top of page

Election Reflections: A Divided, Passionate America

  • Writer: Nikola Ranick
    Nikola Ranick
  • Dec 3, 2024
  • 7 min read

A rough night for Team Blue, but at least it was early...

This election was a quick night for me. By a little after 9 p.m., I texted my sister that it was settled as far as I was concerned. And I greeted this result with the same perspective I greet everything else; with nuance, a substantial degree of excitement along with a little bit of dread. But, as the people have spoken, let us now understand fully what they said!


The Legislature: The House and Senate Swap Roles


Early indicators were themselves reflective of a broad political shift towards Republicans. The Tied Senate shifted into Republican hands, as split-ticket voting appeared to collapse in solidly red states. This doomed reelection for Democratic Senators like Sherrod Brown and Jon Tester in Ohio and Montana, respectively, while the likes of Tammy Baldwin and Elissa Slotkin barely prevailed in states Trump would carry by similarly slim margins (Wisconsin and Michigan).


Peace out to another dynasty: Caseys say farewell to PA Politics

PA's outgoing Senator, Bob Casey Jr., ended up on the opposite side of this equation, losing re-election while Trump carried his state. I chalk up my hometown state's result to numerous factors: a) The Senator-Elect Dave McCormick, despite a lot of sneers from my Union dad over his hedge fund connections, juggled an impressive campaign of political moderation alongside Trump adoration, b) of the incumbents listed above, Casey was the most senior, having held office since 2006 and never enduring a bad cycle for Dems, c) The Casey name is standard in PA politics, a benefit turned burden, especially in combination with d) his lack of policy orthodoxy as much as following national Democrat talking points (this man used to be pro-life, believe it or not) and e) his tragically brand personality ("Bob Casey," a politically engaged friend informed me, "is so bland that I often forget he is an actual human being.")


Meanwhile, the House, rarely flipping many seats during a presidential year and usually in opposite trend, did just that. With incumbent losses on both sides, the most likely outcome is a lessened Republican Majority, with Democrats netting 2 seats. This buried a lot of race-specific turnover, a la North Carolina's redistricted maps netting the GOP 3 seats and federal appeals court rulings in Alabama and Louisiana netting Dems 1 in each. But what it didn't hide is the emerging trend that future Congressional Elections may see the House as the more competitive/swingy-er Chamber than the Senate, a stark contrast to previous decades. Remember, the House was controlled by Democrats unilaterally from the 50s to the Republican Revolution in Bill Clinton's first term, while the Senate tended to flow with cyclical winds. There should be little wonder as to why the Senate has become less competitive. Republicans lead in overall state support and delegations, regardless of population dispersion between them. Examples are endless, but consider how the entire state of Nebraska's population is about half a million smaller than the metro of Pittsburgh, PA. I am not complaining - but the advantage is clear.


So why is the notoriously stringent House now a Merry-Go-Round of Partisan Control? This equilibrium owes itself to several factors, the first of which I outline as short term:

  1. Reduced Republican gerrymandering in the 2020 election cycle compared to 2010.

  2. Increased Democratic gerrymandering during the same period.

  3. Nonpartisan commissions, which delivered more evenly split results, benefiting Democrats in Michigan and Republicans in Arizona.



However, the reason I believe the House is to stay competitive lies in a longer term realignment of political identifications and how those voters are spread out in the country. In marginal suburban districts, victory margins often hinge on the most likely split-ticket voters: moderate, well-educated suburbanites. As blue collar voters have shed their Democratic leanings, the white collar type now sees itself more sympathetic. This is quite a departure from recent history; now, as Republicans mop the floor in rural constituencies, Dems could find themselves with even a slight edge in these suburban enclaves. As a result, close elections frequently produce narrow House results, sometimes at odds with the presidential outcome. While that hasn’t happened this time, Democrats seem well-positioned to retake the House in the next cycle—absent significant shifts in public opinion.

Suburban VA: Terra Nova for Democratic inroads to suburban populations

At the same time Senate, now more Republican, will likely remain a deliberative body, as evidenced by its handling of Trump’s more unconventional cabinet choices. Overall, this election reflects the nation’s deeply divided—and passionately engaged—political landscape.


A Presidential Race That Breaks the Conventional Narrative


In contrast to tight legislative races, the presidential result was decisive. While recent tallies put Trump just shy of 50% of the vote, his clear popular vote victory defies the expectations of political forecasters. Day of, many predicted a narrow Kamala Harris win, something I cannot blame when considering the overwhelming progressive media base. Pop culture, progressive sentiment, and media outlets championed Harris's campaign, much as they might have done for Biden had he remained in the race. However, Harris faced a critical trust deficit among voters. I find this can be explained by the reactions to the election results themselves.


Post-election, the Democratic response vacillated between indignation—either at the American electorate for “choosing fascism” or at Biden for not withdrawing prematurely. Some even tried to blame Gaza as a deciding factor. Despite vastly outspending Trump, the Democrats’ messaging failed to resonate, and many still chalk the defeat to “dark money interests” and “hate triumphing over shared humanity.” As the reader can probably tell, I am frustrated with such arguments. As someone who has long critiqued performative virtue signaling and moral grandstanding, I see these narratives as an attempt to absolve individuals of their role in broader systemic inequalities. In other words, "I don't do much to better the world around me except this vote, and if it does not go the way I want, I can then blame others for social in-cohesion as opposed to my overall disengagement with the communities and people that make up our diverse country." That will be another article entirely (stay tuned) but the popular sentiment rings through: Many on the losing side of this election think most Americans are ignorant and wrong, standing in the way of progress.


History guarantees there are injustices in present day we will look back up on shamefully, but I hesitate to think it will be all the ones that Team Blue thinks. After all, the electorate’s rejection of these messages—coupled with lingering economic discontent—seemed inevitable. Inflation, though slowing, remains a psychological and financial burden. Some of this is due to lingering supply shocks during Covid, but much could be pinned to rampant fiscal stimulus during the pandemic and under, ironically, the Inflation Reduction Act signed by a Democratic Trifecta. And even if they were not a huge factor in it, the incumbent party is always ALWAYS blamed for economic downturns while in office, even if this narrative can shift quickly thereafter (ahem, Bush Sr.). Trump’s prior presidency is remembered by many as a time of economic boom, and his coalition expanded significantly due to this sentiment.


Kamala's Concession: Defiant But Demure

Shifting Demographics and a Jacksonian Parallel

Contrary to claims of a return to white supremacy, Trump’s victory was bolstered by inroads with Arab Americans, Hispanic voters, and Black men. He won Hispanic men nationally and carried the broader Hispanic vote in key states like Michigan and even non-competitive ones like New Jersey. While lower turnout may explain part of the shift, the substantial demographic changes in his coalition cannot be ignored. Even urban and suburban voters in traditionally blue areas showed increased support for Trump, with New York City recording its closest margin in decades (that was still an overwhelming Harris win but still).


To infer that these men and women of color are wrong in their thinking, ignorant, or that they just simply aren't educated to know what is right, is obviously, well, you know. Frustrations with those looking past Trump's more outrageous statements and demands are always merited, but that these statements were traditionally targeted towards groups who chose to support him, speaks again to this election and its voters' nuance. After all, we should pray electoral alignments are not deemed by unchangeable indicators of race and gender as much as ideas or even rotating economic status. To wish anything else is to wish for modern day South Africa and - hint hint- it's an absolute shit show (although even they are improving - another future article).


DJT's Victory Speech: pointing towards, well, something

What struck me most was the Jacksonian nature of Trump’s victory. Andrew Jackson, once seen as a US hero, expanded democracy for poorer white men while simultaneously marginalizing others through policies like the Trail of Tears and pro slavery sentiment. Similarly, Trump has mobilized new voices—Black and brown voters in cities, suburbs, and rural areas—into the political process, expanding representation at the cost of others. This time, it’s undocumented immigrants and certain social minorities (such as transgender individuals) who bear the brunt of exclusion. Progress in representation often comes with painful trade-offs, but modern guardrails and federalism might mitigate these effects more effectively than in Jackson’s era. Regardless, this is hardly the narrative of white supremacy that those in the defeated party claim it to be.


A New Political Era

For all the anguish among Democratic circles, this result should be a win for democracy—albeit a bittersweet one for the losing side. The relative calm with which the results were accepted is commendable, especially compared to the riots following Trump’s first victory. (although do not forget the chaotic protests and occasional riots post-Trump win in 2016). This demonstrates a nuanced reality: America’s greatest strengths and weaknesses lie in its diversity of perspectives.


The election underscores the need for a new political playing field. Democrats must adapt, pursuing policies rooted in household fundamentals and pragmatism rather than alienating cultural doctrines. Failure to do so will likely render them ineffective against Trump’s coalition, which remains unfazed by labels like “fascist.” That it was this candidate who also bore witness to two close assassination attempts does not further bode well for Democratic Virtue Signalling (and I wrote this BEFORE the Hunger Biden pardon!) A refreshed and refocused opposition is critical not just for their party’s survival but for the health of democracy itself. The American people have made clear for nearly the last decade that they are so sick and tired of the favoritism and cronyism behind the scenes, so much so that they rather see it out-front. But as the saying goes, one day we will be sick and tired of being sick and tired. This is when it will be time to establish a new equilibrium into our political, social, and economic practices. Hopefully this is the narrative the Dems will look to instill. Yet if a coherent opposition fails to emerge, at least my crypto portfolio will continue to grow!


Pick Yourself Up, DC: Soon we will get to argue over crowd sizes again

Comments


SIGN UP TO STAY UPDATED!
bottom of page