Harris Didn't Lose the Election So Much as Trump Won - Galstone, WSJ

(Galstone is the WSJ colunist on the left)

(snip)

First, pre-election surveys consistently showed that Ms. Harris’s ceiling was substantially higher than Mr. Trump’s, meaning a higher percentage of voters said they’d consider voting for her than him. Ms. Harris’s eventual share of the nationwide popular vote was much lower than the percentage of these persuadable voters. Postelection surveys show that late-deciding voters broke decisively for Mr. Trump. Ms. Harris failed to win over a small but vital share of the electorate, which was disproportionately younger, male, Hispanic and non-college-educated.

Second, the election involved two different contests: one in the seven swing states, the other in the rest of the country. In the latter, where advertisements and voter mobilization were scarce, support for Ms. Harris receded from the high-water mark Mr. Biden had established in the 2020 election—especially in blue states. In both Illinois and New Jersey, Ms. Harris received about 400,000 fewer votes than Mr. Biden did four years earlier. In New York, Ms. Harris fell short of Mr. Biden by about 600,000. In California, the shortfall reached 1.8 million votes, a 16.5% drop from 2020.

By contrast, in the swing states Ms. Harris came close to matching Mr. Biden’s performance, falling short by only 0.3%. This wasn’t enough, however, because Mr. Trump improved on his 2020 showing by 6.2%. Yes, Ms. Harris lost all seven swing states, but it’s more accurate to say that Mr. Trump won them with a message strong enough to overcome the Harris campaign’s edge in funds and organization.

(snip)

Mr. Trump has substantially expanded the Republican vote in Luzerne County, (PA). In 2012, about 58,000 voters in the county picked Mitt Romney. In the 2024 election, more than 92,000 picked Mr. Trump—a nearly 60% increase over 12 years, even though the county’s population size has barely changed and Ms. Harris’s vote was only marginally smaller than Barack Obama’s. The story is less about Democratic erosion than Republican mobilization.

(snip)

Voters with high levels of education tend to vote regularly, even in lower-intensity elections, while less-educated voters are more likely to turn out when they feel a strong and direct stake in the outcome. Through most of the 20th century, intensity benefited Democrats, who performed well with voters without college degrees. But now the Republicans hold the edge among working-class voters and do best when these voters see clear differences between the parties.

(snip)

The past four years should teach party reformers that abstract appeals to the benefits of long-term economic investments won’t suffice. Working-class voters have little slack in their family budgets and don’t have the luxury of waiting. They need to see tangible improvements in their lives within the span of a single presidential term. The onus is on Democrats to produce a new economic agenda that credibly promises—and then produces—this result.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/harris-didnt-lose-the-election-so-much-as-trump-won-33ff3659?st=7nw1Rr&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

(free)