Source: Rosemary Ketchum / Pexels
Americans who felt more financially stressed at the time of the election overwhelmingly voted for Trump over Harris (82 percent versus 16 percent), while others who felt more comfortable voted decisively for Harris over Trump (83 percent versus 14 percent). Percent). More Americans without a college degree voted for Trump, while the majority of college graduates voted for Harris (56 percent each). The majority of Americans earning less than $100,000 voted for Trump, while the majority earning more voted for Harris. With many more people today struggling economically, lacking college degrees, and earning less than $100,000, the vote was in Trump’s favor.
As a social psychologist who has spent 25 years developing programs to improve educational opportunities and social mobility, this particularly stood out to me End survey was the wide divide between social classes in voters’ opinions about which candidate would help them and why (CNN, 2024). People who were financially insecure in the midst of an economic rollercoaster felt like the system was rigged and that political leaders weren’t listening to them. Others, who were doing well financially and able to absorb the shocks of the rollercoaster ride, believed the system was fair and felt they were being heard by political leaders.
It is clear that working-class support for Trump is more multicultural and generational this time than in 2020, eroding Democrats’ traditional advantage among African Americans, Hispanics and young people (Associated Press, 2024). Trump won a small but consistent share of young, black and Hispanic voters, many of whom said the economy wasn’t working for them. Among Hispanics, 42 percent preferred Trump in 2024, compared to 35 percent in 2020; 56 percent favored Harris in 2024, compared to 63 percent who supported Biden in 2020. Trump also received more support from black voters: 16 percent voted for him in 2024, up from just 8 percent in 2020. Although most black voters supported Harris, their margin was smaller compared to Biden in 2020 (83 percent vs. 91 Percent). These increases came particularly from black and Hispanic men.
Our identity and our voting behavior
It doesn’t surprise me that deep-rooted financial insecurity highlighted class identity for working-class people of all backgrounds regardless of race and ethnicity, age and gender. Social psychological research shows that we humans carry multiple identities and group-based interests; external circumstances Increase the importance of specific identities and needs, especially when these are threatened (Bataille & Vough, 2022). In this election, social class interests for low- and middle-income people came to the fore due to financial insecurity and determined their voting behavior. But higher-income people, protected from economic shocks by wealth, were not as affected by the financial threat. Without financial constraints, their class identity may not have been at the forefront of their sense of self. Other identities such as race, gender, gender identity, professional interests, etc. may have influenced their voting behavior more.
The democratic elite did not understand the working class’s resentment of the status quo and political leaders who failed to keep promises they had made for years (Williams, 2019). As the governing party, the Democrats are the establishment. Trump is considered anti-establishment. Even if some of his voters don’t like his vulgar behavior, they are willing to ignore it because he promises to shake up the system that doesn’t work (Bowman, Tabet, Doshi, Kamisar & Wardwell, 2025). Whether he can keep what he promised remains to be seen.
The social class gap in opportunities is not new. Neoliberalism has been on the rise since it became the dominant ideology in the 1980s, shaping political and economic policies. A good society, according to neoliberalism, is one that privatizes public resources and property, privileges the free market and trade, reduces government spending on social safety nets, and minimizes regulation of corporations (Harvey, 2005). Decades of neoliberal policies have been linked to gaping inequalities in income, health and education, and have crushed middle- and working-class people, whose pent-up desperation and anger were recognized and exploited by Trump.
Living in separate bubbles
The fact that Democrats were surprised shows us that we don’t understand each other. We live in separate bubbles. Research shows that higher-income people get a large share of their friends from college, work, and leisure groups, while lower-income people get a large share of their friends from neighborhood and religious groups (Chetty et al., 2022). Because neighborhoods and occupations are segregated by social class, and college is an experience that many low-income Americans will not have, it is unlikely that higher- and lower-income people will cross paths, mix, and become friends. They don’t know each other or each other’s living conditions.
As I write my new book, Change the Background: Transforming Cultural Patterns to Build More Equitable Communities, If we want to change our country for the better, we have to do it Step out of our bubbles and enter new local spaces where we mingle with people who are different from us (Dasgupta, 2025). Let’s have real conversations with people who come from different social backgrounds than ourselves, become curious about each other, listen to each other’s stories, and learn about the material conditions of others’ lives that may not be visible from the outside. These stories could lead us to question assumptions about merit, meritocracy, and the American dream. With real conversations come aha moments, empathy, debilitating stereotypes, and friendships. Behind the stories we can see structural barriers that were previously invisible.
Only then will we see the background: unspoken norms and customs, stories that signal who is valued and who is not, and the physical design of places that divide us from one another. It’s the things in the background that are hardly noticed. And yet it drives our thoughts and actions, quietly creating and reinforcing inequalities.
When people have real conversations across group boundaries, listen actively, interact frequently, and feel empathy, there is an increased desire to act together on issues of common concern in local communities, motivated by solidarity to meet the needs of the vulnerable.
