally I'd say that the political future of college-educated whites depends on the hot-button issues of the future. If cultural issues are important they trend D, if economic issues are important they trend R. You can see this pattern a lot in Europe (including in the Netherlands). I'm not sure whether this pattern holds true to the US though. The 2012 election was dominated by economic issues and college-educated whites actually trended R more than the WWC 2008-2012 (51%-56% vs 58%-62%), and the wealthy also trended R hard (49%-55% vs 49%-52% for people earning $50k-$100k and 38%-38% for people earning under $50k). But the wealthy already trended D hard 2004-2008 so that probably just was a regression to the mean. And the 2008 election also focused heavily on economic issues, so by my theory 2008 also should have seen the wealthy trend R. Then again, Obama is the literal opposite of rural whites in VA/WV (a black eloquent Harvard-educated lawyer) so perhaps his mere presence was a cultural issue (and by 2012 people would be more used to a president like Obama).

Anyway, these college-educated whites saw what Trump was saying (or how he was saying it) and they were independent enough to vote D even though they probably had voted Republican in all elections except perhaps 2008. I don't think they'll blindly follow Bernie after this. It depends on the Republican nominee post-Trump. If it's LePage or Palin these people probably will become solid D (and Clinton basically was a gateway drug), but if it's Pence I can see the majority of them flipping back. But realigning presidents usually have to be succesful presidents, I can't see Trump being a successful president (instead he'll likely end up discrediting "Trumpism") so I don't think the GOP will become a right-wing populist party in the European sense after Trump leaves with a 35% approval rating.

And I'd like to say one more time that wealthy voters are very different from college-educated voters even though there is a lot of overlap. I can see the Democrats doing very well with college-educated voters even while trending to the left, I definitely can't see them winning the wealthy under Bernie or Warren (except if they face Trump/someone dragged down by Trump with his 35% approval rating, but they'd still be significantly more Republican than the national average).

[Devils30]

At this point, I don't see Pence getting their votes back. Look at the VA Gov election, the GOP performance with these people regressed even more. The GOP is probably fine with the top 1% but they are in big trouble with upper middle class types in places like Morris County, NJ, Cobb County, GA. These incomes are mainly 150-400k, well off but going to get a tax increase  while their next door neighbor with the biggest home on the street benefits. The R voters in this category are also less socially conservative, making a GOP appeal on cultural issues unlikely to work. Cheaper college is something that really appeals to this group, the student loan system problem has crept into the upper middle class as well.

[Skill and Chance]

At this point, I don't think they are going anywhere unless the 25% income tax bracket literally becomes 50%.

[dw93]

It depends. If Trump loses and the GOP goes in a more libertarian direction (Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative), then no and I would dare say a more libertarian GOP would force a lot of non college Educated Working Class Whites back into the Democratic party as they would be forced to vote their economic interests rather than vote on Cultural/Social issues.

Even if f the GOP merely goes back to it's Reagan/Bush era roots after a Trump loss in 2020, I still think the Democrats would lose the wealthy College educated white vote, although with Millennials coming of age under Bush and early Gen Zrs now coming of age under Trump, that voting block will be close, and this is whether the GOP goes Libertarian or mainstream conservative.

The only way I can see the Democrats keeping Hillary's margins with Wealthy College Educated Whites or dare I say expanding them, is if Trump wins a second term and Nationalist Right Wing Populism takes route in the GOP. 

[RINO Tom]

It depends. If Trump loses and the GOP goes in a more libertarian direction (Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative), then no and I would dare say a more libertarian GOP would force a lot of non college Educated Working Class Whites back into the Democratic party as they would be forced to vote their economic interests rather than vote on Cultural/Social issues.

Even if f the GOP merely goes back to it's Reagan/Bush era roots after a Trump loss in 2020, I still think the Democrats would lose the wealthy College educated white vote, although with Millennials coming of age under Bush and early Gen Zrs now coming of age under Trump, that voting block will be close, and this is whether the GOP goes Libertarian or mainstream conservative.

The only way I can see the Democrats keeping Hillary's margins with Wealthy College Educated Whites or dare I say expanding them, is if Trump wins a second term and Nationalist Right Wing Populism takes route in the GOP.

I mean, they have never won it!  LOL.  But I get what you mean.

[RINO Tom]

^Not necessarily true. Data analysis by CES (?) or someone said Crooked H was the first Democrat to win college-educated whites, and by a decent 2-point margin.

Interesting and not totally unbelievable.  Either way, I am guessing that was within the MOE and the exit polls said otherwise (people use the exit polls for all kinds of things until they say something they have a hard time believing, it seems ... not saying you), so I think it might be fair to say it was a tie?  I also would wager that "wealthy college-educated Whites" voted decidedly Republican if it was tied, as I'm guessing most lower-middle-class Whites with a degree leaned left.  It will be interesting to see how they vote in the 2018 exit polls for sure.

[mvd10]

Exit polls said Trump won them 48-45 or so. Still an abmysal performance from the Republican candidate, and if Trump doesn't stfu soon it will be worse in 2020. Luckily Hope Hicks or some other Trump aide will save the country and we'll have Magic Mike aka smarter Dubya aka 55% of the college-educated white vote soon .