Lessons learned from 40 years of political reporting: Prepare to be surprised.

WASHINGTON — American elections are all-or-nothing games, so they can be easily interpreted in an expansive way.

In 1988, Republican Vice President George H.W. Bush defeated Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, winning more than 400 electoral votes. It seemed routine at the time, but no presidential candidate of either party has achieved that number since then.

This election was the third consecutive lopsided victory for Republicans. Analysts asserted that Republicans were locking up the electorate.

Bill Clinton unlocked it four years later.

In 2004, Bush’s son, President George W. Bush, won reelection. Although his electoral victory was much smaller than his father’s, the coalition he had built appeared to be strong. His supporters and some independent analysts argued that Republicans had a stable majority for the long term.

That presumed majority lasted barely two years. Democrats took back the House in the 2006 midterm elections, and in 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama shattered the idea of ​​long-term Republican dominance.

With Obama’s victory, it was now the Democratic Party’s turn to declare that demographic trends in the American electorate, which are becoming less white, more college-educated, and more liberal, mean they can command a long-term majority.

Demographic trends proceeded as expected, but the political impact was less significant.

It’s time to say goodbye

I lived through that history.

The 1988 campaign was the first of eight I’ve covered so far, and, to borrow a phrase from a political scientist, I’ve spent much of the past 36 years trying to make it more polarized. , has been spent writing about a more partisan, more calcified American politics. Lynn Vavreck, John Sides, Chris Tausanovich.

I’ve been writing this weekly newsletter/column since September 2015. Its purpose is to understand and analyze the changing nature of politics that has become the era of Donald Trump.

This is the last one. After more than 40 years of writing on deadline, the time has come to retire.

It’s an election with consequences…

When I say it’s over, I go back to the beginning. In other words, there is a danger of overinterpretation.

This year’s election brought about a notable shift in the electorate.

Republicans won nearly half (47%) of voters under 45, up from 40% four years ago, according to an Associated Press poll. Mr. Trump narrowly won among voters with household incomes of less than $50,000 a year, reversing long-standing Democratic support. Network exit polls showed benefits.

These numbers represent a major shift for the Republican Party, with some conservative analysts proclaiming a realignment of American politics, and much introspection (and some condemnation) among Democrats justified. That’s enough to keep you going.

Some other facts fit less neatly into the prevailing narrative.

For the first time in more than a century, control of the White House changed parties in three consecutive elections. President Trump’s final lead in the national popular vote would be about 1.6 percentage points, which would be the narrowest of the margins. After hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, control of the House of Representatives is ending up more or less where it started: a 221-214 split. Republicans currently hold 219 seats and want 221 again, but may have to settle for 220 seats, as two districts in California and one in Iowa are still undecided. do not have. In NBC News’ final pre-election poll, about three in four voters said they would comply. Get closer to politics. Polls show Harris leading enthusiastic voters by 5 points. Among voters who say they don’t pay much attention to politics, Trump won by a 14-point margin. It’s no coincidence that this group is younger and less white than the more committed group.

The first of those findings highlights the instability of this political era. The following two are a cautionary note about declaring fundamental changes.

The final finding highlights President Trump’s ability to encourage occasional voters to vote in large numbers. They also point out why Democrats have had an advantage in recent special elections with low turnout, which could give them a boost heading into the 2026 midterm elections.

what we don’t know

These changes are at least broadly obvious, but much remains unknown.

The results of both the 2020 and 2024 elections, for example, suggest that the country is becoming less polarized along racial lines, which is almost certainly a good thing. But they also suggest further polarization in the areas of education and religion.

How are each trend reshaping America’s electoral districts?

Who exactly made the shift in 2024 and what drove them?

For example, the Latino voters most likely to switch to Trump in 2020 were politically conservative Latinos, many of whom were motivated by the Trump campaign’s apparent targeting of “Mexicans” in 2016. Although she voted for Hillary Clinton, her values ​​do not fit well with the Democratic Party.

Trump gained even more votes among Latino voters in 2024. To what extent did that increase extend beyond voters who were already ideologically conservative?

How much of Mr. Trump’s gains among Latino and Black voters was tied to the economy and rapid inflation in 2022 and early 2023? What Republicans will highlight through their anti-trans campaign To what extent did cultural and value issues have an impact?

The coronavirus pandemic appears to have changed Americans’ attitudes toward government, science, and expert opinion, with devastating consequences for both sides. How far have these changes come, and will they continue?

How do voters perceive both parties? What do they think Democrats and Republicans stand for now?

And beyond obvious policy preferences like keeping inflation low, what do voters really want from politicians?

President Trump’s success scenario

Many voters have strong partisan or ideological preferences and stick with their party through all sorts of ups and downs. But floating voters, who decide close elections, have only loose partisan ties. They reward (or punish) parties for performance.

In their eyes, President Biden reflected rising prices and chaos at the border.

As I wrote the week after the election, polling shows that voters hired Trump to accomplish two things: lower inflation and reduce the number of immigrants entering the country.

The best-case scenario for Mr. Trump is steady economic growth, lower interest rates, and easing tensions overseas. That could begin to solidify his gains in this year’s elections and legitimize talk of realigning American politics.

failure scenario

Many things can go wrong.

President Trump’s nomination of former Congressman Matt Gaetz to be attorney general has already caused an uproar. The next president will still gain certain benefits by naming Gates as his successor, former Florida State Atty. General Pam Bondi would seem much more reasonable by comparison.

Nevertheless, Gates’ nomination was an early test of strength, and Trump lost.

There is a risk that losses will increase. Gates’ decision to bail out early means senators can veto other nominees, perhaps former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, without incurring major anger from Trump supporters.

President Trump faces policy risks beyond conflicts over the hiring of top officials.

Housing costs rank high among voters’ concerns, especially among younger voters who are less likely to own a home.

During his campaign, Trump promised to “lower interest rates so we can pay 2% again.”

Instead, interest rates have risen since the election, and the interest rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage is currently just below 7%. No amount of yelling at Fed officials will change the situation. Markets are pushing interest rates higher as investors bet that President Trump’s economic plan will restart inflation.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which has long advocated fiscal restraint, estimates that President Trump’s tax plan risks significantly increasing the federal deficit, adding about $9 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. That’s what it means. When an economy is already operating at or near its maximum capacity, it is inflated.

Congressional Republicans could try to reduce the deficit by cutting costs for Medicaid, health insurance subsidies and food stamps, which Republicans have pushed for in the past.

However, during President Trump’s first term, Republican efforts to cut these programs proved highly unpopular.

That problem may now be even worse for Republicans.

One result of winning more votes among low-income Americans is that more Republican voters now benefit from federal programs. This is especially true for Medicaid, which currently pays for more than 6 out of 10 nursing home residents nationwide and 4 out of 10 newborn babies born in most states.

For Trump, these minefields are easy to predict. Other risks are up to his choice. For example, how the public reacts to the mass deportation of immigrants may depend on what President Trump means by “the public.”

Still other risks involve events beyond the president’s control.

For example, this is one example. Many scientists are concerned that the avian influenza that devastated poultry flocks across the country this year could evolve to more easily infect humans. If that happens, or if other unexpected pathogens emerge, Trump’s campaign against public health agencies could suddenly look like a very bad idea to voters who currently don’t care much.

In a tightly divided country like the United States, even small shifts among voters can have big consequences. Demographic changes are important. So are long-term movements in public attitudes and values, such as the 30-year trend toward greater acceptance of same-sex marriage.

But so too do unforeseen circumstances and unexpected events, from the skills and personalities of individual candidates to the impact of a pandemic engulfing the world.

The result is a kaleidoscope of shifting patterns, making political configurations endlessly fascinating and far less predictable than pundits might think.

I am honored to be able to explain the situation to you, my readers. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.

What else should I read?

This week’s poll: 72% of Americans say America’s democracy was once a good example for other countries to emulate, but that is no longer the case.

LA Times feature: NATO birthday celebration summit in Washington comes at a gloomy time

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.