How can one come to such a conclusion? By understanding the Democrats constitute about 30 percent of the electorate and Republicans constitute about another 30 percent of the electorate: that leaves another 40 percent unaligned and unsupportive of either party. So, a person could argue that, at minimum, about 70 percent of the country does not agree with Trump or his policies. Interestingly, this aligns with a national poll undertaken by NBC News just prior to the election that found 65 percent of voters believed the country was on the wrong tack. Again, nothing suggesting a mandate.1
The question thus becomes: what underpins Trump’s reelection? Conducting a postmortem might produce some answers.
What was the Cause of the 2024 Election Outcome?
Several party leaders and pundits have proffered theories on why Trump won. Most stem from the perspective of the political party they represent, and most look to place blame not on what the message from the election says about the voting public in general but party leadership. In other words, they were arguments made to avoid personal responsibility and save face with party members. Let’s consider a couple examples.
The Argument Biden Stayed on Too Long, or There Should Have Been a New Primary
First argument of why Trump won was that the Biden family, staffers, and Democratic leadership shielded the public from what was Biden’s declining health – a fact that did not reveal itself until Biden’s disastrous debate performance against Trump. First among equals making this argument was Nancy Pelosi.
After the election result, Pelosi publicly stated “had the president gotten out sooner, there may have been other candidates in the race.” Pelosi went on to argue “the anticipation was that, if the president were to step aside, that there would be an open primary,”2 the experience of which would have made Harris a stronger candidate. It is a bit much to swallow, given not only was Pelosi a long-time democrat who was Speaker of the House but effectively the third person in line for the presidency. She and others would have / should have known Biden’s physical and mental condition and should have pushed earlier for Biden to step down as she did later if she suspected such. Moreover, Pelosi had gone on record in early September saying, in support of Harris being selected by Biden as his successor: “We had an open primary and she won it. Nobody else got in the race.”3 An attempt to rewrite history? At minimum. But more likely, it was an attempt to avoid personal responsibility.
An even more outrageous claim came from Jamal Simmons, a campaign spokesperson who was a former communications director for Harris. Simmons made the argument that Biden should step down after Harris lost the election so to make her the first woman president of the United States. This would, according to Simmons, “spare her the responsibility of overseeing the certification of Trump’s victory in Congress on January 6 — a rare situation in which a vice president who contested the presidency would have to formalize their opponent’s win.”4 Never mind Harris lost the election, and historically presidents do not resign in the last moments of their presidency simply to make it possible for someone to avoid a difficult call. But Simmons pressed on, revealing the true intention behind his call: “Harris assuming the presidency temporarily would be a bold move, potentially altering public perceptions of the Democratic Party’s strategy.”5 In other words, it was nothing more than an act of a self-serving loyalist who put party above the system and the people the system is meant to serve.
This is why there is such a deep cynicism among voters in this country. No evidence exists that having other democratic candidates in the race would have changed the outcome, particularly given statements that Harris was the most qualified – and should be given she was Vice President. But claiming that Harris assuming the presidency temporarily could
36