The victorious Trump camp is touting its newfound “historic” mandate while the dejected Harris camp accuses the country of being “racist and sexist” for letting them down. Both are untrue. Trump won with 295 electoral votes to Harris’ 226. A solid victory, but hardly a landslide. Biden had 306 electoral votes in 2020, considered a relatively close election. Trump himself had 304 in 2016. The popular vote was even closer (Trump: 50.7 per cent; Harris: 47.7 per cent). He lost the popular vote last time, so his supporters are understandably happy to have a clear majority, but these aren’t Obama numbers. Certainly not Reagan numbers.

The Democrats’ conclusion, that the results reflect a white supremacist, misogynistic country, doesn’t hold up either. Almost half the people who voted, voted for her. Even among whites, 40 per cent of men 46 per cent of women went for Harris. Not so long ago, a popular black president won two terms with healthy margins, at a time when pluralities (or razor-thin majorities) had become the norm. The sexism factor is more complex. Some Americans do still seem to think a man is the natural fit as head-of-state or commander-in-chief of the armed forces. But these sentiments are no longer widespread enough to keep a woman from the presidency solely on those grounds. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. Harris herself was elected to a role that’s literally a heartbeat away from the presidency. Plus, Trump made significant gains with women and minorities since 2016. Demographics are not why Harris lost. It probably had some impact but likely balanced out against voters who consider Trump bigoted and voted against him. The Democrats’ relentless focus on group identity rankles many Americans of all stripes, which, ironically, may have been a bigger problem for Harris than bigotry.

Advertisement

There were contentious issues this year: the migrant crisis, wars, censorship, the status of abortion nationally (it remains legal in most states), the environment, and most importantly, the economy. In today’s environment of dramatic, hyper-political, media saturation, one might forget that for the type of people who vote in large numbers (middle age and up), the equation is often mundane and practical. These are lean economic times, which tend to stoke anti-incumbency. Harris is the incumbent. The last time the economy was good was during the Trump administration—another fact that likely worked in his favour. And it didn’t help that the Democrats have been telling people the economy is “really good, actually” (by whatever metric their academic friends are using), even as people struggle to buy groceries and gas.

Oddly, many Democrats seem shocked by their loss. But modern presidential elections are so close that neither outcome should surprise anyone. The wide gap predicted in 2016 polls turned out wrong. The 2024 polls were close and they bore out. Election betting markets (more accurate than regular polls, since people put money on predictions, rather than stating their subjective—often fleeting—preferences), showed Trump leading near the end. The gap fluctuated but steadily leaned Trump in the last days. It is puzzling that Democratic analysts missed this, especially given the lessons of 2016.

The author is a lawyer, writer and editor based in Manhattan, New York