Donald Trump clearly won over Kamala Harris because he interpreted the citizen of the United States better, says the author of this column written for CIPER. “Trump and his MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement knew how to target the two central axes: economic fears and insecurity,” he maintains, warning that with the magnate back in the White House the impact on both the Democratic and Republican parties It will be powerful, just like in the rest of the world.
Cover image credits: Instagram @realdonaldtrump
If a government has 66% disapproval regarding the management of its economy, if there is a feeling in key areas of the country of an increase in insecurity due to the management of illegal immigration and, in addition, its country is increasingly involved in warlike conflicts, economically costly and with potential military involvement, do you believe that a candidate from that administration, who has been part of it since its inception, could win an election? The Democratic Party of the United States believed it. What’s more, quite a few of his followers have been surprised by the election result.
From a poll performance standpoint, Harris’ performance was always poor. How is it possible, if they were in a close fight with Trump and even slightly above on many occasions? It is a mirage if the comparison is not made. 24 hours before the elections, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were, the first, 4-5 percentage points above Trump; and 10, the second. Clinton lost, and Biden won in a very hard way. It is known that on election day Trump gets much more than the polls indicate. Therefore, reaching a tie was a very bad scenario for Harris. Furthermore, in all measures, without exception, Trump was always ahead of her in ability to manage the economy and respond to crises.
First, Trump’s victory is a reaffirmation that the economy and security remain crucial issues for voters.. For example, in the debate between the two, Harris clearly performed better than Trump, but Trump managed to make two central points in something that went more unnoticed in the press: raising doubts about whether or not Harris would ban fracking, which is key for economies like that of the state of Pennsylvania, one of the most electorally relevant. Then, beyond bombastic discussions such as the veracity of the former president’s statements about immigrants eating pets, He did advance the point that the Democratic administration failed to manage immigration. Trump lost the 2020 election for one big reason: Covid had hit the American economy.
Secondly, the representation of the common citizen. Taylor Swift, influencers, the Hollywood world, they don’t win elections. Trump frying potatoes at McDonald’s is more effective. Joe Biden, 2020 version, with a life marked by personal tragedies, with the speech and appearance of an average individual, but with warmth, is a more powerful candidate than Kamala Harris, with an elite education, more linguistically articulate and with the air of a person very empowered.
Finally, campaign programs are required that are perceived as national development. The Democratic Party focused its profiling on highlighting the symbolism behind Harris (woman, her non-white ancestors, etc.), in an attempt to repeat the Obama effect, without thinking that perhaps with him, that strategy was already obsolete. Also, on women’s reproductive rights, where the majority of the population agrees with the vision of the Democrats, but without taking into account that it is an issue with less electoral impact compared to others, such as the economy. The declaration of the Democratic Party Convention in which Harris is nominated begins with a declaration of recognition of indigenous peoples, but these types of themes are not electorally effective. What’s more, the Harris result among Latinos (53-45%), young people (55-42%) and women (54-44%), it is lower than what Biden obtained in the first two cases, and in the last, less than expected. Even for these sectors, the classic issues of economics and security remain fundamental.
His other strategy was to ridicule Trump, but it was not effective. The rejection of the Biden-Harris administration was stronger.
On the contrary, Trump and his MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement knew how to target the two central axes: economic fears and insecurity.
The consequences of Trump’s victory will be enormous. Firstly, internally, for the two historic North American parties. The Democratic Party, unless it wants to become irrelevant, as has happened to other center-left groups internationally, must rethink its strategy and profile. He wokismo It is not a competitive electoral platform. Issues such as abortion, minority rights, environmentalism and new waves of feminism, although they can be part (and are required) of the party’s core value, cannot be thought of as the main electoral strategy. They need to advance a realistic and competitive economic and social proposal against the Republican Party. Likewise, they must look for the right people to lead the party. They must retire the Obamas, forget about Hollywood and pop stars, distinguish the concrete citizen world from Netflix. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is very good for the latter, but not for projecting her party beyond its niches, and leaving the Californian elite of the Pelosis, the hipsters of Silicon Valley, the Berkeley and Stanford students: They need to recover the traditional American middle class.
On the other hand, Trump will leave a mark comparable to that of the Kennedy-Johnsons (civil rights, the Great Society, etc.) and that of the Reagan era (tearing down the Roosevelt and Kennedy-Johnson legacy). The Republican Party will be that of the MAGA movement. The Reaganite heritage will be definitively buried. With control of Congress, Trump will advance his national and international agenda without further counterweight. It will try to reconfigure international politics in Europe (the United States’ link with its traditional allies and the greater rapprochement with the countries of Eastern Europe), Asia (Japan and South Korea will be seen as economic competitors and China as the great enemy to which cope), the Middle East (resuming rapprochement between Israel and the Gulf countries) and the recovery of traditional energies and the abandonment of renewable energies. Internally, there will be appointments to the Supreme Court that will mark this institution for decades and an unprecedented constitutional reform must not be ruled out.. Trump, at the end of his second term, will surely be the president who leaves the most marked and lasting mark on his country since the beginning of the 21st century.
