The 2024 election witnessed a resounding personal triumph for Donald Trump. He not only secured victory but dominated across swing states, significantly boosted his vote share nationwide, and crucially, achieved an outright majority of the popular vote—a stark contrast to his 2016 win. Furthermore, his leadership propelled the Republican Party to a stronger-than-anticipated Senate majority, and projections indicate a likely expansion of their majority in the House. These outcomes are not mere incremental gains; they potentially herald a transformative shift in the American political landscape.
Political analysts and historians will dedicate extensive research to unraveling the complexities of this election’s causes and its broader implications. My immediate aim is to offer preliminary insights into two interconnected questions: What factors contributed to Donald Trump’s presidential victory in 2024, and conversely, why did Kamala Harris’s bid for the presidency fall short?
Decoding Trump’s Victory
Donald Trump’s core campaign thesis proved remarkably accurate. His campaign strategists correctly assessed the potential to leverage the Republican Party’s growing appeal among white working-class voters to forge a broader, multi-ethnic working-class coalition. The initial data from exit polls suggests this strategy resonated effectively. Trump made notable inroads with Latino and African American voters, particularly among men. His support among Black men surged from 12% in 2020 to an impressive 20%, and he captured a nine-point lead among Hispanic men, with 54% to 45%.
The Trump campaign also strategically targeted younger voters, anticipating improved performance in this demographic, and their efforts yielded results. Support from young adults increased from 35% in 2020 to 42% in 2024. Anecdotal evidence points towards a significant shift towards Trump among young men. Trump actively engaged with this demographic through appearances on popular podcasts like Joe Rogan’s, effectively reaching an audience often considered difficult to access through traditional media channels.
Following the Republican primaries, the Trump campaign faced a strategic crossroads. They could have opted to moderate their messaging to appeal to the supporters of Nikki Haley, whose campaign embodied traditional Reagan-era conservatism. Alternatively, they could maintain their unwavering appeal to the Republican base, banking on party unity despite Haley’s initial opposition. They chose the latter path, a calculated gamble that paid off handsomely. Donald Trump secured an overwhelming 94% of the Republican vote. Further bolstering his victory, he narrowed the Democratic advantage among Independents from nine points in 2020 to a mere five points in this election cycle.
Crucially, the Trump campaign’s tactical decisions proved highly effective. Three choices stood out as pivotal. Firstly, operating under the conviction that Trump’s strong personal connection with his base would be the primary driver of voter mobilization, the campaign strategically minimized investment in traditional get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operations. Instead, they effectively outsourced these efforts to allied organizations. Despite the Harris campaign’s emphasis on its superior “ground game,” evidence suggests that it did not significantly impact the election outcome.
Secondly, the Trump campaign identified Harris’s stance on transgender issues as a potentially vulnerable point, akin to the infamous “Willie Horton” ad of past elections. They invested heavily in negative advertising, particularly in the Southern states, focusing on this issue. Anecdotal reports indicate that this strategy contributed to undermining Harris’s attempts to project a centrist, common-sense image, reinforcing the perception that she was out of touch with mainstream America and represented more radical, coastal viewpoints.
Thirdly, Donald Trump adopted a nuanced approach to the abortion issue, a potentially divisive topic. He declared early in the campaign that abortion policy should be determined at the state level and reinforced this position by pledging to veto any national abortion ban. While this stance disappointed and even angered some long-standing anti-abortion advocates, Trump incurred no significant political cost. He maintained his strong support among white evangelical voters, securing 81% of their vote, virtually unchanged from the 2020 election.
Unpacking Harris’s Defeat
The Harris campaign faced an uphill battle from the outset. She served as Vice President under a president whose public approval ratings declined sharply midway through his term and never recovered. Public sentiment regarding his handling of critical issues like inflation and immigration was overwhelmingly negative. Harris inherited this burden of disapproval when Joe Biden made the decision not to seek a second term.
The timing of Biden’s withdrawal from the race further disadvantaged Harris. The late announcement deprived her of the valuable opportunity to refine her campaign message and policy positions through a competitive primary process. It also significantly shortened the timeframe available for her to introduce herself to a broader electorate and establish her own distinct political identity. While Harris commendably unified the party quickly and leveraged Biden’s existing campaign infrastructure, she struggled to fully overcome the challenges stemming from the delayed transition.
Harris’s fundamental campaign strategy contained inherent flaws. Drawing lessons from the 2022 midterm elections, she prioritized reproductive rights as a central campaign theme, anticipating that this issue would galvanize women voters and drive record turnout. However, this expectation did not materialize. The proportion of women voters in the overall electorate increased only marginally compared to 2020, and Harris’s share of the women’s vote remained consistent with Biden’s 2020 levels. While it’s difficult to definitively quantify the impact of this abortion-centric strategy on her performance among men—her support dropped to just 43%, down from Biden’s 48% in 2020—it undeniably failed to resonate with male voters or convince them that a Harris administration would adequately address their concerns.
Her closing campaign argument, centered on the assertion that Donald Trump posed an imminent threat to democracy, also proved ineffective. This was partly due to the fact that a significant segment of Republican and Independent voters perceived Harris and the Democratic Party as the actual threats to democratic norms. Furthermore, this message lacked novelty and failed to sway undecided voters who already held established views of Donald Trump. Trump’s extensive public profile and long history in the political arena made it exceedingly difficult to alter pre-existing voter perceptions.
Harris’s tactical choices compounded her campaign’s difficulties. Firstly, she missed opportunities to cultivate a sharper and more distinct political persona. Despite the drag of Biden’s unpopularity, she refrained from creating any meaningful policy or rhetorical distance from the outgoing administration that might have resonated with persuadable voters. Similarly, her reluctance to explicitly address her shift away from previously held progressive stances on issues such as crime, immigration, healthcare, and climate change blurred her public image. This ambiguity played into the Trump campaign’s narrative that she was a “closet radical,” out of sync with mainstream American values. Recalling Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 campaign, some Democrats hoped Harris would have a similar “Sister Souljah moment,” publicly distancing herself from certain elements of party orthodoxy to demonstrate her independence and appeal to a broader electorate. However, this strategic pivot never occurred.
Secondly, Harris’s decision to largely avoid media interviews during the initial phase of her campaign created an impression of dependence on scripted statements and a reluctance to engage in unscripted, substantive discussions. Effectively handling challenging questions and demonstrating the ability to think on her feet can significantly enhance a candidate’s perceived competence and character—a potential upside that Harris and her campaign seemingly overlooked for a considerable portion of the campaign.
Conclusion
Democrats anticipated a closely contested election, but the scale of their defeat is likely to trigger internal recriminations followed by a period of intense introspection. Similar to the aftermath of Michael Dukakis’s 1988 loss, the party will inevitably engage in a comprehensive debate regarding the underlying causes of their electoral setback. The ensuing Democratic primary campaigns, sure to be extensive and vigorously contested, will ultimately shape the party’s future direction.
Meanwhile, President Trump faces the significant challenge of fulfilling the ambitious promises he articulated throughout his campaign. It remains to be seen whether he can implement sweeping tariffs without triggering price increases for average American families and reigniting inflationary pressures. The feasibility of his pledges to rapidly de-escalate conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East while simultaneously reducing America’s global commitments also remains uncertain. Furthermore, his commitment to deporting millions of undocumented immigrants could potentially backfire, leading to social unrest and alienating Latino voters who had recently shifted towards his party. Should he fail to meet the high expectations he has generated, particularly among the new voter segments that contributed to his majority, both he and the Republican Party could face significant political repercussions in the 2026 midterm elections and beyond.
