The 2024 election produced an unexpectedly broad victory for Donald Trump and the Republican party. They joyously touted the outcome as a big rightward shift in the political views of Americans.
Many Democrats, including myself, see these results differently. We must shake off any initial reactions of astonishment and depression and look frankly at why Trump was reelected. With this information, we must get involved in the high-stakes policy debates that lie ahead.
For starters, the American electorate did not experience a road-to-Damascus awakening on November 5. The margin of victory was no “landslide.” No rock-solid majority of voters committed to the Republican party emerged that day.
“Trump won the White House not only because he turned out his supporters and persuaded skeptics, but also because many Democrats sat out this election, presumably turned off by both candidates,” concluded a New York Times analysis. Voters in liberal strongholds across the country failed to show up to vote for Harris at the same level they had turned out for Biden four years earlier. This contributed significantly to her defeat by Trump.
The Times article pointed to Cook County/Chicago as a striking example of this trend. “Overall turnout there was down by 20%. Mr. Trump collected about his same 2020 total vote, but Ms. Harris’s total was more than 417,000 behind Mr. Biden’s.”
Why did so many Democrats not vote? Several crucial and contrasting factors from the Trump and Harris campaigns may help explain that decisive point in the election.
Trump’s super-persona
By the time Donald Trump first ran for and won the Presidency in 2016, he was already widely known from his long stint on “The Apprentice” reality TV show. With his stern “you’re fired” delivery and convincing posture as a successful businessman, he already had a fan base. Fox News expanded Trump’s nationwide recognition by covering his many campaign events and giving him opportunities to comment on Fox programs.
When Trump was defeated in his bid for a second term in 2020, he alleged that the election was stolen from him through massive fraud in ballot counting. He vowed to run again to claim what was his by right.
Despite a lack of substantiating evidence, Trump persisted in repeating this stolen election falsehood (along with untruths about other topics) in courtrooms, public appearances, and the media. In short, he told people what he wanted the truth to be, not what it really was.
Although clearly unethical, his lies and accompanying antics made for interesting entertainment and kept him in the national spotlight on news and entertainment outlets and social media. Trump could not have been happier with all this free publicity.
While Trump faced several lawsuits in state and federal courts as a result of his actions, he was mostly successful in delaying them from proceeding until after the 2024 election. In a civil court case, he was found liable for sexual abuse. In a criminal court case that he couldn’t delay, he was convicted of 34 felony counts of business fraud; however, the judge delayed his sentencing decision until after the election.
How could Conservative Christians vote for someone with Trump’s record of convictions and questionable behavior? They often responded that Trump had followed through on appointing a conservative Supreme Court and had taken other actions consistent with their beliefs. As for moral issues, some replied that all politicians were crooks.
Trump’s fundraising and tax policies
Trump’s outsized persona as a self-declared billionaire helped him in other areas—including fundraising opportunities and appeals to corporate leaders and wealthy Americans.
Soon after his defeat in 2020, Trump began a four-year operation to raise funds and otherwise prepare for his 2024 bid for the presidency. This long timeline for raising and spending money toward his election proved to be a great advantage for Trump over his eventual opponent, Kamala Harris.
In fundraising aimed at corporations and wealthy individuals, Trump made the pitch that as president, he could protect and continue special provisions of the federal tax code, set to expire in 2025-26, that kept their taxes low.
Trump was in that select group. During his first campaign and into his Presidential term, he refused all requests to release his federal tax returns. When six years of his returns were finally released to a congressional committee, with the backing of the U.S. Supreme Court, they revealed that Trump had paid very little in federal income taxes during the first and last year of his presidency and had claimed huge losses that helped limit his tax bill. For example, he paid nothing in federal income taxes in 2020.
An additional factor that seemed to worked in Trump’s benefit was the increased use of “dark money”—funds raised from undisclosed donors to influence elections—a permissible and growing practice since the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision.
In addition, Elon Musk, one of the world’s richest men, gave Trump’s campaign a dramatic gift of $275 million. This money was used in several states to identify by name undecided voters and use online information to glean their preferences and convince them to support Trump.
This funding approach, which allows a candidate to focus spending on individuals instead of flooding a state with expensive media advertising, is credited with helping to bring Pennsylvania into Trump’s column on election day.
Harris’s path
In contrast to Trump, Kamala Harris—a first-generation American born of immigrants from South Asia and the Caribbean—took a more typical political path of proceeding from lower- to higher-level elective offices. First elected as San Francisco’s District Attorney, Harris went on to become California’s State Attorney General and then U.S. Senator.
As a Democratic candidate for president in the primaries leading up to 2020, Harris lacked sufficient popular support and financial backing, but she was tapped by Biden to be his running mate in their winning 2020 campaign.
Two years into his term, in April 2023, President Biden formally announced that he was running for reelection and pushed ahead even though a win would make him the nation’s oldest president. More than a year later, Biden withdrew from the 2024 race on July 21 after a disastrous debate performance and mounting concerns about his age and health. This left little very time for Vice President Harris, his chosen replacement, to mount a presidential campaign.
When Harris accepted the nomination on August 5, 2024, Biden gave her some of his campaign money and staff, but that lessened the burden only a little. Harris still had just three months to create and execute a plan to win the White House. By contrast, Trump had four years to prepare and campaign for his first White House run, and another four years to plan to avenge his 2020 loss and regain the presidency.
Although Harris was accustomed to an uneven playing field, this short campaign limited her time to create and carry out strategies to deal with sexism displayed in opposition to her candidacy, Latinos’ weakening loyalty to the Democratic party, and concerns of Asian Americans that Democrats were against business.
This was on top of the typical candidate tasks of solidifying the party base behind her, stirring enthusiasm about her chances of winning, raising lots of money, and formulating positions on dozens of issues. She also had to raise her visibility by sharing her story and ideas through campaign appearances, press conferences, and other media strategies.
Making oneself known to voters as a viable candidate for national office involves spending a lot of money. This is especially the case for someone like Harris, who was not widely known when she became the Democratic nominee for vice president.
After the enthusiastic reception she received at the August National Democratic Convention, Harris collected donations from thousands of individuals and organizations. These contributions were an early affirmation that she could win despite the difficulties.
Harris’s ties to the Biden Administration
During the 2024 campaign, Harris had to bear the burden of being a representative of the Biden Administration. Every vice president who wants to become president faces the same dilemma: how to create an identity separate from that of the president one is seeking to replace. Naturally this creates tensions between them.
In 1960, President Dwight Eisenhower was asked what actions his Vice-President, Richard Nixon, had taken to help the country. The President’s answer to the reporter who asked the question was to give him a week and he might be able to come up with one. Nixon lost the election that year to John F. Kennedy.
Harris was frequently asked which policies of the Biden administration would she change. She answered these questions very delicately so as not to offend President Biden.
Trump used those answers to portray Harris as a defender of the status quo. For instance, he would say at a rally that the immigrant problem was enormous, and then taunt her by asking why she and Biden had not solved the problem in these last four years that they were in office. These comments were made from a distance. After Trump lost his only face-to-face debate with Harris, he must have seen her as a major threat to his plan to regain office, and he refused to meet with her in another debate.
Changes in party perceptions
After November 5, 2024, the two political parties looked and sounded different than they had before.
Before election day, the Republicans seemed to be somewhat splintered; Harris had gained support from many Republicans who had worked for, with, or near Trump. Seeking their endorsements seemed to be a clever strategy by Harris that might peel off more Republican votes.
Harris’s rallies seemed enthusiastic and well-attended. Democrats’ efforts to turn out the vote seemed to be working well.
After the election returns were released, Democrats were stunned: how could such a man be elected President?
Republicans were joyful. After recent election losses, it had seemed the Democrats were on a roll. Trump’s widespread victory gave Republicans hope that they were on their way back.
Some missing parts of this political equation are starting to emerge from studies. For instance, many people, especially younger ones, get their news from websites that are unregulated and often ideological. Did the campaigns waste a lot of money gearing themselves to the old information world and not the new?
Conclusions
Three important conclusions can be drawn from this discussion of the 2024 election.
First, Democrats created many of their own problems.
- Biden insisted on running for reelection even though he must have known of his failing health
- Democratic leaders must also have had some idea of the state of Biden’s health and aging symptoms but did not confront him early enough to help his replacement.
- Liberals who did not vote may have refrained from backing Harris because she was not “pure” enough.
Second, Harris’s much shorter campaign time of three months versus Trump’s four years has not received nearly the attention it deserves. She had heavy restrictions on what she could do, in terms of both time and loyalty to Biden, while Trump was unrestrained.
Third, Republicans have made clear their intentions to help the highest-income and corporate taxpayers. To distinguish themselves from these Republican policies, the Democrats need to rededicate themselves to their traditional priorities—creating and maintaining good jobs and directing spending toward education, training, and social needs.
In sum, factors that contributed to the Democrats’ losses in 2024 are being ignored as people rush to ideological explanations and solutions. For those who are committed to strengthening the Democratic party, the message is, Don’t overreact. Rethink what we could do better, but don’t throw out everything. Stick to our values, not Trump’s.