The 2024 election saw Donald Trump achieve a significant personal triumph, securing victory across key swing states, improving his voter share broadly, and unlike his 2016 win, capturing an outright majority of the popular vote. This election also bolstered the Republican Party, leading to a larger-than-expected Senate majority and potentially an expanded House majority as final counts emerge. These results suggest a shift beyond incremental change, possibly indicating a new phase in American political dynamics.
Political analysts and historians will dedicate considerable time to dissecting the causes and implications of this election. However, our immediate concern is to address two interconnected questions: What factors led to Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election, and conversely, what contributed to Kamala Harris’s defeat? While the available data is still preliminary, this analysis offers initial insights into these pivotal questions.
The Factors Behind Trump’s Victory
Trump’s Core Strategy Proved Accurate. Donald Trump and his campaign team correctly assessed the political landscape. They believed in leveraging the Republican Party’s increasing support among white working-class voters to forge a diverse, multi-ethnic working-class coalition. The early exit polls suggest this strategy was effective. Trump made noticeable gains among Latino and African American voters, particularly among men. His share of the Black male vote rose from 12% to 20%, and he won Hispanic men by a margin of 54% to 45%.
The Trump campaign also successfully targeted younger voters, improving their performance in this demographic from 35% in 2020 to 42% in this election cycle. Anecdotal evidence points towards young men as the primary drivers of this shift towards Trump. His campaign strategically utilized platforms popular with this demographic, such as Joe Rogan’s podcast, to directly engage with this often-elusive segment of the electorate.
Following the Republican primaries, the Trump campaign faced a strategic crossroads. They could have chosen to moderate their messaging to appeal to Nikki Haley’s supporters, who represented a more traditional conservative stance. Alternatively, they could double down on their appeal to the Republican base, banking on party unity despite initial divisions. They opted for the latter, a gamble that ultimately paid off. Donald Trump secured an impressive 94% of the Republican vote. Furthermore, he narrowed the Democratic advantage among independent voters from nine points in 2020 to just five points in this election, demonstrating broader appeal beyond the Republican base.
Effective Tactical Decisions by the Trump Campaign. Several tactical choices made by the Trump campaign proved crucial in securing victory.
Firstly, the campaign prioritized Trump’s direct connection with his supporters for voter mobilization, rather than investing heavily in traditional get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operations. They outsourced much of this effort to supporting organizations, believing Trump’s personal appeal would be the primary driver. Despite the Harris campaign emphasizing their “ground game” advantage, its actual impact appears to have been minimal. This suggests a shift in campaign strategy effectiveness, where candidate appeal can outweigh traditional organizational efforts.
Secondly, the Trump campaign strategically focused on Kamala Harris’s stance on transgender issues, framing it as a potentially divisive issue, akin to the “Willie Horton” ad of past elections. They invested significantly in negative advertising, particularly in Southern states, highlighting this issue. Anecdotal evidence suggests this campaign effectively undermined Harris’s attempts to present herself as a moderate, center-left candidate, reinforcing a narrative of her being out of touch with mainstream America.
Thirdly, Donald Trump adopted a nuanced position on abortion, declaring that individual states should determine abortion policies and pledging to veto a national abortion ban. While this stance disappointed and even angered some long-time anti-abortion advocates, Trump incurred no significant political cost. He maintained a strong 81% of the white evangelical vote, virtually unchanged from 2020. This tactical moderation on a key social issue broadened his appeal without alienating his core base.
The Factors Contributing to Harris’ Defeat
Harris Faced an Inherently Difficult Campaign. Kamala Harris’s campaign was inherently challenging from the outset. She served as Vice President to Joe Biden, whose approval ratings declined sharply mid-term and never fully recovered. Public dissatisfaction with Biden’s handling of critical issues like inflation and immigration created a negative backdrop for Harris when Biden decided against seeking a second term. She inherited this public disapproval, making it an uphill battle to establish her own independent appeal.
The timing of Biden’s withdrawal from the race further hampered Harris’s campaign. His delayed decision deprived her of the opportunity to hone her campaign message through primary debates and shortened the timeframe for her to introduce herself to the broader electorate as a presidential candidate. While Harris effectively unified the party quickly and leveraged Biden’s existing campaign infrastructure, these efforts couldn’t entirely overcome the disadvantages created by the late start.
Harris’s Core Campaign Theory Was Flawed. Drawing lessons from the 2022 midterm elections, Harris’s campaign centered on reproductive rights, assuming it would galvanize women voters and drive record turnout. However, this strategy did not yield the anticipated results. Women’s share of the overall vote increased only marginally from 2020 levels, and Harris’s share of women voters remained consistent with Biden’s 2020 performance. Furthermore, the emphasis on abortion may have negatively impacted her appeal to men, as her support among men dropped to just 43%, down from Biden’s 48% in 2020. This suggests the focus on abortion rights, while important to a segment of the electorate, failed to broaden her appeal and may have alienated key voting blocs.
Her closing argument, emphasizing Donald Trump as a threat to democracy, also proved less effective than hoped. This was partially due to a significant portion of Republicans and Independents viewing Harris and the Democrats as the actual threats to democracy. Additionally, the “threat to democracy” message lacked new information to sway undecided voters. Donald Trump’s extensive public profile made it exceptionally difficult to alter pre-existing perceptions of him, limiting the impact of this line of attack.
Tactical Missteps Further Weakened Harris’s Campaign. Several tactical decisions by the Harris campaign exacerbated her challenges.
Firstly, Harris missed opportunities to define a clearer political identity distinct from Biden. Despite the burden of Biden’s unpopularity, she avoided any significant policy or rhetorical departures that could have resonated with swing voters. Similarly, her reluctance to articulate her evolution away from previous progressive stances on issues like crime, immigration, healthcare, and climate change blurred her public image. This ambiguity allowed the Trump campaign to successfully portray her as a “closet radical,” hindering her efforts to appeal to moderate voters. In contrast to Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 campaign, where he strategically distanced himself from certain Democratic orthodoxies, Harris did not have a similar “Sister Souljah” moment to demonstrate independence.
Secondly, Harris’s limited engagement with media interviews during the initial phase of her campaign created an impression of her being overly reliant on prepared statements and hesitant to engage in unscripted discussions. Answering tough questions can enhance a candidate’s image of competence and character, a potential benefit that Harris and her campaign seemed to overlook for a significant portion of the campaign. This media strategy may have reinforced negative perceptions and limited her ability to connect with voters on a more personal and authentic level.
Conclusion: Looking Ahead After the 2024 Election
While Democrats anticipated a close election, the scale of their defeat is likely to trigger internal conflict and a period of intense self-reflection. Similar to the aftermath of Michael Dukakis’s 1988 loss, the party will be compelled to undertake a thorough examination of the factors contributing to their defeat. The ensuing primary season is expected to be lengthy and competitive, shaping the future direction of the Democratic Party.
Meanwhile, President Trump faces the challenge of delivering on the ambitious promises made during his campaign. It remains to be seen whether his proposed massive tariffs can be implemented without increasing costs for average American families and triggering further inflation. Similarly, his ability to de-escalate conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East while reducing US global commitments remains uncertain. Furthermore, his pledge to deport millions of undocumented immigrants could potentially lead to social unrest and backlash, particularly among Latino voters who showed increased support in this election. Failure to meet the expectations he has raised, especially among his new supporters, could result in political repercussions for him and his party in the 2026 midterm elections and beyond.
