Why Trump won revisited – let’s please not blame the media and math

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.

I was eager to read Tom Decker’s Lookout op-ed, “Why Trump won (and what the media missed along the way),” hoping for clarity on the post-election landscape. While Decker offers a valid perspective, the piece ultimately falls short in explaining the deeper reasons behind the voting patterns that led to Donald Trump’s victory. Rather than exploring the broader political currents at play, Decker, a local Republican, focuses largely on media criticism, missing the crucial question: Why did so many Americans vote for Trump in the first place?

Decker argues that part of the media’s job is to capture the “substantive value” in Trump’s rallies. Much of what was broadcast — rambling insults, empty promises and shared frustrations — lacks coherent plans for solving the country’s pressing issues. If there is any substantive policy to be found in Trump’s rhetoric – at the rallies, the debates, the interviews – we’re still waiting for it to materialize. This failure of the media to highlight meaningful policy is part of a larger trend: the disconnection between media coverage and the concerns of ordinary voters.

But even harder to grasp is the momentum behind Trump’s hateful rhetoric. 

Decker refers to Trump’s victory as a “simple math question” — a calculation of votes in swing states — but this reductionist view fails to account for the visceral appeal of a leader whose values I struggle to understand, especially given his overt disregard for basic decency. As someone who wouldn’t trust Trump around my daughters, I find it difficult to comprehend the depth of support for a candidate whose rhetoric is divisive at best.

My husband, who wasn’t surprised by Trump’s win, suggested our shocked friends step outside their echo chambers. Many of us live in isolated political bubbles, ignoring the voices of those who powered Trump’s rise. 

I don’t think the media missed anything by by not broadcasting more of Trump’s rallies; this recent Slate article notes that his success likely reflects the left’s declining performance in cities and suggests the math can be better understood through the lens of a shifting political divide. While the traditional divide between urban and rural America once seemed stark, it’s no longer as clear-cut as it once was. Cities, which were once bastions of liberalism and progressive thought, are now seeing rising discontent similar to what was once largely confined to rural areas.

This shift can be attributed, in part, to the growing support for Republicans among minority voters, particularly Latinos, in urban areas. The left’s performance has weakened as cities become more diverse and larger, especially in key urban centers. This is not a new phenomenon; the seeds of this shift were already planted 20 years ago. Decker’s piece doesn’t address this underlying trend, which is crucial to understanding why urban America — which according to United States Rural-Urban Communting Area Codes includes most of Santa Cruz County due to our relatively high density — no longer uniformly rejects Trump. 

In addition to changing demographics, there’s another force at play: anti-intellectualism. 

A 2022 paper by Kristin Lunz Trujillo of Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center argues “that a significant and overlooked factor contributing to anti-intellectualism is rural social identification — a psychological attachment to being from a rural area or small town — because rural identity in particular views experts and intellectuals as an out-group.” The growing distrust of experts, which fuels populism and misinformation, is a significant driver of today’s political behavior. 

As Lunz Trujillo points out, anti-intellectualism is linked to rejecting scientific consensus and endorsing false narratives. This has given rise to a political environment in which facts matter less than the emotional appeal of populist rhetoric.

Recent research on self-identified rurality further complicates our understanding of the electorate. It suggests that many people in urban areas identify as “rural” even if they don’t live in rural communities. In Santa Cruz, we have seen this trend play out in local politics, including the public’s opposition to denser housing developments, anti-rail and public transportation projects and prioritizing two-way traffic on West Cliff Drive to favor single occupancy pickup trucks instead of creating protected space for non-motorists.

In this election, this misalignment led more urban dwellers to vote similarly to rural voters, blurring the lines between these traditionally distinct groups. This phenomenon, often referred to as “urban rurality,” challenges our assumptions about how geography and identity influence political choices.

Dan Savage’s Volts interview on Blue America in the Age of Trump revisits his 20-year-old essay, “The Urban Archipelago,” which called for Democrats to embrace cities as their political base after George W. Bush’s reelection. Savage argued that the U.S. no longer operates as a unified country, but rather as a collection of “urban archipelago” islands — cities and regions that embody liberal values like compassion and tolerance. These “islands” are found in places like New York, Chicago and San Francisco, as well as smaller urban centers in red states, such as Austin, Denver and Miami. Savage contrasts these urban strongholds with rural, red-state America, which he believes holds more regressive “heartland values.” The real “Americans,” according to this view, are the people in these urban areas, who represent the future of progressive politics in America.

Another key factor in the shifting political landscape is the influence of social media. Since Trump’s first election, platforms like X, TikTok and YouTube have largely replaced traditional news outlets, creating a divide between factual information and misinformation. Urban areas, traditionally hubs for local issues like schools, taxes and public services, were also home to media markets, where television, radio and newspapers kept residents informed and shaped their understanding of politics, the economy and reality. 

These now have become inundated with a constant flow of information from social media, often without context or nuance. This change has led to a loss of focus on local issues, making it harder for voters to see how policies would directly affect their daily lives. This rings just as true in Santa Cruz.

This election highlights the growing power of internet activism and rallies in shaping public opinion, often far more effectively than traditional media outlets. While the media can’t be blamed for a candidate’s policies or broader placemaking trends, it plays a critical role in amplifying voices and ideas, sometimes steering the conversation in ways that align with popular narratives. This trend reinforces the U.S. political paradox: Working-class voters tend to support parties that favor policies benefiting the wealthy, while upper-class voters increasingly support policies with more redistributive or “socialist” values. 

But perhaps the most significant shift is the increasing number of urban voters who self-identify as rural, complicating the political calculus that has traditionally favored rural red states.

As we look ahead, the political landscape is undeniably shifting, but understanding why Trump’s rhetoric resonated — and continues to resonate — requires more than just media analysis. It demands an examination of the deep cultural, social and economic forces that are reshaping how Americans engage with politics, identity, and the world around them. Only then can we begin to address the true nature of the divide in American politics today and how life in Santa Cruz will be affected.

Brooke Secor, a Santa Cruz resident, is a former hospitality consultant, fitness and martial arts instructor. She is a dedicated mother of two working for a sustainable clothing brand and biotech company, both located in Santa Cruz. She believes that embracing values that promote fairness, equity and social justice can create a healthier, happier community where everyone has the opportunity to thrive and future generations can be sustained.