This should be normalized to account for demographic change in the country though. My guess is that, while Trump did overperform among minorities, the current narrative exaggerates the phenomenon and how much it mattered. The real action was likely among whites, same as in 2016.
https://twitter.com/AndrewCooper__/status/1324018791509037056
What I mean is that "non-white" is a heterogeneous category and, in particular, it’s increasingly dominated by hispanics, among whom Republicans have always done better than among blacks.
https://twitter.com/normiedeguerre/status/1324059064536571905
I guess "normalize" isn't quite the right word, "adjusted to account for the change in the composition of non-whites" would have been better, but it didn't fit. In any case, while I do not doubt that Trump improved among hispanics, I doubt he did as well as Bush in 2004.
Another important point is that most of the takes about how well Trump did in various groups are based on exit polls and, if 2016 taught us anything, it's that exit polls are very unreliable. We'll get better data later, especially about the share of each group in the electorate.
My guess is that, once those data are available, we'll see that what decided the election was mostly how much Trump managed to gain among non-college educated whites vs. how much he continued to lose among college-educated whites.
The biggest surprise for me after 2016 was that college-educated whites continued to leave the GOP. After the election, I assumed they would come back home when they realize that Trump hadn't started a nuclear war, but this turned out to be completely wrong.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
