At a very distant glance, it appears there were a few states (Ohio and Florida, namely) where Trump made his "typical" gains with Whites without a college degree (won't indulge the idea of calling this entire group "working class") while also holding on to quite a bit of suburban support. In other words, he made his usual gains for a Republican vs. Clinton while stopping a lot of the bleeding that we saw in other places with suburban voters.
White "working-class" voters gave Trump approximately two-thirds of their votes, if I am not mistaken. And it cannot be denied that his margins and turnout among those voters helped him in Ohio and Florida. Arguably, if they had not turned out in the Florida Panhandle, he would have lost the state to Clinton.I know you're kind of on a Realignment 2016/2018 roll here, but your response makes literally zero sense in response to what I wrote. It would be normal to expect Trump to, yes, match his usual gains with "WWC" voters in Florida; it would NOT be normal to expect him to match Romney's suburban support and support among college graduates ... Trump won 49% of college grads to Clinton's 46% in Florida (and, when you take out postgrads - a group that was strongly Democratic before Trump - he won 54%-42%), and he won 62% of White college grads, a negligible difference from his support among "WWC" voters in Florida.
Trump won Florida because he both made his expected gains - among "WWC" voters and rural voters - that he made everywhere else and because he ALSO didn't have anywhere near his usual losses we saw in other places - among suburbanites and White college grads.
