The Patriot Post® · In Brief: Trump Did Everything Wrong. Why Did It Work?
“If you had said on January 7, 2021, that in the summer of 2024 Donald Trump would not only be the Republican nominee but was also poised to win in a landslide in November, you would have been laughed out of the room,” says veteran journalist Eli Lake. “Trump has managed to unify his party, attract former rivals to his side, and even expand the GOP base to include the very minorities who elites assured us in 2016 would be Democrats in perpetuity.” He rattles off a few of the typical complaints against Trump before taking us “back to the 2012 election,” where this really all began.
That November, President Barack Obama walloped Mitt Romney, winning 332 electoral votes to Romney’s 206. Pundits hailed a new era in American politics because Obama had lost the white vote by 20 points to Romney and still won a near landslide. It was a new “coalition of the ascendant,” where black, Hispanic, and female voters would set the national agenda.
It wasn’t just liberal pundits and Democratic strategists who believed this.
After Romney lost, the Republican National Committee commissioned a blue ribbon panel to analyze what went wrong. That report, known as the “autopsy,” presented a stark warning. It stated that the national party “is increasingly marginalizing itself, and unless changes are made, it will be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win another presidential election in the near future.”
The main criticism of the 2012 Romney campaign (and for that matter, the 2008 John McCain campaign) was that the Republican brand alienated non-whites. And this was particularly true for Hispanics, whose pro-life views and strong religious affiliations made them a natural fit for the conservative party. “If Hispanics think we do not want them here, they will close their ears to our policies,” the autopsy said. It recommended the national party support comprehensive immigration reform and offer amnesty to the millions of immigrants coming to America illegally.
Then along came Donald Trump. During the campaign, he seemed to do the polar opposite of everything the autopsy recommended.
Lake then recounts, not favorably, a few of Trump’s tweets and comments, including what he deemed a “racist outburst.” Whatever. Moving on, Lake notes that Trump’s immigration position actually has helped him among Hispanics. Lake, like most journalists, conflates illegal and legal.
The fact that Trump is polling at 40 percent with the Hispanic vote this November is extraordinary considering that he has leaned into his position as an anti-immigration hawk. The new Republican platform, for example, promises in all caps to “CARRY OUT THE LARGEST DEPORTATION OPERATION IN AMERICAN HISTORY.”
But then he comes back around to discover the difference.
So what explains Trump’s appeal to Hispanic voters? One answer may be that immigrants who came to America legally resent those who skip the line.
Lake discusses the shift among black voters too, but his conclusion is worth consideration:
There are still four months until the election — an eternity in politics, especially when you consider that more political news has happened in the last week than the last four years. If these polls turn out to be correct, Trump will not just win in November — he could win by a landslide. And he will have done it not by changing his position on immigration or softening his rhetoric or pandering to these voters. He will have done it by issuing a message of contempt toward the elites who claim to speak for them.