Analysis of Trump’s Support Base in the 2024 Presidential Election
Recent data from the Pew Research Center sheds light on the dynamics of the 2024 presidential election, particularly regarding the support base of former President Donald Trump. According to the analysis, Trump held a 14-point advantage among voters without advanced degrees over Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, with 56 percent of non-degree holders backing Trump compared to 42 percent for Harris.
One notable trend highlighted in the analysis is the significant increase in support for Trump among voters without advanced degrees since the 2016 election. This demographic, often referred to as the “poorly uneducated” by critics, showed a doubled level of support for Trump in the 2024 election.
On the other hand, Harris garnered more support from voters with college degrees, with 57 percent of degree holders favoring her compared to 41 percent for Trump. This divide in educational background among voters reflects a broader trend in American politics, where candidates appeal to different segments of the population based on their level of education.
Criticism of Trump’s Education Policies
Despite his success in mobilizing certain voter demographics, Trump’s administration has faced criticism for its handling of education policies. Critics and political pundits have pointed to exit polls and Trump’s own statements about his base to argue that his administration’s actions have negatively impacted the education system.
One controversial move by the Trump administration was the overhaul of the Department of Education, which critics claim was designed to undermine public schools and discourage higher learning. An example of this was the recent provision signed by Trump that reclassified several advanced degree programs, such as nursing, social work, physical therapy, and physician assistant programs, as “non-professional” rather than “professional.”
As a result of this reclassification, federal student loan borrowing limits for these programs were significantly reduced, making it more challenging for students pursuing these fields to finance their education. This move was met with backlash from educators, students, and advocacy groups who argued that it would limit access to crucial professions and undermine the quality of education in these fields.
