Can Trump and the populist right bring college-educated whites into the fold?

[Ronnie]

One thing I think should alarm Democrats is the fact that the Trump is just one demographic away from putting together an enduring coalition for himself, and potentially Republican candidates after him.  All he needs to do is improve his numbers with college-educated whites, while maintaining his strength with other demographics.  Even more alarming is that this prospect is not far-flung or unimaginable; Romney comfortably won college-educated whites in 2012.  

What do you think is stopping Trump from matching the performance Republicans usually put up with this demographic?  Is it his style and "tone", or is there a fundamental ideological disconnect, such as nationalism vs. globalism and pluralism?

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

There's literally no need to. Doing this would relieve him of an enemy establishment to continue fighting against.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

It's really a matter of occupation; Trump is fighting for blue-collar workers and the forgotten people of this country. Kasich voters are not that.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Wait for immigration to increase.  White elites in New England will be horrified by religious immigrants ruining their secular safe-spaces

[DrScholl]

No. It's either one group or the other, not both. His ideology just doesn't fit with college educated whites.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Let's dispel with this notion that college-educated whites are a Democratic demographic. They're not a Democratic demographic.

[DPKdebator]

No. It's either one group or the other, not both. His ideology just doesn't fit with college educated whites.

What about lower taxes?

[Ronnie]

Let's dispel with this notion that college-educated whites are a Democratic demographic. They're not a Democratic demographic.

They are not, but they either narrowly voted for Trump or Clinton, depending on the exit poll.  My question is whether he can improve with them while maintaining his strength with other demographics.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Let's dispel with this notion that college-educated whites are a Democratic demographic. They're not a Democratic demographic.

They are not, but they either narrowly voted for Trump or Clinton, depending on the exit poll.  The question is whether he can improve with them while maintaining his strength with other demographics.

Of course he can, by his behavior becoming the new normal and by running as an incumbent. The expectation going forward needs to be that mutatis mutandis he'll be harder to beat in 2020 than he was in 2016.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Not happening Trump's anti intellectualism makes it near impossible for such improvements

[courts]

Let's dispel with this notion that college-educated whites are a Democratic demographic. They're not a Democratic demographic.

They are not, but they either narrowly voted for Trump or Clinton, depending on the exit poll.  My question is whether he can improve with them while maintaining his strength with other demographics.

Problem is that college educated whites tend to be more secular, socially liberal, and fiscally centrist or conservative (if they're high earners) while noncollege educated whites tend to be more religious, socially conservative, and fiscally populist/liberal.

These two groups won't form a strong coalition together, no matter how much E Harding begs for a race war election map of whites vs nonwhites.

that's not really true. the majority of tea party supporters and christian coalition types are more likely to be college educated whites, overall. perhaps there are regional differences but the pattern is pretty consistent. in general the importance of a lot of these "culture war" issues seems to be overstated. it seems like more of a concern of the white middle class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=0
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-americas-demographic-revolution-reached-the-church/433455/

[Technocracy Timmy]

Let's dispel with this notion that college-educated whites are a Democratic demographic. They're not a Democratic demographic.

They are not, but they either narrowly voted for Trump or Clinton, depending on the exit poll.  My question is whether he can improve with them while maintaining his strength with other demographics.

Problem is that college educated whites tend to be more secular, socially liberal, and fiscally centrist or conservative (if they're high earners) while noncollege educated whites tend to be more religious, socially conservative, and fiscally populist/liberal.

These two groups won't form a strong coalition together, no matter how much E Harding begs for a race war election map of whites vs nonwhites.

that's not really true. the majority of tea party supporters and christian coalition types are more likely to be college educated whites, overall. perhaps there are regional differences but the pattern is pretty consistent. in general the importance of a lot of these "culture war" issues seems to be overstated. it seems like more of a concern of the white middle class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=0
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-americas-demographic-revolution-reached-the-church/433455/

Many tea party supporters are college educated whites, but that does not mean that most college educated whites are Tea Party supporters. As for religiosity and education, a 538 study found that the biggest split among white people's voting habits came down to education and religion.

Another point to consider is that millenials are the most college educated generation and they are also the most likely to be religiously unaffiliated.

[JA]

Let's dispel with this notion that college-educated whites are a Democratic demographic. They're not a Democratic demographic.

They are not, but they either narrowly voted for Trump or Clinton, depending on the exit poll.  My question is whether he can improve with them while maintaining his strength with other demographics.

That really will be the test of a potentially emerging Trump coalition. If he can recover his numbers among College-educated Whites while retaining the majority of the non-College-educated Whites with whom he made considerable inroads, while also retaining or expanding his numbers among African Americans and Hispanics, he'd easily win in 2020.

I think Trump has done more to satisfy the more fiscally conservative/business oriented College-educated Whites than he has to make the other White group happy. Yet his rhetoric appeals more to the latter. The question will be how he performs and what he delivers over the next four years. Personally, I expect him to govern as an even less sophisticated version of George W. Bush; he even co-opted the isolationist, "compassionate conservatism" schtick Bush employed to win in 2000.

[Dr. Arch]

Yeah, more people will certainly be convinced to vote for this dumpster fire of an administration. lol

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Let's dispel with this notion that college-educated whites are a Democratic demographic. They're not a Democratic demographic.

They are not, but they either narrowly voted for Trump or Clinton, depending on the exit poll.  My question is whether he can improve with them while maintaining his strength with other demographics.

Problem is that college educated whites tend to be more secular, socially liberal, and fiscally centrist or conservative (if they're high earners) while noncollege educated whites tend to be more religious, socially conservative, and fiscally populist/liberal.

These two groups won't form a strong coalition together, no matter how much E Harding begs for a race war election map of whites vs nonwhites.

-I agree.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Let's dispel with this notion that college-educated whites are a Democratic demographic. They're not a Democratic demographic.

-They are in your state, and I suspect they are nationwide.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Let's dispel with this notion that college-educated whites are a Democratic demographic. They're not a Democratic demographic.

-They are in your state,

And? My state is D+10.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They were a very close demographic nationwide last year and have been reliably Republican in the past. I don't see Trump deteriorating further with them based on the substance of how he has governed so far. Anybody who would vote against Trump based on his style or his personality already voted against him last year.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Let's dispel with this notion that college-educated whites are a Democratic demographic. They're not a Democratic demographic.

-They are in your state,

And? My state is D+10.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They were a very close demographic nationwide last year and have been reliably Republican in the past. I don't see Trump deteriorating further with them based on the substance of how he has governed so far. Anybody who would vote against Trump based on his style or his personality already voted against him last year.

-You're assuming the Dems cannot come up with a better candidate than HRC. I have my doubts.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Let's dispel with this notion that college-educated whites are a Democratic demographic. They're not a Democratic demographic.

-They are in your state,

And? My state is D+10.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They were a very close demographic nationwide last year and have been reliably Republican in the past. I don't see Trump deteriorating further with them based on the substance of how he has governed so far. Anybody who would vote against Trump based on his style or his personality already voted against him last year.

-You're assuming the Dems cannot come up with a better candidate than HRC. I have my doubts.

I'm not trying to dismiss the possibility of the Democrats winning college-educated whites out of hand, which is why I said mutatis mutandis in a previous post in this thread. With a better candidate, yes, they very well might, but I don't think that would constitute it becoming "a Democratic demographic" long-term.

[courts]

Let's dispel with this notion that college-educated whites are a Democratic demographic. They're not a Democratic demographic.

They are not, but they either narrowly voted for Trump or Clinton, depending on the exit poll.  My question is whether he can improve with them while maintaining his strength with other demographics.

Problem is that college educated whites tend to be more secular, socially liberal, and fiscally centrist or conservative (if they're high earners) while noncollege educated whites tend to be more religious, socially conservative, and fiscally populist/liberal.

These two groups won't form a strong coalition together, no matter how much E Harding begs for a race war election map of whites vs nonwhites.

that's not really true. the majority of tea party supporters and christian coalition types are more likely to be college educated whites, overall. perhaps there are regional differences but the pattern is pretty consistent. in general the importance of a lot of these "culture war" issues seems to be overstated. it seems like more of a concern of the white middle class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=0
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-americas-demographic-revolution-reached-the-church/433455/

Many tea party supporters are college educated whites, but that does not mean that most college educated whites are Tea Party supporters. As for religiosity and education, a 538 study found that the biggest split among white people's voting habits came down to education and religion.

Another point to consider is that millenials are the most college educated generation and they are also the most likely to be religiously unaffiliated.

true, but within the republican party those with a degree have been consistently more likely to align with movement conservatism and the "evangelical right" in particular in its various incarnations since the 80s. that was more my point. obviously age and whether people have done post grad work are other factors. basically the old cliche of the democrats being the party of people without high school education and people with phds.

[Bismarck]

If Trump signs a tax break and generally doesn't let the country slide off the rails I see no reason why he won't hold his own coalition and bring back many of the Romney to Johnson/Clinton/McMullin voters.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What Nathan said.

No matter how much some liberals and #NeverT***p Republicans here dream of a US political system pitting "the Knowers" against "the Ignorants" in some great battle for the country's future, class is a reality in this country, and those at the top certainly haven't lost sight of that.

[Intell]

A thing to note, while Clinton did win college-educated whites, trump however won white voters of all incomes.

[pbrower2a]

Let's dispel with this notion that college-educated whites are a Democratic demographic. They're not a Democratic demographic.

College-educated whites are "Eisenhower Republicans". They have no use for demagogues.

[pbrower2a]

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues despite the vastly-different personal histories. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.

Here are two overlays of elections to suggest how political loyalties can change.  To be sure, any victor of a Presidential election is likely to have much of an overlay with any winner of Presidential landslides, but Barack Obama better fits an Eisenhower win (Ike won Massachusetts and Minnesota twice, states (Massachusetts) that Nixon lost in his 49-state landslide and that (Minnesota) Reagan lost in his 49-state landslide, or the even more-impressive FDR landslide of 1936 (Maine and Vermont were never in doubt for Obama)

Take the Eisenhower wins of 1952 and 1956, and you see Obama winning practically the same states except Tennessee (which used to be the most liberal of Southern states), Mormon country, and the states that depend more upon ranching than upon farming for their agriculture. (The farm-ranch divide reflects the difference between the realities of rancher-hand relationship and the farmer-farmhand relationship. Ranchers must supply basic needs for ranch-hands; a dairy farm operates much like a factory with dairy workers working much like assembly-line workers). In 2008 Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower did not win twice; in 2012 President Obama got re-elected without winning a state that Ike did not win twice.   

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2008 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.


Now, Carter vs. Obama:

If anyone has any doubt that the Presidential Election of 1976 is ancient history for all practical purposes:

Carter 1976, Obama 2008/2012   

Carter 1976, Obama twice  red
Carter 1976, Obama once pink
Carter 1976, Obama never yellow
Ford 1976, Obama twice white
Ford 1976, Obama once light blue
Ford 1976, Obama never blue

....As you can see, Carter lost a raft of states (among them California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois,  New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, and Maine) that Democratic nominees for President have not lost after 1988, and some states (Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico) that Democrats have not LOST in Presidential wins. On the other side, Carter was the last Democrat to win Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, or Texas.