By Inderjit Badhwar
As election night started, one point emerged clear from the opening 5pm exit polls: the nation was ready for change. According to both CNN and MSNBC—two news outlets often at odds with Trump—over 60 percent of voters expressed dissatisfaction with President Joe Biden’s administration, signalling a deep desire for something different. Despite a statistically solid economy marked by good employment and growth, these polls signalled impending doom for Kamala Harris even before projected results could be flashed on American TV screens: the American people felt something crucial was missing.
The numbers, of course, tell a story. Historically, the party in power often suffers when voter discontent lingers, regardless of economic indicators. Even with a low unemployment rate and wage growth statistics that look favourable on paper, Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris faced a crisis of perception. Many Americans felt the administration was out of touch, tied too tightly to Washington’s inner workings and entrenched in an establishment mindset.
For them, Biden and Harris represented a government of status quo rather than of visionary change. Harris had treaded too cautiously.
A Wave of Anti-Incumbency Amid Economic Progress
The irony is not lost: the US economy has indeed shown resilience, with high employment rates and other strong indicators. Yet, these markers of success seemed to backfire politically. For those voters who have seen steady improvement, the craving for even greater prosperity often rises, and any perceived stagnation becomes a point of dissatisfaction. This dynamic has a historical precedent. Voters experiencing moderate progress often believe they could be experiencing even better times if only a bolder vision were in place. They don’t just want stability—they want what they believe is the next big leap forward. And when it doesn’t materialize, they don’t just blame the economic situation; they blame the leaders who, in their eyes, failed to push the boundaries far enough. This is called the crisis of rising expectations.
To many Americans, the Biden administration had grown synonymous with a type of weary bureaucracy, a system operating on autopilot rather than aiming for ambitious, transformative goals. Biden’s supporters might argue he brought stability after the tumultuous Trump years, but for a significant portion of the electorate, this “stability” seemed too close to inertia. The enthusiasm gap that Biden faced came not from a lack of credentials or accomplishments, but from a failure to inspire. And inspiration is something Trump, for all his controversies, has managed to cultivate among his base—and evidently beyond it. And that is probably why all the polls over the preceding months so stubbornly and tenaciously showed a neck-in-neck race.
Kamala Harris’ Impossible Task
For Vice-President Kamala Harris, the challenge was nothing short of Herculean. While Trump had been effectively campaigning for the better part of a year, Harris was thrust into the race with only a few months to prepare, following Biden’s sudden and unexpected withdrawal from the election. Tasked with carrying forward the policies and legacy of a sitting president while differentiating herself enough to energize the electorate, she faced a nearly impossible balancing act.
Running as an incumbent has its unique pressures. Harris had to own the administration’s accomplishments, especially on economic recovery and job growth, but also contend with the wave of dissatisfaction that was threatening to drown out these successes. She couldn’t simply promise change without risking alienating Biden’s base, but neither could she afford to maintain a defensive stance when so many voters clearly wanted a new direction. Yet, miraculously, she kept the party united, crafted a loveably humane public personality, campaigned like a whirlwind, wowed the America’s glitterati and media, and collected hundreds of millions of dollars in party funds.
Trump, meanwhile, had the advantage of familiarity, the allure of a comeback narrative, and, notably, a less complicated message: he would bring back “greatness”. It didn’t matter to his supporters whether or not he could deliver in tangible ways; it was the power of his conviction that resonated. His campaign rallies, marked by their populist energy, painted him as the underdog who, once again, was there to rescue America from the grips of an establishment that had allegedly lost its way.
The Voter’s Mindset: More Than Just Dissatisfaction
It would be a mistake to interpret Trump’s victory as merely a rejection of Biden’s policies. The exit polls reflect a more nuanced mindset—one where people see government as increasingly removed from their day-to-day concerns, no matter how many macroeconomic wins the administration may cite. While prosperity was statistically present, many voters found themselves grappling with rising costs, job insecurity in certain sectors, and a future that felt anything but assured. For them, Trump’s promise to shake up the “dark” system remained potent, even if his prior administration had not delivered a miraculous economic transformation.
Biden and Harris, with their polished, cautiously crafted messages, seemed too controlled, too careful, and ultimately, too cautious. Where Trump was blunt, they were guarded; where he was volatile, they were calm. But in the shifting world of American politics, calm can be seen as detached, and caution as passivity. The risk-averse, predictable demeanour of the administration did not play well against the backdrop of a world in flux, with voters looking for leaders who didn’t just aim to maintain, but to push forward, even if that meant radical change.
The “Establishment” Problem
Another potent factor was the lingering resentment against what many see as an entrenched Washington elite. Biden and Harris, however much they might stand for middle-class values or working-family policies, are still viewed by some as part of the establishment they claim to distance themselves from. For many voters, ironically, Trump, even though born with several silver spoons in his mouth in a lily white, affluent New York suburb, represents the antithesis of this establishment. Although a former president and self-proclaimed billionaire himself, he has skillfully managed to retain his status as a political outsider in the eyes of his base.
The narrative that propelled Trump to power in 2016—of draining the swamp, of challenging the DC elite—has not faded. Instead, it’s morphed into a belief that only he can stand up to the insiders, whether they are in Congress, the media, or the corporate world. Harris, with her career in government, couldn’t shed the label of “insider” quickly enough, especially not with a timeline as constrained as she had. She was fighting not just Trump, but an entire image problem created by years of Washington gridlock and backroom politics that disillusioned a broad swath of the electorate.
The Road Ahead
For Trump, this victory is an affirmation that his message still resonates deeply. His core supporters have not just returned—they have been bolstered by disillusioned Democrats and independents who are increasingly disenchanted with the existing power structures. Trump’s ability to cut through the rhetoric and present himself as the voice of the disenfranchised, the forgotten, remains an immensely powerful draw.
In the wake of this election, the Democratic Party faces serious introspection. Biden and Harris attempted to balance stability with progress, but in the eyes of many, they failed to articulate a vision compelling enough to overcome the craving for something—or someone—new. They are now tasked with grappling with a political environment that is less patient and less tolerant of traditional approaches to governance. The message from the voters is clear: they want leaders who are connected to their hopes, frustrations, and, perhaps above all, their desire for change.
In the end, Trump’s victory underscores the ongoing appetite for disruption in American politics. In a nation increasingly restless and ever more skeptical of its ruling elite, the need for a voice that speaks to the everyday struggles of ordinary people remains paramount. This is Trump’s perverse terrain, and, for now, he has shown he is still the demagogue most adept at navigating it—with dollops of gutter talk, personal invective, incitements to violence, locker room slang, red-neck lingo, impenetrable linguistic nonsense, racist baiting and slander.
The “Big Lie” And The Power Of Manipulation
Central to Trump’s political success has been what critics have often described as his “monumental capacity to tell the Big Lie”. Over the years, Trump has mastered the art of doubling down on falsehoods and embracing half-truths with such conviction that his supporters accept them almost unquestioningly. The effectiveness of this strategy lies not only in Trump’s rhetoric, but also in the growing public susceptibility to sensationalist narratives, especially those that seem to validate anxieties around identity, security, and economic stability.
The “Big Lie” is not a mere fabrication; it’s a calculated appeal to deep-seated fears and grievances within the American psyche. Trump’s genius is his ability to spin issues in a way that galvanizes his base, energizing them with narratives that simplify complex social dynamics into clear and often racially charged stories of “us” versus “them.” In an era where distrust in the media and institutions runs high, many are willing to suspend skepticism and believe Trump’s claims, whether about election fraud or immigration, because they resonate with a core, even subconscious, worldview.
Exploiting Divisions Within Minority Communities
A less discussed yet equally potent part of Trump’s strategy is his success in sowing division within minority communities, a strategy that keeps these groups from forming a united front against his core MAGA base. This approach has been especially effective in driving a wedge between African-Americans, long a target of Trump’s rhetoric around employment and crime, and Latino/Hispanic communities who have their own fraught relationship with the immigration debate.
Trump’s messaging on immigration—often framed as a scare tactic—has been skillfully deployed to create fear that an influx of immigrants threatens job security and economic gains within African-American communities. By casting undocumented immigrants as an existential threat to the jobs and livelihoods of Black Americans, Trump has managed to channel long-standing frustrations about economic inequality into a suspicion of newcomers rather than toward the larger power structures that perpetuate inequities. This narrative resonates because it taps into real struggles, yet it simultaneously distracts from the systemic issues that truly underlie economic challenges in marginalized communities.
For the Latino and Hispanic communities, Trump has played a different but equally divisive hand. While his immigration rhetoric targets undocumented immigrants, it implicitly aligns with parts of the Latino community that see themselves as established and separate from newer immigrants, particularly those who have arrived more recently. In this way, he manages to carve out slivers of support even within communities he’s historically demonized, creating internal conflicts that weaken broader solidarity.
The “Immigration Invasion” and the Politics of Fear
Trump’s depiction of immigration as an “invasion” has proven to be a masterstroke in controlling the narrative around economic stability and national identity. By framing immigrants as a direct threat to prosperity, Trump’s rhetoric fuels a fear-based politics that has a potent influence not just on his MAGA base, but also on segments of the population who feel they’re competing for the same economic resources.
The fear of “losing out” to new arrivals—fuelled by a perception that immigrants will undercut wages and drain resources—has proven to be a remarkably effective wedge issue. For many, especially working-class African-Americans who have fought for decades for economic equity, the notion that their livelihoods might be undermined by an “invasion” of foreign labour taps into genuine frustrations, even if the narrative oversimplifies the reality of the labour market. Trump’s ability to stoke this fear without providing nuanced solutions enables him to sidestep real socioeconomic policy discussions, leaving behind an electorate deeply divided and mistrustful not only of him but of each other.
Trump’s Perverse Genius and the Cost of Division
Trump’s approach reflects a perverse genius for understanding and exploiting the fault lines within American society. His rhetoric on race, immigration, and “American values” is not merely dog-whistle politics—it’s a calculated play that speaks to both his base and the broader electorate. He knows that by fostering divisions between minority communities, he weakens their collective ability to challenge the policies and narratives that sustain his base of support.
In Trump’s America, these divisions serve a dual purpose: they reinforce his image as the protector of “traditional” America while also creating friction within communities that would otherwise oppose him. His ability to weave these narratives into his broader campaign platform—and to do so with such unfiltered demoniacal conviction—cements his place not just as a politician, but as a cultural force capable of shifting public perception and shaping political realities through fear and discontent.
The Missed Opportunity With Women Voters And The Abortion Debate
One of the more surprising aspects of Trump’s victory is the apparent failure of a cohesive, nationwide “women’s wall” to emerge against him on the issue of abortion—a topic many believed would galvanize women voters and unite them in resistance. In recent years, the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe vs Wade had mobilized many women, particularly younger generations, who saw it as an erosion of personal rights. Polling showed that a significant portion of the electorate favoured access to abortion in some form, and Democrats hoped this would create a voting bloc powerful enough to counteract Trump’s base. Yet, as the election results revealed, the anticipated tidal wave of women’s opposition failed to fully materialize.
Why did this happen? For one, the focus on abortion, while critically important to many, did not resonate as the single decisive issue for all women voters. Economic concerns, public safety, education, and other pressing matters vied for attention, and many women ultimately voted based on a broader array of priorities. Trump’s ability to communicate on these issues, along with his success in framing economic instability as a threat from outside forces rather than domestic policies, created a sense of urgency that some voters felt Democrats did not adequately address. For many suburban and working-class women in particular, concerns over inflation, job stability, and rising costs overshadowed reproductive rights, no matter how significant.
Moreover, while Democrats largely rallied around reproductive rights, they struggled to push this issue to the forefront in a way that could unite women across ideological and economic lines. The result was a fractured women’s vote, with many either not turning out in the numbers anticipated or prioritizing other issues when they did.
The Democrats’ Missed Messaging on Corporate Greed And Economic Issues
Another missed opportunity for Democrats was their failure to aggressively address issues that directly impact the daily lives of working- and middle-class Americans—namely, corporate greed, social security, and the need for enhanced economic security measures. Poll after poll has shown that Americans across party lines are deeply concerned about rising costs, corporate profit margins, and stagnant wages. Yet, these issues were often overshadowed by other political battles, leaving voters with a sense that Democrats were too focused on cultural issues and less attuned to pocketbook concerns.
Trump, on the other hand, seized on economic insecurity and cast himself as the candidate who understood the struggles of everyday Americans. Despite his ties to corporate America, he skillfully diverted attention to an “us versus them” narrative, casting immigrants, urban elites, and Washington insiders as the cause of economic problems, rather than the corporations profiting at the expense of the public. This strategic redirection allowed him to speak to anxieties around job security, inflation, and dwindling purchasing power—concerns that, for many, felt unaddressed by the incumbent party.
The Democrats had an opportunity to make economic fairness a central message, particularly by highlighting issues like affordable healthcare, controlled immigration, and higher minimum wages as pathways to a more stable economy. While they did address these points, they often failed to do so with the intensity and clarity necessary to compete with Trump’s more visceral narrative. By not fully embracing these bread-and-butter issues, Democrats missed a critical chance to connect with voters who might otherwise have been open to their platform.
In the end, the election results underscore not only Trump’s political resilience, but also the missed opportunities within the Democratic strategy to deliver a message that resonated on a personal, deeply felt level. For the American people, issues like healthcare, job security, and corporate accountability aren’t just abstract political talking points; they’re foundational to a fairer, more secure future.
With this election behind them, Democrats face a critical moment to reassess their approach and address the everyday issues that matter most to the broadest swath of Americans. It is worth repeating: Kamala was too cautious, er, just too “nice.”