might have contributed to worse outcomes than a different approach, people’s memories were short. Fears and anxieties would still be in the back of their mind, prompting a greater willingness to look for causes that did not exist and embrace conspiracy theories that made them feel better.
Trump essentially made a bet that working- and middle-class Americans felt they were better off when manufacturing and oil and gas dominated. Frack, frack, frack. Drill baby drill. These were rallying cries to the good old days brought forth under the first Trump Administration, which were pulled out once again to salve the fear and anger of people hoping to return to a world of the 1950s and 1960s. But here again, no evidence exists to support manufacturing jobs will return or energy prices will drop because of more drilling (for supporting evidence, see footnote).11
This approach allowed Trump to accomplish several goals. The first was to use the fear and anger to drive a wedge between the Harris campaign and working- and middle-class supporters traditionally aligned with the Democrats – something which people recommended Harris do with the Republicans. With misogynistic and racist comments deployed against Harris not gaining the traction needed, the second goal was to challenge Harris’ character. Trump accomplished this by pointing out what appeared to be a convenient change in policy that had Harris promoting fracking until recently.
It was a tactic specifically targeting the swing state of Pennsylvania, where fracking is “a key to almost 60 percent of the state’s electricity” and where “direct and indirect jobs related to gas are estimated to be around 100,000.”12 Putting Harris on the defensive, Trump and the Republicans watched gleefully as Harris squirmed when trying to explain her policy shift as one of being “educated” about the issue since becoming Vice President. Whether Harris’ response was true, it didn’t ring true to the public. Her policy change seemed to be nothing more than political expediency. It was a tactic Trump would build upon.
Immigration
Trump deployed the same tactic – using a policy position to increase fear and anger – when speaking about immigration. Trump claimed immigrants were flooding the border. This allowed Trump to push forward two additional claims that played to fear and anger: 1) that immigrants were stealing American jobs and 2) that immigrants were the reason behind an increase in drugs and crime.
One cannot ignore the fact that immigration was up under Biden. According to recent research by David Leonhardt of The New York Times, immigration did surge after 2021: “Total net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — will likely exceed eight million people over the past four years, government statistics suggest. That number includes both legal and illegal immigration.” Consequently, “the share of the U.S. population born in another country has reached a record high as a result. (That share hit 15.2 percent in the summer of 2023, and continued rising over the past 18 months).”13
Equally, “more than half of net migration since 2021 has been among people who entered the country illegally. (Of the roughly eight million net migrants who came to the U.S. over the past four years, about five million — or 62 percent — were unauthorized, according to an estimate by Goldman Sachs.) 14 This explained why immigration played such a big role in the 2024 election. Polls showed that the sharp rise in immigration was unpopular with most Americans, especially among working-class voters, some of whom complained of strained social services, crowded schools and increased homelessness.15 However, it needs to be noted that, according to a newly released annual report, once the Biden Administration started to focus on addressing immigration, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported 271,484 immigrants last fiscal year, marking the highest level of deportations since 2014.16
40