January 1, 2025
Whew! Election Armageddon has come and gone, and there has been very little looting and no burning of buildings, which many Americans were worried about, including myself. After a steady avalanche of political ads for almost a year, it's "All Quiet on the Election Front." As many political prognosticators had projected, Donald Trump was re-elected to the Presidency, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, winning the Electoral College 312-226, and surprisingly, the popular vote by two million votes. It is something a Republican has not done in nearly 20 years. After the dust has settled, what are the takeaways and what do the next four years have in store for the country?
__________________________
Even in January 2020, when the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, left Washington, D.C. on a Special Air Mission (Air Force One when not used by any current President), many knew that he would become the prodigal chief executive and try to win back the White House in 2024. Democrats felt they had a good opportunity to defeat the former President for the second time. So, what happened? What were the main themes of their massive defeat against Donald Trump?
Polling: As in previous presidential contests, the polling showed that the race was close and within the statistical margin of error for either candidate. This was the case for several months of the campaign, especially after President Biden formally ended his re-election campaign. Most of the major polling sites (FiveThirtyEight.com for example) showed the race fairly close, or even with Vice President Harris in the lead, within the margin of error. When comparing polling with the actual election results, something doesn't add up. Either the sample sizes used were confined to small groups that, while qualified as legitimate polling, did not produce outcomes that matched the collected data. President Trump won the Electoral College by a fairly large margin, which a Republican president has not achieved since Ronald Reagan in 1984. That meant the polling did not reflect public sentiment around the country. Why was this?
My theory is that polling companies are businesses, which run on money. Supply and demand. Political campaigns, non-profits, wealthy donors, and others who had a vested interest in former President Trump being defeated, likely sought out desired information that reinforced their biases and wanted data and polling to reinforce their political views. The Harris-Waltz campaign worked in conjunction with these people because they wanted to translate that intense dislike of President Trump into financial contributions to the cause. As a result, the campaign was able to generate close to 1.2 billion dollars, a staggering amount within a short window (slightly over three months). As such, the polling data that was presented hid the true opinions of voters in favor of financial incentives for vested parties.
Harris Campaign Failures: Since President Joe Biden abdicated his presidency, the mood amongst Democrats was buoyed by early optimism that a younger, dynamic candidate would increase the political fortunes of the party heading into pivotal Election Day. However, those feelings did not protect Vice President Harris from the political liabilities whispered about her during her time in Washington, D.C. This included no major legislative accomplishments as a Senator representing California. She was able to make a positive impression on certain voters, however, with her aggressive questioning of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings, which boosted confidence in her slightly.
Ms. Harris was able to perform reasonably well during her one debate with former President Trump, although the bar was set very low and the media did not pressure her or fact-check her the same way they did Mr. Trump. Her selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz did not provide any sort of boost either. Mr. Walz did not energize men in her party, or Republicans or even independents, and that was not a good sign. During media interviews and campaign stops, she did not provide any comprehensive background on her policy positions, and there was a dearth of solutions to current problems, which in turn gave voters the impression she was not the right person to move the country in a better direction. Some party insiders wanted her to choose popular Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, but I think Ms. Harris didn't want her V.P. candidate to upstage her, and also appease the far-left activists who were the most vocal on social media, on her most liberal flank.
Trump Campaign Successes: On the other hand, even though Mr. Trump did not appeal to the general public for various reasons, he was able to make inroads with certain political demographics that Republicans have not been able to reach or improve on in decades. Latinos are the fastest-growing demographic in the United States, and although Vice President Harris won overall with this group, she only carried them by 8 points overall, (but Mr. Trump won Hispanic males by a point), whereas President Biden won them by 33 points in 2020.
What was the reason for this? Partly, it can be attributed to voters feeling that he was genuine (or at least he was good about faking it), and his policy positions were said without fear or favor. Most notably, this related to illegal immigration and closing the southern border, which weighed heavily with a majority of voters this election cycle. Whereas Vice President Harris showed a lack of positive impression from independents and Republicans who were open to being swayed. One of the most loyal voting blocks for Democrats, black voters, still voted overwhelmingly for the party, but Mr. Trump won 10% more (20% overall) than when he lost the election four years ago. Most of that increase was due to an aggregate increase in support from men of all stripes, but especially black men, which is impressive, considering the political alignment with this voter group and the Democratic party for many decades.
Cabinet Picks: One of the interesting things that former President Trump did in this election campaign that has not been done before was to announce his cabinet choices before the votes were cast. It gave Americans the vision Mr. Trump was advocating before he was sworn in, and if citizens liked those choices, it gave them an additional reason to vote for the former president. He stated that he would appoint Kash Patel, a loyal lieutenant in his previous administration as the Director of the FBI, he floated the idea of Vivek Ramaswamy with a plum Cabinet position, but ultimately gave him and Trump Whisperer Elon Musk the task of creating the "Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)," a clever double entendre meant to invoke a better, smarter and well-run government which coincidentally also shares the name of a cryptocurrency Mr. Musk supports (DOGECOIN).
Additionally, he included in his potential cabinet choices other vocal Trump supporters such as former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence(DNI), controversial Defense Secretary-designate Peter Hegseth, formerly of Fox News and combat veteran, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as Attorney General for the Department of Justice, and litigator, vaccine skeptic and Democratic party family scion Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for Secretary of Health and Human Services. So far, only one Trump cabinet pick was forced to resign, Matt Gaettz, after the House of Representatives was forced to publish an internal ethics investigation. Will others, such as Pete Hegseth, not get confirmed, or forced to bow out prematurely? While he didn't officially endorse all these cabinet positions before November 5th, he didn't deny their potential involvement in his administration. Perhaps to unofficially gauge public approval of them to determine if they pass muster? Mr. Trump, as of now, continues to support his choices.
Prognosis: President Trump was able to secure a second single term because of a combination of factors, some of which were not in his control, while others were a result of this campaign. President Joe Biden was told he needed to resign by serious Democratic party players behind the scenes, rumored to include Senator Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi, and if rumors are true, former President Barack Obama. The push came after Mr. Biden performed poorly (on an aesthetic level) in a single debate with Mr. Trump. As a parting shot, Joe Biden endorsed his vice president, which put pressure on Democrats to coalesce around Ms. Harris. As stated before, she was able to generate money for her campaign, but it has been questioned if that money was spent wisely, which included lavish outlays for a women-centric podcast interview ("Call Her Daddy" with Alex Cooper), interview with Oprah Winfrey (Harpo Productions), etc. When you lose a presidential election, the campaign's strategy, tactics, and fundraising expenses will be reviewed and scrutinized, and fairly or unfairly, be a representation of the candidate and how they would govern themselves.
Time will tell if President Trump delivers on his many promises, including lowering grocery prices, avoiding costly military quagmires, peace and prosperity for a majority of Americans, little to no scandals, and an honorable administration that the American people are supportive of. However, if he reverts to the political showman who prefers rallies instead of governance, and the effective leadership he espoused, he will cause problems for his party, they will lose one or both the House of Representatives and the Senate, investigations will be opened against him, and it will be four years of chaos, conflict, and the continued fragmentation of our democracy.
It's "All Quiet on the Political Front" for what's left for 2024.
Happy New Year!
Now that 2025 has arrived: Buckle Up.
