Economic concerns and social values shift urban support toward Trump.
What to Know:
-
Trump improved by 9 points in large metro counties compared to 2020.
-
Trump carried Miami-Dade County, a historically Democratic area.
-
One South Philly neighborhood voted nearly 3-to-1 for Trump.
-
1 in 5 Black male voters supported Trump.
-
Harris’s campaign strategy led to a 25-point swing in Pennsylvania and an 18-point swing in Michigan.
In a political twist few saw coming, former President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign made significant inroads in America’s urban centers. Traditionally Democratic bastions like Miami, New York, and Philadelphia shifted noticeably toward the Republican candidate, reshaping electoral expectations. A recent analysis from the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal provides insight into the factors behind this dramatic shift, highlighting a blend of economic concerns, social values, and strategic campaigning that helped Trump close the gap with Kamala Harris in these key areas.
Trump’s Urban Surge: By the Numbers
Compared to 2020, Trump performed 9 points better in large metro counties against Harris than he did against Joe Biden, marking an unprecedented improvement for a Republican in these regions.
This graph highlights Trump's 2024 urban surge, showcasing gains in Miami-Dade, New York City, Philadelphia, and among Black male voters. Data sourced from the Manhattan Institute, Progressive Change Institute, and Data for Progress.
Specifics:
|
These gains underscore the appeal of Trump’s platform to voters disillusioned with the Democratic Party’s perceived failures on key urban issues.
Issues That Defined the Election
Economic concerns emerged as the central theme of the 2024 election. According to exit polling, 30% of voters prioritized the economy as their top issue, and Trump’s campaign capitalized on this focus. By emphasizing tax cuts, inflation reduction, and economic growth, Trump positioned himself as the candidate of financial stability. Harris’s economic messaging, by contrast, failed to resonate with voters. Even in traditionally Democratic states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, voters reported hearing Trump speak about the economy far more than Harris.
Data from Manhattan Institute.
Crime and public safety were also pivotal. Rising crime rates in cities like New York and Chicago created a sense of unease among urban and suburban voters. Trump’s campaign highlighted these concerns, portraying Harris as “soft on crime” and out of touch with the realities faced by everyday Americans. This strategy resonated with suburban independents, who played a crucial role in flipping key areas.
Social values further influenced the shift. Trump’s team adopted a nuanced stance on contentious issues like abortion, winning 50% of voters who support legal abortion in most cases. This approach, coupled with a rejection of cultural extremes—dubbed “conservative popularism”—helped Trump appeal to moderates and fiscally conservative but socially progressive voters.
Source: Manhattan Institute and analysis of voter trends from 2024 exit polls.
By steering clear of polarizing rhetoric on issues like entitlement reform, Trump broadened his coalition without alienating traditional Republican voters.
Campaign Strategy's Function
Harris’s campaign made critical missteps that amplified Trump’s urban gains. In the final weeks of the election, Harris focused on generating earned media by appearing alongside former Republican Representative Liz Cheney.
However, polling by the Progressive Change Institute suggests this strategy backfired. In Pennsylvania, independents were 18 points more enthusiastic about Harris when she campaigned on economic issues but seven points less enthusiastic when she campaigned with Cheney—a net swing of 25 points. Similarly, in Michigan, Harris saw an 11-point enthusiasm boost when focusing on the economy but lost 7 points when appearing with Cheney.
Source: Progressive Change Institute polling data on voter enthusiasm shifts in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Voters across these states supported Harris’s economic platform but ultimately felt Trump was more focused on delivering results, particularly regarding inflation, job growth, and cost-of-living concerns.
Lessons for Both Parties
The 2024 election revealed vulnerabilities for Democrats and opportunities for Republicans. For Democrats, the challenge lies in reconnecting with urban and suburban voters by prioritizing practical concerns over ideological ones. Harris’s campaign, despite its progressive platform, struggled to convince voters that she could address pressing issues like rising costs and crime. Meanwhile, Trump’s gains demonstrate the effectiveness of focusing on what voters perceive as immediate, solvable problems.
The concept of “conservative popularism,” as articulated by the Manhattan Institute, offers a blueprint for Republicans seeking to expand their urban reach. By emphasizing fiscal responsibility, safe streets, skills-based immigration, and merit-based education, the GOP can continue to attract a broader coalition that includes moderates and disillusioned Democrats.
Wrap Up
The electoral shifts seen in 2024 could signal the beginning of a broader political realignment. Cities that once seemed permanently aligned with the Democratic Party are now competitive battlegrounds. This shift underscores a broader trend: voters are increasingly willing to cross party lines when their day-to-day concerns—like safety, economic stability, and education—are at stake.
For Democrats, the 2024 results serve as a warning. To regain lost ground, the party must address internal divisions between its progressive and moderate wings while crafting policies that resonate with the so-called “forgotten middle.” Failing to do so risks further alienation of key constituencies. For Republicans, Trump’s urban success provides a roadmap for future campaigns. By focusing on pragmatic solutions to voters’ immediate concerns, the GOP can continue to make inroads in traditionally Democratic areas, reshaping the electoral map for years to come.
The 2024 election marked a turning point in American politics, with urban voters signaling a willingness to embrace alternative leadership when their core issues go unaddressed. As both parties reflect on the results, the lesson is clear: addressing the needs of everyday Americans is not just good governance—it’s the key to electoral success.