Opinion: The MAGA Movement is not sustainable!

[2016]

In a few years time it will be GONE! The Republican Party need something that is sustainable, a governing Coalition and MAGA isn't one of it!

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

This is just a banal fact. Trump is the movement, and the Republican Party has no real plan for a post-Trump world.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This is just a banal fact. Trump is the movement, and the Republican Party has no real plan for a post-Trump world.

We milked the Reagan cow for forty years, they’ll do the same with Trump.

[President Johnson]

I knew this was a 2016 threaf from the exclamation mark at the end.

Like it or not, the MAGA Movement is the pulse of the Republican Party these days and it will take a long time to for that to eventually fade away. It will long outlast Trump and actually didn't even start under his watch. He was just the perfect messager and came just in time after there was a lot of backlash to a black man becoming president and serving a full two terms.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

This is just a banal fact. Trump is the movement, and the Republican Party has no real plan for a post-Trump world.

We milked the Reagan cow for forty years, they’ll do the same with Trump.

Reagon won 49 states when he ran for re-election, and nearly 59% of the popular vote. Heck of a lot more milk in that cow to start with.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

This is just a banal fact. Trump is the movement, and the Republican Party has no real plan for a post-Trump world.

We milked the Reagan cow for forty years, they’ll do the same with Trump.

Reagan never staged a coup

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This is just a banal fact. Trump is the movement, and the Republican Party has no real plan for a post-Trump world.

We milked the Reagan cow for forty years, they’ll do the same with Trump.

Reagan never staged a coup

Surely you meant to add "in the United States".

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

This is just a banal fact. Trump is the movement, and the Republican Party has no real plan for a post-Trump world.

We milked the Reagan cow for forty years, they’ll do the same with Trump.

Reagan never staged a coup

Surely you meant to add "in the United States".

You’re right, but, to republicans, that’s a positive.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This is just a banal fact. Trump is the movement, and the Republican Party has no real plan for a post-Trump world.

We milked the Reagan cow for forty years, they’ll do the same with Trump.

Reagan never staged a coup

What coup are you speaking of? You mean the events that took place the day I was banned? Look, we all drank too much Pabst Blue Ribbon and went into the capital. So what! Big deal!

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

I knew this was a 2016 threaf from the exclamation mark at the end.

Like it or not, the MAGA Movement is the pulse of the Republican Party these days and it will take a long time to for that to eventually fade away. It will long outlast Trump and actually didn't even start under his watch. He was just the perfect messager and came just in time after there was a lot of backlash to a black man becoming president and serving a full two terms.

The problem was Bush being a large disaster, overseeing a really bad recession, a disastrous war, etc. The Republican voters felt anger at the establishment after and first went with the Tea Party, then Trump.

[Alben Barkley]

2016's threads are fascinating to me. It's like watching someone in Jonestown with a shot of Kool-Aid in their hands, pulled to their face ready to drink, suddenly realize in horror "Wait a minute... This is a cult!"

Welcome to reality, my friend. I can forgive you for going through the pain of cognitive dissonance that has led you to support DeSantis out of desperation. It's not easy to escape a cult, after all. Pretty soon I suspect you'll realize DeSanctimonious is a charlatan too, little if any better than Trump, and FULLY embrace reality.

[Inmate Trump]

This is just a banal fact. Trump is the movement, and the Republican Party has no real plan for a post-Trump world.

We milked the Reagan cow for forty years, they’ll do the same with Trump.

Reagan had mass appeal and what was widely viewed as a successful presidency. He appealed to many demographics and across the spectrum. Trump can’t even win a majority vote; his support lies solely with the MAGA crowd and reluctant Republicans. Trump has no mass appeal, and a clear majority of the nation’s electorate has voted against him in two presidential elections, plus went against him out of spite in two midterms.

If you want to sail that ship go for it.

[TodayJunior]

This is just a banal fact. Trump is the movement, and the Republican Party has no real plan for a post-Trump world.

We milked the Reagan cow for forty years, they’ll do the same with Trump.

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It shouldn't be sustainable but sadly our political system and the Republican Party's enabling of it may keep it that way for the foreseeable future. There is a an essential question that needs to be asked of how and when the GOP moves on him from though, and I don't have an answer for that.

[Vosem]

The MAGA movement isn't even really coherent.

But the current Ameriright political strategy, which is built off using their current large advantages in the judiciary and Senate to push gradual norm changes? Going by historical rates of change in the American federal judiciary and then being generous to progressives, that's sustainable through the 2070s or so.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The MAGA movement isn't even really coherent.

But the current Ameriright political strategy, which is built off using their current large advantages in the judiciary and Senate to push gradual norm changes? Going by historical rates of change in the American federal judiciary and then being generous to progressives, that's sustainable through the 2070s or so.

I worry we get into some sort of gridlock situation where Rs more or less have a permanent lock on the Senate (and hence SCOTUS) while Dems lock down the Presidency and House.

After the 2020 and 2022 results, it seems like Dems have a pathway to keeping the Senate bias under R+5 long term. Infact in 2020 Biden won exactly 25 states so theoretically holding Senate seats in all the Biden 2020 states + the Presidency is sufficient. That's why losing ME-2020 or WI-2022 Senate races have set Dems up for such a difficult fight in 2024; they have to win 2 Senate seats in Trump states.

I think the big fear many Dems had post-2016 was that Republicans would start peeling off New England states like ME and NH, giving them a permanent lock on the Senate. Today, that seems like less of an immediate concern though, and some smaller states like AK and KS have signs of long term Dem optimism.

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

I disagree. This is the future of the GOP for decades to come

[Mr. Smith]

So what? Something else takes over to keep the gravy train flowing then, and not necessarily one you or anyone else here wants or expects.

[Vosem]

The MAGA movement isn't even really coherent.

But the current Ameriright political strategy, which is built off using their current large advantages in the judiciary and Senate to push gradual norm changes? Going by historical rates of change in the American federal judiciary and then being generous to progressives, that's sustainable through the 2070s or so.

I worry we get into some sort of gridlock situation where Rs more or less have a permanent lock on the Senate (and hence SCOTUS) while Dems lock down the Presidency and House.

After the 2020 and 2022 results, it seems like Dems have a pathway to keeping the Senate bias under R+5 long term. Infact in 2020 Biden won exactly 25 states so theoretically holding Senate seats in all the Biden 2020 states + the Presidency is sufficient. That's why losing ME-2020 or WI-2022 Senate races have set Dems up for such a difficult fight in 2024; they have to win 2 Senate seats in Trump states.

The thing is that on average 4-5-point Democratic victories maybe only happen 1 out of 3 elections, if that, and in order to take the Senate in the long run they need a 3-election average like this. That seems really hard; as you yourself point out both the 2020 and 2022 results kind of 'should' extrapolate nationally to a Republican Senate majority.

I don't think Democrats will have a lock on the Presidency or the House; they'll probably be favored in the former as a check on the eternally-conservative judiciary/legislature, but I don't know if that's the case for the latter. Democrats are probably favored for the House in the 2020s because of COVID-associated early-decade migrations and malapportionment in favor of Northern cities, but I don't think that'll be true in 2030 or 2040.

(Over the long run this whole analysis depends on the idea that the current demographic trends are sustainable far into the future, but I really question how much the current divide will persist when -- not if -- very educated Americans are also a low-trust demographic.)

I think the big fear many Dems had post-2016 was that Republicans would start peeling off New England states like ME and NH, giving them a permanent lock on the Senate. Today, that seems like less of an immediate concern though, and some smaller states like AK and KS have signs of long term Dem optimism.

Most states see college-educated out-migration, though I'm not sure college-educated/not-college-educated is actually very sustainable as a divide 15-20 years from now. Republicans don't really need extra states to pad their Senate advantage, but under roughly the current coalitions most states just are trending Republican.

Alaska and Maine see lots of "crunchy" environmentalist in-migration, though, but your other two are odder examples -- New Hampshire has famously anomalously conservative in-migration, while Kansas started with an unusually conservative educated class and so has trended left very precipitously in the 2010s, but the in/out-migration patterns there imply a rightward trend. In general I think that there is much more D-to-R persuasion than vice versa -- this is what polls show and is the only way to explain the Republicans not keeling off because of the declining white share of the electorate -- but the reverse seems to be true among educated voters, and particularly true in certain pre-2016 unusually-conservative-and-educated enclaves, like, well, the KS suburbs of Kansas City. Often these are places which had unusually recent white flight resulting in unusually conservative preferences circa 1990/2000, or are ethnically very German or Dutch.

I disagree. This is the future of the GOP for decades to come

Say more about this word -- what particular characteristics?

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

I disagree. This is the future of the GOP for decades to come

Say more about this word -- what particular characteristics?

Adoration of Trump, anti-immigration, non-interventionist, protectionist, anti-globalist, openness to welfare spending.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The MAGA movement isn't even really coherent.

But the current Ameriright political strategy, which is built off using their current large advantages in the judiciary and Senate to push gradual norm changes? Going by historical rates of change in the American federal judiciary and then being generous to progressives, that's sustainable through the 2070s or so.

I worry we get into some sort of gridlock situation where Rs more or less have a permanent lock on the Senate (and hence SCOTUS) while Dems lock down the Presidency and House.

After the 2020 and 2022 results, it seems like Dems have a pathway to keeping the Senate bias under R+5 long term. Infact in 2020 Biden won exactly 25 states so theoretically holding Senate seats in all the Biden 2020 states + the Presidency is sufficient. That's why losing ME-2020 or WI-2022 Senate races have set Dems up for such a difficult fight in 2024; they have to win 2 Senate seats in Trump states.

The thing is that on average 4-5-point Democratic victories maybe only happen 1 out of 3 elections, if that, and in order to take the Senate in the long run they need a 3-election average like this. That seems really hard; as you yourself point out both the 2020 and 2022 results kind of 'should' extrapolate nationally to a Republican Senate majority.

I don't think Democrats will have a lock on the Presidency or the House; they'll probably be favored in the former as a check on the eternally-conservative judiciary/legislature, but I don't know if that's the case for the latter. Democrats are probably favored for the House in the 2020s because of COVID-associated early-decade migrations and malapportionment in favor of Northern cities, but I don't think that'll be true in 2030 or 2040.

(Over the long run this whole analysis depends on the idea that the current demographic trends are sustainable far into the future, but I really question how much the current divide will persist when -- not if -- very educated Americans are also a low-trust demographic.)

I think the big fear many Dems had post-2016 was that Republicans would start peeling off New England states like ME and NH, giving them a permanent lock on the Senate. Today, that seems like less of an immediate concern though, and some smaller states like AK and KS have signs of long term Dem optimism.

Most states see college-educated out-migration, though I'm not sure college-educated/not-college-educated is actually very sustainable as a divide 15-20 years from now. Republicans don't really need extra states to pad their Senate advantage, but under roughly the current coalitions most states just are trending Republican.

Alaska and Maine see lots of "crunchy" environmentalist in-migration, though, but your other two are odder examples -- New Hampshire has famously anomalously conservative in-migration, while Kansas started with an unusually conservative educated class and so has trended left very precipitously in the 2010s, but the in/out-migration patterns there imply a rightward trend. In general I think that there is much more D-to-R persuasion than vice versa -- this is what polls show and is the only way to explain the Republicans not keeling off because of the declining white share of the electorate -- but the reverse seems to be true among educated voters, and particularly true in certain pre-2016 unusually-conservative-and-educated enclaves, like, well, the KS suburbs of Kansas City. Often these are places which had unusually recent white flight resulting in unusually conservative preferences circa 1990/2000, or are ethnically very German or Dutch.

I agree that trying to maintain an average of a 4-5 point D victory across 3 cycles is tricky, but given the NPV tends to lean D overall at this point, I don't think it's completely impossible. Remember, individually, it's ok if one cycle is only D + 2 or smtg, but there sort of has to be a D + 8 cycle to cancel it out. Ig this is sort of what happened where 2016 and 2018 cancelled out, and then 2020 was just what Dems needed to win the Senate. Even though Dems gained a Senate seat in 2022, I'd argue they underran what they needed to in the long term because they lost WI-Sen which pushes the median Senate seat rightwards for 2024 and 2026.

For Senate I'd say I see the biggest liability long-term is Nevada which is full of Demographics that have been shifting away from Ds the past few cycles. Nevada becoming an R-leaning state would further strengthen the GOP's small state Senate advantage, even though it's such a relatively urban state.

This decade seems a lot more favorable to Dems in the House for a variety of reasons - many VRA and other lawsuits against R maps being successful or seem likely to be successful. Also Ds might have a chance to redraw NY. And as you state, it seems the 2020 census overestimated liberal northern states likely throwing a few House seats Dems way. I'd also argue at the House level, political geography is generally improving for Democrats since a disproportionate amount of recent D gains have been in swingy areas of the Country, whereas R gains have been more concentrated to deep red and blue communities.

The chart below is 2020 Pres margin vs 2016-2020 swing. You can see how you have an arc where super D and R communities are more likely to have swung R and communities closer to 50-50 were more likely to have swung D.



I agree the college education thing could be problematic for Dems given they tend to be moving to a relatively small concentration of states with specific cities. Even within somewhat competitive like MN, WI or TX, places like MSP, Madison and Austin become huge Democratic vote sinks which can create unfavorable political geography at the state legislative level. I think the best thing Dems can hope for is for various tech and economic industries to become less concentrated in a relatively small handful of cities; this is a trend that has seemed to start the past decade or so but who knows if it'll continue. Also for college educated voters to not self-sort into these pockets of high turnout D+80 precincts.

I think a big question for me is what happens to TX. It's a state that is seeing net-college ed migration (and has favorable growth patterns to Dems on a ton of other metrics). If and big *IF*, Texas goes the way of Georgia and has a rapid transformation from Lean R --> Lean D, it makes Rs electoral prospects for President much trickier. It's really hard to see what R's EC path would be without Texas, and so if they start being unable to win it, I wonder what strategy the GOP would take. Honestly best case for GOP, I see Texas sort of shifting into a true swing state and stalling slightly to the right of the NPV, but it'd still mean this one large state could singlehandedly shut down any GOP path to Pres in a given election.

Kansas having such a big education exodus is somewhat surprising to me because according to the 2020 census, the fastest growing parts of the state were also the highest education/well-to-do. I do agree Johnson County probably has one of the highest concentrations of true R-->D vote flips in the past decade or so; it's one of the few suburbs where honestly not that much of D gains can be attributed to Demographic change (unless generational turnover plays a big role). In a place like Henry County GA, it's clear most of the leftwards shift can be attributed to the increasing black population. And then you have a ton of suburbs in between. I think the reason why a state like KS looks favorable long term to Ds imo is because the state's population mostly lives in urban/suburban communities, and growth patterns tend to favor these urban/suburban communities becoming a larger and larger share of the population.

As someone from the northeast who has at least spent time in the northern MA/NH area, the sense I get is that NH's migration is only relatively conservative by New England standards, but still liberal by national standards, especially along the MA-NH border.

I def agree with your point there tends to be more D-->R persuasion, and it's what's keeping Rs viable is def true. Imagine for instance if Biden was getting Obama numbers in the rural Midwest but with the demographics of 2020; Democrats would truly have a dominant national coalition. As the Country slowly becomes more diverse, the benchmarks Dems need to hit with certain racial groups to win elections becomes lower, and Rs will likely peel off more voters. I mean think about it; it really wasn't that long ago you had to be nationally competitive with the white vote to win an election; it's only really been in the past 20 years Dems could get away with consistently losing the white vote while remaining electorally viable.

[Roronoa D. Law]

It seems that this whole MAGA or cancel cancel culture has taken control of the Republican with no sign of its grip losening. I think its going to an astonishing defeat for the GOP to consider rebranding. Maybe its losing Texas or a 3rd consecutive Democratic term.

[Vosem]

I disagree. This is the future of the GOP for decades to come

Say more about this word -- what particular characteristics?

Adoration of Trump, anti-immigration, non-interventionist, protectionist, anti-globalist, openness to welfare spending.

I think Trump himself will be remembered less than people think unless he gets a second term, just because one-term Presidents almost never get the 'very important' treatment (with Lincoln and JFK as obvious-reasons exceptions), and a large amount of remembering is done by intellectuals. (For 'adoration of Trump' to still be a thing 20-30 years from now, I think he needs to get a second term and that second term needs to be seen as a success, which is a pretty high bar to clear).

Fair enough for the rest of this stuff. I've long predicted that, as the party of 'the government doing stuff' in a low-trust anti-government society, the Democratic party will get pulled towards militarism, and a lot of your stuff would then be reinforced by negative polarization.

I agree that trying to maintain an average of a 4-5 point D victory across 3 cycles is tricky, but given the NPV tends to lean D overall at this point, I don't think it's completely impossible. Remember, individually, it's ok if one cycle is only D + 2 or smtg, but there sort of has to be a D + 8 cycle to cancel it out. Ig this is sort of what happened where 2016 and 2018 cancelled out, and then 2020 was just what Dems needed to win the Senate. Even though Dems gained a Senate seat in 2022, I'd argue they underran what they needed to in the long term because they lost WI-Sen which pushes the median Senate seat rightwards for 2024 and 2026.

They also lost ME-Sen in 2020, and 2020 was sort of preposterously lucky in the sense of having two special elections in D-trending states. In the long run this requires 2 of the 3 cycles to be true Democratic landslides, which we've had three of in the 21st century (2006, 2008, 2018); I don't think 2020 really counts. Here are (using the congressional numbers) the three-election averages:

2022: D+3.0
2020: D+3.5
2018: D+0.6
2016: R+1.9
2014: R+3.8
2012: D+1.6
2010: D+3.9
2008: D+5.3
2006: D+0.2
2004: R+2.6
2002: R+2.1
2000: R+0.5
…

Only 2008 actually even broke a D+4 average.

For Senate I'd say I see the biggest liability long-term is Nevada which is full of Demographics that have been shifting away from Ds the past few cycles. Nevada becoming an R-leaning state would further strengthen the GOP's small state Senate advantage, even though it's such a relatively urban state.

I think it's just legacy Democrats in blue states going away, and more generally the existence of more obvious Republican than Democratic targets. I don't think any state except GA is really on the cusp of transitioning from usually-Republican to usually-Democratic; I'm sort of skeptical of the AZ trend because I think AZ has many of the same patterns as FL. Over the slightly longer run if educational polarization continues to be a thing then TX will flip, but this would be accompanied by much better Republican performances in the Midwest. But I'm not really confident about either half of that because I don't necessarily think educational polarization is very sustainable.

This decade seems a lot more favorable to Dems in the House for a variety of reasons - many VRA and other lawsuits against R maps being successful or seem likely to be successful. Also Ds might have a chance to redraw NY. And as you state, it seems the 2020 census overestimated liberal northern states likely throwing a few House seats Dems way. I'd also argue at the House level, political geography is generally improving for Democrats since a disproportionate amount of recent D gains have been in swingy areas of the Country, whereas R gains have been more concentrated to deep red and blue communities.

The chart below is 2020 Pres margin vs 2016-2020 swing. You can see how you have an arc where super D and R communities are more likely to have swung R and communities closer to 50-50 were more likely to have swung D.



I agree the college education thing could be problematic for Dems given they tend to be moving to a relatively small concentration of states with specific cities. Even within somewhat competitive like MN, WI or TX, places like MSP, Madison and Austin become huge Democratic vote sinks which can create unfavorable political geography at the state legislative level. I think the best thing Dems can hope for is for various tech and economic industries to become less concentrated in a relatively small handful of cities; this is a trend that has seemed to start the past decade or so but who knows if it'll continue. Also for college educated voters to not self-sort into these pockets of high turnout D+80 precincts.

Sure, all of this I basically agree with. Note that, at the state level, college graduates are often moving to states which are outright losing population, like CA/IL/NY -- movement of college graduates and movement of people seems barely even correlated.

I think a big question for me is what happens to TX. It's a state that is seeing net-college ed migration (and has favorable growth patterns to Dems on a ton of other metrics). If and big *IF*, Texas goes the way of Georgia and has a rapid transformation from Lean R --> Lean D, it makes Rs electoral prospects for President much trickier. It's really hard to see what R's EC path would be without Texas, and so if they start being unable to win it, I wonder what strategy the GOP would take. Honestly best case for GOP, I see Texas sort of shifting into a true swing state and stalling slightly to the right of the NPV, but it'd still mean this one large state could singlehandedly shut down any GOP path to Pres in a given election.

I think TX is pretty far from being Safe D; hell, GA is still pretty far from being Safe D. Even a pretty strong Midwestern improvement wouldn't really cancel that out; at that point Republicans either really would just be relegated to congressional control, unless EC shifts have really helped later-life destinations like FL/TN/the Carolinas. (I've characterized Leon Sit's projections for the 2030 Census as being "like adding another Tennessee", but of course a big part of those projections being good for Republicans at all is predicated on them continuing to win TX.)

Kansas having such a big education exodus is somewhat surprising to me because according to the 2020 census, the fastest growing parts of the state were also the highest education/well-to-do. I do agree Johnson County probably has one of the highest concentrations of true R-->D vote flips in the past decade or so; it's one of the few suburbs where honestly not that much of D gains can be attributed to Demographic change (unless generational turnover plays a big role). In a place like Henry County GA, it's clear most of the leftwards shift can be attributed to the increasing black population. And then you have a ton of suburbs in between. I think the reason why a state like KS looks favorable long term to Ds imo is because the state's population mostly lives in urban/suburban communities, and growth patterns tend to favor these urban/suburban communities becoming a larger and larger share of the population.

Yeah, my argument against KS as an outright future Democratic-leaning state is that at a certain point they'll run out of persuadable ancestrally-Republican college-educated voters. Among small states, I think AK is the best chance for a flip, and that there might be some unexpected Democratic stability in ME, which also receives lots of "crunchy" in-migration. (Whereas VT has become really expensive and is probably overdo for a correction, though of course it has far to go before it's winnable for the GOP.)

On the opposite side, Delaware has seen lots of later-life in-migration (the fastest-growing county is Sussex!) and is probably underrated as a 15-years-from-now Republican flip. It's also a place where even pretty small Republican improvement in deep-blue city areas might be of unusual consequence.

As someone from the northeast who has at least spent time in the northern MA/NH area, the sense I get is that NH's migration is only relatively conservative by New England standards, but still liberal by national standards, especially along the MA-NH border.

I think lots of internal NH politics seems to beg to differ here; the state government is really and actually quite conservative and there lots of anti-Massachusetts rhetoric and such.

I def agree with your point there tends to be more D-->R persuasion, and it's what's keeping Rs viable is def true. Imagine for instance if Biden was getting Obama numbers in the rural Midwest but with the demographics of 2020; Democrats would truly have a dominant national coalition. As the Country slowly becomes more diverse, the benchmarks Dems need to hit with certain racial groups to win elections becomes lower, and Rs will likely peel off more voters. I mean think about it; it really wasn't that long ago you had to be nationally competitive with the white vote to win an election; it's only really been in the past 20 years Dems could get away with consistently losing the white vote while remaining electorally viable.

Democrats have been able to lose the white vote and be viable for a while (the last presidential election at which they won it was 1964). That said, yes, Democratic victories while losing the white vote by double-digits are a 2008-and-later phenomenon; if I remember correctly Bill Clinton came within a point twice.

(One of my favorite weird turnout statistics is that the 2004-to-2008 turnout surge was entirely fueled by non-white voters; white turnout actually very slightly fell. In general -- starting in 1976, by which point the civil-rights-era and post-civil-rights-era registration drives had mostly ended -- the three really distinct peaks in white turnout are 1992, 2004, and 2020. For black voters obviously 2008/2012 swamps everything else.)

[Meatball Slayer]

Wrong. MAGA is the future of the Republican Party.

The Sixth Party System, composed of the NeoCons and NeoLibs, is on its dying breaths. The Seventh Party System that emerges afterwards will be Right-Wing Populists vs. Left-Wing Progressives.

[BushKerry04]

This is just a banal fact. Trump is the movement, and the Republican Party has no real plan for a post-Trump world.

We milked the Reagan cow for forty years, they’ll do the same with Trump.

I have to disagree here.

Reagan's coalition was made possible because swing voters/independents supported the GOP ticket in 1980, 1984, and 1988.

George W. Bush didn't win in 2000 & 2004 with the entire coalition; he essentially won by rallying social conservatives as Reagan did, but he only came close with unaffiliated voters. He didn't actually win them.

It's also worth noting that Bush did very well with Hispanic voters in 2004, enabling him to win the popular vote. He won 45% of the Hispanic vote, Trump only won around 32% and didn't win independents in 2020.