During the 2024 US presidential election, conservatives successfully repackaged demographic concerns into a wake-up call for democracy in order to broaden their appeal to the mainstream. By framing immigration as a deliberate strategy to manipulate elections, political movements normalized extremist discourse under the guise of protecting the voting process. These observations were published in a recent study in the journal PS: Political Science and Politics.
Researchers have been tracking a narrative known as the “Great Replacement” within the conservative media ecosystem for years. The phrase gained modern popularity from French literary theorist Renaud Camus’ 2011 book. But the core anxieties that fuel this theory have a long history in American electoral politics. Historical examples cited by researchers include late 19th century panic over perceived Chinese invasion. Similarly, early 20th century politicians stoked fears of a sudden flood of immigrants from southern Europe.
The modern displacement narrative relies on four central assumptions. This suggests that a country is experiencing a huge demographic change and that this change did not occur by chance. Rather, the theory argues that these changes reflect conscious designs established by political elites to serve their own interests. Ultimately, theorists argue, this conspiracy will result in the forced migration of true citizens who should have it as a birthright.
Michael Feola, an associate professor of government and law at Lafayette College, analyzed how the latest iteration of this theory has emerged in public debate. He sought to understand how right-wing forces leveraged these core themes in the months leading up to the 2024 presidential election. Specifically, Feola examined statements, campaign ads, and social media posts by prominent conservatives. His research sought to explain how politicians conceive of the official language of liberal democracy to serve opposing ends.
Extremist versions of the superseded narrative usually focus entirely on race. This particular variant assumes that the historical white majority is shrinking due to both rising immigration rates and a relative decline in native birth rates. Extremists frequently point to demographic models that predict the United States will become a majority-minority country in the coming decades. This explicitly racialized narrative has sparked multiple episodes of mass violence by white supremacists around the world.
Feola finds that the 2024 election cycle relies heavily on a structurally similar but rhetorically different version of this story. Rather than commit to purely racial survival, political leaders promoted an alternative theory of elections. In this version, politicians argued that elites engineered border policy specifically to attract trusted voters. Immigrants from the Global South were characterized not only as outsiders but also as tools used by political opponents to secure durable electoral advantages.
The message was surprisingly consistent across conservative media during the campaign. Donald Trump has always characterized immigration as an active invasion. He boldly claimed that these border policies were aimed at overriding the actual will of the people and establishing a new power base that would last for generations. The stolen election phrase fit neatly into the broader atmosphere of populist discontent that his camp has been brewing since the last voting cycle.
Other prominent speakers and Republican leaders echoed this particular claim about voting dynamics. Elon Musk, a high-profile Trump campaign surrogate and owner of a major social media platform, regularly posted about an alleged conspiracy to cheat the election. He repeatedly asserted that failure to elect conservative candidates would result in legalization of immigration in key battleground states. Mr. Musk promoted a video alleging a grand plan to flood the country with illegal immigrants to entrench one-party rule.
This rhetoric had a clear impact on government officials’ legislative priorities. U.S. House of Representatives Republican Speaker Mike Johnson has repeatedly accused Democrats of running a secret plan to turn illegal immigrants into voters. In response to this perceived threat, lawmakers enacted the American Voter Eligibility Guarantee Act. Proponents argued that the bill would maintain election integrity by requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, even though citizenship is already a strict requirement for voting in federal elections.
Some operatives avoided using the specific term demographic replacement, while others fully embraced the term. In a nationally televised candidate debate, Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said the Great Change was a fundamental statement of the opposition’s platform. These impassioned appeals highlight how openly extremist language was used to advance mainstream campaign discourse.
This strategy effectively laundered xenophobic messages to a wider audience. By centering the debate on election integrity, politicians cloaked exclusive ideology in the honorable language of democracy. Rather than loudly questioning the country’s racial makeup, they cast themselves as defenders of the voting system. This rhetorical shift made the core tenets of the Great Replacement Theory acceptable to mainstream consumers.
Despite this repackaging, the underlying logic of the message is still very exclusive. At the heart of democracy is the concept of an autonomous people, often called the Greek demos. Feola explains that the narrative of electoral replacement distorts this basic concept. Rather than asking whether the people still exercise power, the message focuses on who counts as a member of the people in the first place.
By defining true citizens who oppose immigration, political messages establish hard boundaries. Race and national origin become master lenses for validating insiders and disqualifying outsiders. Non-white immigrants from the Global South are presented as living evidence of a conspiracy to undermine the autonomy of original populations.
This type of panic over migration tends to serve a dual purpose. What manifests as anxieties about border control quickly turns inward toward domestic spaces. The suspicion generated by these narratives is often directed against minority groups that already have citizenship. The idea that outsiders are weakening the country is easily extended to racial prejudice that exists within the country.
Feola points out that these power relations reflect historical patterns associated with early ultranationalism. In such movements, overarching threats are often characterized as coming from far-flung regions. As states cling to a definition of a pure nation, the category of the dangerous foreign outsider becomes conflated with the racialized people living within its borders. This underlying logic helps explain why today’s accusations of voter fraud target urban areas with predominantly minority populations.
Right-wing operatives recognized the power of alternative narratives to mobilize voters through victimhood. This narrative suggests that electoral integrity is being taken away from the country’s rightful owners, creating a sense of dispossession. When individual sovereignty is felt to be undermined by global forces, politicians can use that fear as a weapon to direct public anger toward specific targets. Fears about changing demographic realities ultimately reflect broader anxieties about the decline of cultural authority.
It is recognized that there are limits to tracking the precise impact of such high-level political rhetoric. This study exists as a theoretical and observational analysis of political media rather than an experimental measurement of individual voter behavior. Although this methodology tracks narrative themes, it cannot fully quantify how many voting decisions were driven solely by this rhetoric. Future research in this area will need to assess how these partisan messages permeate the average citizen.
Going forward, observers will need to consider alternative frameworks for expressing national identity. Feola suggests that society needs a new vision of a democratic nation that can respond gracefully to a changing population. Developing such alternatives is necessary to prevent demographic changes from inciting the anger of the populist historical majority. As the political media ecosystem takes hold, establishing a more inclusive public culture remains a major challenge.
The study, “A Flood of Voters for Them: Alternative Illusions and Democratic Distortions in the 2024 Election,” was authored by Michael Feola.
