Donald Trump was elected to be the 47th President of the United States, defying the expectation of a close race.

Numerous books and hours of scholarly work will be spent and written about the internal workings of both campaigns, the demographics and how a man who had been twice impeached and indicted multiple times could rise up and become the second president in U.S. history to win non-consecutive terms in the nation’s highest office.

For now, this column will focus on three things — the how, a brief breakdown of the exit polls; the why, a look at where Vice President Kamala Haris went wrong; and, finally, a look at what to expect from a second Trump term. Let’s start with the how.

To achieve the presidency, Trump built a coalition of diverse voters that allowed him to sweep the swing states and destroy the Democratic coalition solidified by former President Barack Obama in the run-up to his second term in 2012.

According to an analysis of exit polls by The Wall Street Journal, the gender gap among voters followed the expectations of pre-Election Day polls, with Harris winning women and Trump winning men.

That is about where the good news ended for Harris, though. Harris lost nearly every demographic of voter that Biden got in 2020, including women voters. For example, The Journal reports that men ages 18-29 were up 15 percentage points for Biden and up 14 points for Trump. 

Harris also lost 16 points in comparison to Biden. Geographically, Harris underperformed Biden in every state, and only beat him in 58 of the country’s 3,144 counties, including the District of Columbia, which is one that Harris gained ground in. 

Perhaps the most surprising demographic statistic though, is that Trump won greater than 40% of the Hispanic nationally and beat Harris outright with those voters in some areas, such as Florida and the southern counties of Texas, which are heavily Latino.

This growing coalition of voters also allowed Trump to gain serious ground in longtime blue states like California and New Jersey.

* * * 

So, why did Harris underperform? 

As far as campaigning goes, Trump did the better job. Often, his reelection bid resembled an influencer’s YouTube channel. The heavy focus on meme-worthy moments and podcast appearances undoubtably helped soften his image among diverse and young voters that were already drifting away from Democrats who had abandoned them as they moved more toward their progressive flank on social issues.

Giving up these voters did not allow conservatives to capture American hearts and minds. Trump is not an urbane, William F. Buckley Jr. or Ronald Reagan Conservative, and he is far from being an evangelist that would please the Mitt Romneys of the electorate. No. What Trump demonstrated on the campaign trail was the political superpower that is populism.

Harris, in comparison, was a letdown on the campaign trail. To be fair, she started on uneven ground. She had to live in the shadow of President Joe Biden, who fell out of favor with American voters and led them to tell pollsters that they believed the country was headed in the wrong direction under him.

In the end, Harris failed to meet the moment she was foisted in to by her party. The Harris campaign revolved around celebrities, “joy” and her being from a middle-class family. That is it. After the sugar high that was her entry into the race, people began to ask questions, and that was a problem for Harris. 

When asked the most important, straight-forward question of candidacy, “What do you plan to do differently than Joe Biden?” She could not muster an answer. These failings were accompanied by long word salads that served as a five-minute way to say absolutely nothing.

To the small few that could be considered a Harris base, these answers were spun as transformational. To most, though, it sounded like a middle-school student trying to come up with a reason why they did not turn in their homework.

Only when this became a notable drag on her polling numbers, Harris decided to change tactics. Not by defining her stance on Israel and Palestine, not by explaining that the left’s electric vehicle mandates are untenable, but by reverting to the Trump is a fascist argument that voters have been hearing for almost a decade.

This sea change toward anti-fascist sloganeering allowed Trump, of all people, to take the “joy” banner away from Harris. While Democrats were admonishing voters that do not embrace their platform, Trump was slinging French fries, driving a garbage truck and hanging out with Joe Rogan.

Ultimately, Harris was an untested candidate that needed to be the new face of an unpopular agenda. Republicans are often criticized for being too devoted to one man: Trump. However true that may be, Democrats have the opposite problem. Harris obfuscated her views because they were those of the party, which for years drifted toward unpopular progressive policy with slogans like “defund the police.” Any attempts to portend she was moderate was done with a wink and nudge to not tip off moderates. Voters saw through it.

If Democrats walk away from this loss with the belief that they need a more progressive candidate, they have not accurately read the exit polls or the electorate.

As for what is to come with a second Trump term, that depends on what version of a Trump presidency we get. If Trump chooses to focus on smiting his enemies and taking an election 2020 revenge tour, he will surely see his control of Congress slip from his grasp in 2026.

Trump was not given a mandate by the voters to seek vengeance. He was given a second chance at the Presidency in order to make the trains run on time, to do the simple role of governing and to stay out of their way. 

According to the polls, voters who cast a ballot for Trump wanted three things: an economy where inflation does not outpace their wages, a secure border and a stable foreign policy. 

If his need for vengeance has been satiated by this victory and can avoid obsessions like a border wall, he has the tools to handle these issues with a unified government. A forecast on which Trump we get will make itself known in the coming weeks and will come in the form of his cabinet picks.

An excellent sign is the return of Brian Hook, who The Wall Street Journal writes is expected to play a role in the upcoming administration. Hook led the push for sanctions against Iran during the first Trump term, which was a huge contributor to the region remaining quiet. 

A bad omen, however, comes in the form of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is seeking a health care position in the administration. What form that comes in — a cabinet position or an adviser — is up in the air. But Kennedy’s ravings against vaccines, fluoride in the water and belief that Covid was a bioweapon will be a constant drag on the administration. Ideally, Trump will not attempt to appoint him to any role, but if he does, the Senate should roundly reject him.

Now, one of the largest sources of angst surrounding Trump’s win comes from fear of a loss of access to abortion rights. Surrounding this topic has been a fair amount of hyperventilating. Trump has emphatically stated that he will not institute a federal abortion ban, and most Republicans are happy to defer to that and avoid any further election losses on the issue.

For more evidence of this, look no further than Tuesday’s election results. Despite a resounding win for Trump and Republicans, abortion bills passed in seven of the 10 states’ ballots that it was on. This is a sign of the system working. Trump has stated that he sent the matter back to the states, and that is only interest.

* * *

Trump is erratic and often prone to his worst impulses. He unnecessarily flatters dictators when a strong America would serve as a deterrence on its own. We can only hope his better angels prevail, and that the focus of his presidency is to fulfill his mandate with a policy-focused agenda. If Democrats temper their aggression and focus on bipartisan issues, there is a hope Trump will be less combative and that the policy establishment types in his administration will do the heavy lifting. 

Share