Control of the Mainstream Middle

Elections are won by votes. Single votes are cast by voters but elections are won by the candidates by stacking vote upon vote upon vote on one another.

Donald Trump won the Presidency because he stacked those votes where they counted the most. He ended up winning 31 out of the 50 states. Looking deeper, he won the popular vote in 3,084 out of 3,143 counties or county equivalents.

This is exactly the reason our Founders created the Electoral College system of selecting our President. To do otherwise, would put too much influence and power in a few cities, counties and states.

After all, there is a reason the name of our country is The United States of America.

Let's look a little closer at how the votes stacked up between Trump and Clinton in various key demographic groups. If you look at the stacked column charts below you will get a better understanding of where the votes came from for the two candidates.

You should also understand that Donald Trump won because he rolled up most of his votes within the mainstream majority in almost every category where most of the votes were. He got more votes than either Romney or McCain did while Hillary's tally is currently about 4 million less than Obama got in 2012 and 7 million less than Obama got in 2008. Despite the fact that he lost the overall popular vote, he gathered the votes where he needed to get them and Clinton did not.

You can also see from these charts how the potential is there for President Donald Trump and the Republicans to consolidate a voting block that could render the Democrats irrelevant for a generation.

The Democrats right now are living on the fringes of the electorate. They have lost the mainstream majority--on race, on age and on income.

At the same time, the potential is there for the Democrats to turn the tables and re-establish themselves if the Republicans squander their opportunity like Obama and the Democrats did over the last eight years. All data from the 2016 General Election exit polls and vote totals through 11/20/16.

The first chart shows that almost half of Clinton's support came from minority votes. On the other hand, 86% of Trump's votes came from white voters who made up 70% of the electorate in 2016. In total, Trump captured 58% of the white vote. Clinton and the Democrats relied very heavily on the minority vote. She captured large margins with these identity voters but they only make up 30% of the electorate.

The second chart shows votes by age. 51% of Trump's vote totals were from those age 50 and older vote which make up 45% of the electorate. 71% of his votes came from those age 40 and older that make up 64% of voters. Again, Clinton and the Democrats were very reliant on rolling up huge margins with the smaller base of younger voters.

Finally, Trump also carried middle income voters who make up the majority of voters. 58% of his support came from those making between $50,000 and $200,000. This made the difference for him as Hillary carried large margins of lower income voters and they both split the relatively small number of higher income voters (10% of total voters).

In each case, Trump won the mainstream middle majority voters. Hillary won big majorities with the minorities, the young and the poor but there are not enough votes in these groups even if you carry them by large numbers. Trump won because he had an attractive message for the mainstream middle America groups that have the most clout at the ballot box.

Strauss and Howe in their book "The Fourth Turning" argue that the crisis period we are living in will ultimately bring about less divided government. One party will become dominant. That party will become attractive to a significant majority of voters as we are forced to pull together to confront our nation's problems.

The era where people valued pluralism and free markets is coming to an end. Over the past 40 years, the Democrats have hitched their election prospects to the idea of a pluralistic society in which ethnicity, race and culture created an individual identity that government protected at the expense of all else---especially the American identity. At the same time, the Republicans have been the party of free markets and government staying out of the way, favoring hands-off rather than hands-on on most issues. At this point, neither the Democrats or Republicans have the prescription for what American voters are looking for.

However, Donald Trump has moved Republicans closer to bridging the gap for a future that will not be as hospitable to "we-first lobbies" and "me-first free agents". These are the terms that Strauss and Howe use to describe the principal attitudes that have controlled the conversation and the votes in Washington over the last four decades They predict it will be replaced with a government that will be focused more on the American identity than individual identity and one that asserts more public authority in doing so.

Whether the Republicans can close the sale with the American voters remains to be seen. However, they are in a position they have not been in for close to 100 years. How they perform over the next several years will tell the tale.

In the meantime, if I was a Democrat right now, I would be very, very concerned. It is much easier to gain on the edges than it is to retake the middle. If Trump and the GOP can retain the middle mainstream ground they hold currently, while also making in-roads on the edges with the identity groups that is now the Democrat party, they could achieve status similar to what Republicans did after the Civil War and Democrats after the Great Depression.

I am sure it is unthinkable for Democrats to consider the possibility that someone like Donald Trump could put them on the fringe of relevancy. It is probably almost as unthinkable to them that he could win the Presidency. However, they only have to look at the charts above to see how close they are to irrelevancy by failing to put a message together for all those voters who occupy the vast middle in America.