Donald Trump has become the first president since Grover Cleveland to be elected to non-consecutive terms in the White House. As comebacks go this is nothing short of spectacular.
Pollsters and pundits agreed that the election was too close to call but in the end Trump romped home. He won the crucial swing states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia and became the first Republican to win the nation’s popular vote since George W. Bush in 2004.
Why did the US opt for a convicted felon with two impeachment convictions over a woman who made her career putting felons away? How did a man who tried to divide the country based on race, ethnicity and class, a fraudster and a delusional fantasist, manage to galvanise voters. Why did Harris lose?
Firstly, Trump’s question - “Do you feel better off than you did four years ago?” - resonated with voters. The US is not in recession and has recovered remarkably well from the pandemic. Despite a booming economy, low unemployment and robust growth there are high levels of economic dissatisfaction largely due to surging inflation. Trump’s victory over Harris reflected high levels of voter discontent over rising prices and a cost-of-living crisis.
Trump said the economy is “in a mess” and people who were angry about the soaring cost of living believed him. Young people worry they will be worse off than their parents’ generation and unable to buy their own homes. His message connected. He voiced how swathes of people, particularly the most exposed and marginalised, felt. “We’ve watched our country take a great beating over the last three years,” Trump said. “We’re gonna take back our country.”
Subscriber Exclusive: Ask columnist Tom Kelly a question
In 1992 a strategist in Bill Clinton’s successful presidential campaign coined the phrase: “It’s the economy, stupid.“ Put simply this was a recognition of the fact that American voters are primarily swayed by their own personal economic circumstances. To believe anything else is to be out of touch with the needs of ordinary Americans.
For most citizens the economy translates to the dollar in their pocket, their pay cheque and the price of essentials. It all boils down to: “Can I afford to live?”
Abstract concepts such as GDP, the Federal Reserve, the Dow Jones, a booming stock market are largely meaningless. The lesson here is that voters judge the economy by the ability to pay bills and their quality of life. Most Americans now spend so much on essentials such as food and fuel that they have little left for extras. People feel left behind, their concerns falling on deaf ears.
The US economy might be the envy of the world, but it is meaningless if you can’t pay your bills. You can tell people about growth and GDP endlessly, but if poverty, cohesion in communities and security fears are not addressed then a populist figure like Trump will inevitably emerge.
The Democrats focused on the wrong things and didn’t seem to understand fears around immigration, their neighbourhoods and the economy. In the last four years American food prices have gone up by 22%. Running a campaign on your opponent’s threat to democracy when people can’t afford their groceries is madness.
Secondly, notwithstanding the fact that Kamala Harris entered the race for the White House at a very late stage, she was a singularly unimpressive candidate. She struggled to articulate a meaningful vision for the future of the country. Joe Biden should have stepped aside long before he was forced out. Holding on to power meant that we ended up with a bizarre coronation of Harris, rather than a convention to identify the best candidate.
Running a campaign on your opponent’s threat to democracy when people can’t afford their groceries is madness
Harris’s inability to define what would be different about her presidency was damning. When asked what she would do differently to Biden her response was “not a thing comes to mind”. No new policies, business as usual? How would the Democrats effectively address the concerns of millions of Americans? No idea - and nor it seemed had they.
As Biden’s number two she had consistently low poll ratings and seemed unable to connect with the public. Whilst she sparkled during the debate with Trump many of her later speeches and interviews were incoherent ramblings. The ability to communicate is a core part of the job description, not an optional extra.
Her preoccupation with reproductive rights was divisive and failed to land with the electorate. One of the Democrats’ final TV ads was aimed directly at women, and its message was ‘It’s OK to vote for Kamala, you don’t have to tell your husbands’. When you are counting on women’s votes, it is probably best not to patronise them by suggesting they are all weak-minded drips.
Doubtless as a woman of colour, she was held to a different standard by a country who had grown used to Trump’s outrageousness. As one US commentator quipped “he gets to be lawless, and she has to be flawless”.
Finally, wheeling out Springsteen, Oprah, Lady Gaga and Beyonce to tell people how to vote is deeply condescending. It also further highlighted the insipid, vapid policy-free nature the Democratic campaign. No-one cares what celebrities think. Trump had Hulk Hogan, and he still won.
