Curious about election result changes in one of the swing states, once Wikipedia had the final vote counts of the 2016 election (allowing a relatively simple copy to an Excel spreadsheet), I took a look at stats for Wisconsin’s two most recent presidential elections to see if I could spot signs of any trends. The exercise confirmed what I already knew about the divides in both parties – better than expected.
The 2016 rift in the GOP is marked by two factions (not including Trump himself): conventional Republicans (for the lack of a better term) and grassroots Republicans. Their division is somewhat analogous to that which dominated the Cold War. The USSR was trying to take over the world one satellite nation at a time. One group of American anti-Soviets felt that the threat had to be managed through diplomacy. The other felt that this status quo means the problem never gets solved, favoring Reagan’s vision for actually defeating the Soviets.
Grassroots Republicans were fed up with the notion that elected Democrats were a force that can be bargained with. The Tea Party arose, centered on anger “at federal deficits, at Washington’s habit of rewarding failure with handouts and punishing success with taxes and regulation, and the general incompetence that has marked the first year of the Obama presidency.” Perhaps the movement got a little courage from the public groundswell against the Harriet Miers nomination to SCOTUS that resulted in actual government responsiveness that elevated Samuel Alito to the Court. (Confirmation anniversary is January 31, mark yer calendars.) The Tea Party was sidelined by GOP leadership, demonized by the press, and Tea Party groups were obstructed by the IRS.
As the map shows, Romney beat Trump in the heavily urban and suburban region where Republican faith in conventional leadership was still widespread. Trump beat him in flyover Wisconsin, where faith in business-as-usual was shot down like Leisure Suit Larry at a NOW rally. I doubt anyone thought Trump had all the answers, but the most favorable opinions viewed him as a step in the right direction. His reality show reflected an attitude that not enough Americans motivate themselves into making business deals; I imagine many fans believed he would bring that attitude toward governance. The more wary Trump voters saw a Clinton presidency as a threat grave enough to warrant taking a chance on The Donald – especially after Antonin Scalia died.
Crossover voters were dissatisfied that Democrat fiscal policies didn’t translate into better economic times for themselves. In addition, they felt that the working class was being increasingly back-burnered in favor of the activist class and its excessive focus on social issues. I was surprised that there were only three counties where Clinton got more votes than Obama – but not surprised which counties were in that mix: Dane (home of the state capital), affluent Ozaukee (due north of Milwaukee), and even more affluent Waukesha (due west of Milwaukee). Clinton energized the social justice warriors and the donor class, but not the rank and file. She would have won the state if Milwaukee turnout hadn’t dropped like a rock.
Since then most Republicans have advanced on the learning curve, but the Democrats not so much. Trump’s support has grown over the years, and he has become increasingly mindful of more than just the economic threats posed by the opposition. The Democrat leadership still puts most of its energy into the upper tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy, supporting “diversity” through discrimination, racial harmony via racial stereotyping, sex-change operations for minors in the name of gender self-actualization, appeasing Iran in the vain hopes that the regime will go along with peaceful coexistence if we’re nice enough, appeasing private-sector criminals in similar fashion.
