Skip to main content
opinion

Debra Thompson is an associate professor of political science and Canada Research Chair in Racial Inequality in Democratic Societies at McGill University.

Former president Donald Trump will be returning to the White House. It is a result that is, in many ways, unsurprising.

It was always going to be a long shot for Vice-President Kamala Harris to win. She had a shortened campaign season, the albatross of President Joe Biden still in office, and, most crucially, an economy that is still recovering from high inflation and soaring costs of living. Ms. Harris, learning from Hillary Clinton’s mistakes eight years ago, was careful not to make her racial or gender identity a central part of her campaign, though in many ways this was an election fundamentally about gender, reproductive rights and social justice.

Could she have won? Absolutely. She rallied Democrats in ways that seemed impossible early on. She ran an incredible campaign with a phenomenal game on the ground, especially in swing states. She successfully mobilized people around the fairly abstract idea of protecting democracy. She was able to disassociate herself from Mr. Biden’s administration, campaign and blunders – though not as fully as her campaign had perhaps hoped. Ms. Harris won the only debate between the presidential candidates by a landslide. Her opponent openly flirts with fascist ideas and is a credible threat to American democracy. Her win would have been historic in more ways than one.

The swing states were all too close to call in the lead up to election day. In the end, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all turned red after Mr. Biden won them in 2020. It was, indeed, quite close, with Mr. Trump winning with 51 per cent in Georgia and Pennsylvania and taking Wisconsin by less than a percentage point. But in the Electoral College system, the winners of the plurality take all the votes, so close simply doesn’t cut it.

What happened? We’ll no doubt have pundits, policy wonks and political scientists debating for months about how Mr. Trump managed to win the election. In these early hours of political analysis, the best tool we have are exit polls, though they should be taken with a grain of salt. These are polls like any other and so they can give an indication about how and why people said they voted but are not validated against actual vote results.

The story of Mr. Trump’s triumph lies at the intersection of gender, age, race and education. In a nutshell, a multiracial coalition of college-educated people, especially young women, was defeated by white men over 30 who do not have college degrees.

A majority of white people voted Republican, as they have since exit polls were first published in 1972. Once again, the only reason the Democratic party was not trounced was because of Black women, who are just 7 per cent of the electorate but voted 92 per cent for Ms. Harris, followed closely by LBGTQ people, who voted 86 per cent for Ms. Harris. The highest levels of support for Mr. Trump come from white men who are not college graduates, 68 per cent of whom voted for him, though white women without college degrees also overwhelmingly voted Republican, at 62 per cent. Mr. Trump won first-time voters with 54 per cent of those polled, but 63 per cent of young women between 18 and 29 chose Ms. Harris.

Of the five issues that mattered most in the people’s vote for president, 35 per cent said it was the state of democracy and 31 per cent said it was the economy. Mr. Trump won 79 per cent of those for whom economic concerns are the most important and 89 per cent of those who felt the most critical issue is immigration, while Ms. Harris won those who were concerned about democracy (81 per cent) and abortion (76 per cent).

Then, of course, there are the intangibles that propelled Mr. Trump to victory. Mr. Trump’s first victory in 2016 was a natural outgrowth of growing racial resentment and a unique manifestation of his new style and brand of politics – brash, bold and comprised of equal parts confidence and lies. He was also able to capitalize on the very real economic concerns of many Americans through soundbites, media stunts and by promising the impossible. His strategy this time around has not changed very much. He continues to frame himself as a strongman and a unique force, unlike his competitors or predecessors – populist, a Washington outsider, a businessman by trade and entertainer by desire, wealthy and undeniably narcissistic with little to no regard for democratic norms and traditions. Rules, Mr. Trump seems to think, are for other people.

In the end, Ms. Harris lost. And truly, so did American democracy.

Interact with The Globe