Donald Trump's election victory in 2024 marks an extraordinary—and, to many, tragic—moment in American politics. Despite a record of controversy, including a refusal to concede his 2020 loss, inciting a violent insurrection at the Capitol, and multiple felony convictions, Trump managed to secure a decisive victory in this year's election. His return, fueled by an aggressive campaign aimed at frustrated voters, signals a further fracture in an already polarized nation. In claiming crucial swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, Trump recreated his 2016 success and overcame Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, in a fiercely divided political landscape.
Harris, the first woman of color to lead a major-party ticket, failed to inspire many coalitions of voters she needed to win. After Biden begrudgingly exited the race amid concerns about his age in the fallout from his horrendous debate performance, Harris faced the daunting task of unifying a weary and divided Democratic base, yet her campaign faltered at key moments. Despite initial enthusiasm, her message lacked the clarity and force needed to sway disillusioned voters. While she promoted themes of joy, unity, and progress, her campaign seemed detached from the economic and safety concerns that many Americans expressed. Her response to mounting issues, such as inflation and border security, was perceived by some as inadequate, as her rhetoric often failed to address these worries with direct and concrete plans. For these voters, Harris represented continuity with an administration they viewed as unable to deliver.
Meanwhile, Trump’s strategy played directly to the concerns Harris failed to address. He painted a bleak, even apocalyptic image of America, claiming the country had been overrun by crime and undocumented immigrants under Democratic leadership. His language was often inflammatory, laced with personal attacks on Harris that frequently veered into misogyny and racism. Yet, these tactics found favor with a segment of the electorate that longed for a return to a time when they felt more secure and in control. Trump’s hypermasculine, “no-holds-barred” style played well, with huge shifts in support in basically every measurable voter demographic from four years ago.
Harris’s massive defeat reflects not only the limitations of her campaign but also the immense challenge of competing against Trump’s deeply polarizing and rhetorically charged style. While Harris advocated for inclusion and equality, her message struggled to connect with an electorate facing practical issues, from economic instability to perceived threats to national security. Even though she represented a historic choice, her campaign was criticized for failing to evolve beyond generalities and for not addressing specific anxieties about inflation, immigration, and crime.
In securing the presidency, Trump benefits from a newly Republican-controlled Senate, which may give him a clear path to enact his agenda with minimal resistance. This vision includes sweeping changes: a plan for the largest deportation effort in American history, a vow to punish perceived enemies through the Justice Department, and an intention to upend longstanding international alliances like NATO. These promises signal a radical shift from the democratic norms that have defined the nation’s global role, replacing them with isolationist and retributive policies that resonate with his base but worry many others.
Despite facing felony convictions and ongoing investigations, Trump’s legal troubles were reframed by his campaign as proof of his victimization by “overreaching” government institutions, a theme that galvanized his supporters. By positioning himself as a warrior against an entrenched system, he successfully turned his legal issues into a rallying point. Harris, on the other hand, struggled to counteract this narrative or to convince voters that her approach would restore stability and address their concerns. The Democratic strategy, at times, seemed reactive rather than proactive, allowing Trump to dominate the discourse during the months leading up to election day.
In the aftermath, Trump’s return signals the potential erosion of democratic checks and balances, with fewer constraints on a president determined to wield power in unprecedented ways. Trump has indicated that he will surround himself with loyalists, aiming to avoid the internal checks that tempered some of his decisions during his first term. His judicial appointments, including a Supreme Court that has recently granted broad executive immunity, further ensure that his administration will face limited opposition within the government. Critics, both domestic and international, view his intentions as perilous, fearing that his authoritarian tendencies may intensify and reshape the country’s democratic fabric.
As America looks to the future, it faces a profound and tragic tension: a government steered by a divisive figure who capitalized on fear and resentment, while the opposition once again failed when needed most. The Democrats leave many unanswered questions about the future of the party as they analyze what exactly went so wrong with the Harris campaign in 2024. Prior to this election, 2016 felt like a fluke, a perfect storm of circumstances that led to the first Trump presidency, which we would learn from and would move on. Now, with this outcome, it feels very different. With a sweeping mandate, Trump is set to pursue an agenda that critics warn could fundamentally alter the American government, leaving many to wonder if the country will emerge from this chapter without being irreparably changed. But, if history has shown us anything, it's that the nation’s deepest trials can inspire renewed dedication to democracy, prompting a stronger, more united response in the face of division and darkness.
image credit: Wired