Many of us were disappointed watching the results of election night, which, up until the end, seemed like a close race that ended in a complete blowout, as President-elect Donald Trump won all the swing states necessary for either candidate’s victory. Further analysis of the election showed how Trump outperformed in certain voter groups such as Latinos and women, while Vice President Kamala Harris underperformed in many ways, proving to be less popular than President Joe Biden was in 2020.
On top of the GOP’s presidential victory, they also secured a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress. Combined with the already 6-3 conservative Supreme Court, the entire make-up of the government is a Republican’s dream. With defeats in both the executive and legislative branches, this poses a serious and difficult question to Democrats: “why are we so unpopular?”
Like most things, there is no one answer to this question. Looking at the Harris-Walz campaign, we’re able to see some of the faults leading to the party’s waning popularity. In many ways, the Harris-Walz campaign was one of the most impressive political campaigns in recent history. In a little over 100 days, Harris was able to go neck and neck with one of the most popular American presidents of the modern age. By all polling and surveys done, Harris seemed to have a shot. However, it never translated to people actually going to the ballot box.
Polling in general has never been an exact science, and in most cases can misrepresent different voter groups. Since the decline of landline phones in average American houses, pollsters have taken a hit. They must now rely on cellphones and other means of data collection that have much lower turnout, as most people are hesitant to answer an unknown caller. Professor Micheal Bailey from Georgetown University highlights that even some of the most popular polls such as the New York Times/Siena College only get around a one percent response rate: “The game’s over. Once you have a 1 percent response rate, you don’t have a random sample.” With a turnout of only one percent, it’s hard to make a comprehensive analysis of anything.
There is also the issue of recall-vote weighting, which has been used before but was one of the most common methods used by pollsters in 2024. Recall-vote weighting polling uses a person’s previous vote, in this case Biden or Trump, and weights that response differently depending on their demographic in relation to the country’s total makeup. While weighting is often used to give certain groups a proportionate say, when combined with using previous election data it leaves a lot of room for error. Recall polling often doesn’t consider all the time between elections; things like Roe V. Wade and midterm elections would be missed by simply asking people who they voted for in the last election. Polling errors like these can create idealistic promises, which can often be met with hard reality.
Beyond errors in polling, many have come to criticize Harris’ campaign itself. People from both sides have picked apart Harris’ entire campaign, making it seem as though she couldn’t do anything right. While some complained she was too progressive, others claimed she was too moderate. To some, she was too similar to Biden, and to others, it was like she stabbed Biden in the back.
But no matter how she did this campaign, she was in a precarious spot from the beginning. Being a last-minute swap-in for the current president puts her in a position no other candidate has ever been in. With an unprecedented 100 days to campaign, she was expected to beat the most popular Republican candidate in history. This campaign, while strong, was far from perfect with major gaps in voter turnout, especially in the audience Democrats needed to win, such as Hispanic and women voters.
But why was this the case? I believe it all comes down to platform and messaging. The sad reality is that as a Black Indian woman, she was forced to run a more moderate campaign in fear that her being too progressive would scare off moderates. This ended up being a mistake. Instead of trying to reach for moderate and Republican support, her campaign should’ve gone for a more progressive approach that aligned more with Democrat voters. This can be backed up by the fact that she received less Democrat turnout than Biden did in 2020, with Biden’s 81 million compared to her 73 million votes.
Her messaging, as mentioned before, was also a key factor in her loss. Going into the election, two of the biggest concerns among voters were the economy and immigration. While the Biden-Harris Administration tackled those issues head-on and was able to properly deal with the economy and immigration after the mishandling of them by the Trump administration, it didn’t feel like that to many voters.
What this administration failed to consider is that very often, American voters refuse to do their research and simply vote by assessing when their life was better. For example, in the context of the economy, even though Biden inherited a debt-ridden economy because of the Trump administration, many people saw inflation as Biden’s fault simply because they don’t do their research. But not all blame can be put on the voters. Politicians have known this pretty much forever, so it’s always been crucial to reach voters in simple terms. This is something the Harris campaign simply wasn’t able to do.
However you may feel about him, Trump is excellent when it comes to simple messaging. Rather than having hard stances on every issue, Trump focused on the economy and immigration; the two issues that mattered most to American voters. Simple ideas like removing taxes on tips and closing the border are simple solutions, and while they may not be effective or be an accurate depiction of the truth, most of the time it doesn’t matter; if it sounds appealing to the average white working man, it’ll result in a vote.
Despite his simple messaging, it is still extremely disappointing to see the American electorate overwhelmingly vote for Trump. This campaign is by no exaggeration a campaign of hate and revenge. He didn’t once try to hide his true intentions. He publicly made statements in favor of weaponizing the military against the “enemy from within,” referring to his political opponents like Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Nancy Pelosi. He also praised dictators like Hitler, stating, “Hitler did some good things, too,” and needing “German Generals … Yeah, yeah, Hitler’s Generals.”
Currently, Biden and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership are facilitating a peaceful transfer of power, a right not given to Biden only four years ago by the now president-elect. During these next four years, the Democratic Party must go under serious reconfiguration to stand a chance against the next Republican candidate.
It’s not only the party that needs to rethink their decisions. We as a nation are at fault as well, and we need to understand why so many people were so in favor of a war-mongering, election-denying lunatic. We must hope that in four years’ time, Trump will be willing to give up his power and accept the results of the 2028 election whether he likes the outcome or not. Without the peaceful transfer of power, we are no different than the monarchy we separated from in 1776.
Felipe Sathler can be reached at [email protected].
