Reflections on Trump’s Re-Election

Donald Trump has been re-elected, in part, because he understands that there is a flawed vision of America. Barack Obama famously said, ‘there’s no red states, or blue states, just the United States.’ This is great rhetoric, but it is demonstrably false. In fact, there are red (Republican) states and there are blue (Democratic) cities. Donald Trump appeals to those rural voters where Republicans traditionally dwell, but he also managed to win the suburban vote and therefore off-set Harris’ appeal to urban voters.

If you travel around the United States, you see the same story repeated in state after state: A flawed, crumbling infrastructure, a rampant fentanyl crisis that is ravaging the land, extensive retail closures that are devastating High Streets in cities, inflation, and concerns over illegal immigration.  None of these are a secret and are immediately apparent to anyone willing to look, yet the Democrats simply refused to address any of these factors in a serious manner and focused on what many would consider to be peripheral, cultural issues that are far removed from the everyday concerns of most Americans.

Donald Trump ran an unusually disciplined campaign, but the Democrats handed it to him in the final stages as they were hindered by an unloved candidate and by a series of errors committed by Joe Biden that Donald Trump was able to turn to his advantage. Had Joe Biden stepped aside and not sought re-election, the result may have been different, but not necessarily. Certainly, this message is likely to emerge in the coming days, stressing that Biden has been the only individual, the only man to have beaten Trump in a presidential race. The flip side of that argument is that had Biden announced in 2023 that he did not intend to seek re-election then the party could have held a normal primary process. This would have included the governor of Michigan, the governor of California, as well as the vice president and enabled the party to pick a candidate that had a better chance of beating Donald Trump.

Joe Biden spoke at the JFK Library here in Boston in 2021 and it was clear then that he was frail and got lost leaving the stage. There are clearly going to be recriminations in a host of memoirs detailing the state that Joe Biden was in, and the way he was forced from the ticket. Team Kamala will doubtless argue that if she had more time she could have prevailed. In fact, she may have done better had she had less time, since her polling figures were far better 6-8 weeks ago. Instead, she blew $1 billion on a losing campaign, gaining less support than Hillary Clinton 8 years ago and failing to improve upon Biden’s vote in a single country nationwide. 

Kamala Harris received fewer female votes than Joe Biden, reflecting the fact that every time people talk about Trump apparently alienating a group of voters they appear to flock to his defense. His vote number with women was up two points on four years ago, up with the black vote by 16%, up with Hispanics, and even college educated white voters many believe don’t vote for Trump. This was not an elite electorate electing Donald Trump by any stretch of the imagination, but rather a national sweep, winning not only the Electoral College, but also the popular vote which, as I forecast back in September, is the first time for a Republican since George W Bush achieved this feat in 2004. 

Just as in the UK general election of 2019, when Boris Johnson put together a coalition of working-class voters, so Trump has prevailed by being a candidate who the left just couldn’t understand and whom the right were able to coalesce around. Neither man is a career politician, both were able to transcend politics and speak to normal people in a direct and accessible manner at a time when so many have been turned off by politics.

If you get outside the major cities, in both countries, but certainly here in the United States, what’s happening in Washington seems 1,000,000 miles from the problems that face normal Americans. They have faced huge challenges over the last four years, especially with inflation, which is something that has been misreported or deliberately misunderstood in certain circles, who suggest that inflation isn’t a problem anymore because it’s down to relatively low figures. This, however, completely ignores the fact that it rose to crippling levels for Americans over the last four years and that those figures are now baked in, because they haven’t been joined by any increases in salaries.

Ultimately, therefore, this was the classic, flawed campaign that Democrats run every four years, using the same tired playbook that they’ve been running since Truman beat Dewey in 1948, accusing the Republican candidate of being a fascist, Hitler-esque figure. Clearly, most people in America don’t buy it, and just want to get on with their lives, free of fentanyl, free of illegal immigration, and free of inflation. 

Reflections on the Nice-Presidential Debate

Well, that was a breath of fresh air! Just when I had all but given up hope for the state of US politics, the Vice-Presidential debate came along and provided a dose of civility in civic life. Believe it or not, there was once a time when politicians and their supporters could agree to disagree without resorting to name calling, inuendo, and threats of physical violence. I know, that sounds like a quaint idea after the past decade but take my word for it. 

Last night’s debate between JD Vance and Tim Walz reminds us that dedicated public servants can come together, be civil to one another, exchange views, and shake hands amicably in a manner that unites even as the country moves to vote on the highest office in the land. Regardless of one’s political perspective, this can only be a good thing at a time when public discourse in the United States has become so toxic.

This was all the more surprising as expectations were pretty low, not only in terms of the individual candidates, but in regard to the traditional role played by the vice-presidential candidates. Over the years, the running mate has been chosen in part to serve as attack dog. In this role they serve as vicious surrogates, while the main candidates seek to remain above the fray. As a result, clashes between two such individuals might be expected to be fractious. In the past the VP debate has led to memorable moments, most notably in 1988 as Lloyd Bentsen reminded Dan Quayle that he was “no Jack Kennedy.”

Last night’s debate will perhaps not be long remembered for any individual line or moment, although several stand out. Walz was certainly nervous in the opening 10 minutes, and this clearly impacted his performance. Claiming to have befriended school shooters will not be a moment he will care to recall, and his answer on his whereabouts in the summer of 1989 was frankly awful. Likewise, Vance’s inability to address the events of January 6 in a more forthright manner cast a pale over his otherwise stellar performance.

The debates this season have been eventful and memorable. The first led to the quick removal of a sitting president. The second took the wind out of the Republican candidate’s sails and breathed new life back into what appeared to have become a one-sided contest. Last night might not have done much to move the needle in terms of the outcome. Doubtless those who took the time to sit through the debate will have had their own perceptions reinforced one way or the other, and it will be interesting to see how the debate struck those voters who have yet to make their choice. 

These debates often turn on a moment and are remembered as much for visuals as for what was said. On that basis, and forgive me if I declare an opinion, JD Vance appeared to come away the winner. His demeanor was balanced, his tone was steady, he was cordial with his opponent, and he stuck to his mission. There was no histrionics, no tantrums, no insults. It was a refreshing performance from someone who appears set for a great future in the GOP regardless of the result in November. Tim Walz by contrast took time to settle, appeared to be befuddled at times and made unprompted errors that undermined his debate performance. It’s not that he was bad, this was not on a par with the unfortunate James Stockdale in 1992, but Vance was far sharper on the night. 

Notwithstanding this, both men did a great service to the country last night. They demonstrated that civility still exists, that it is possible to disagree in a polite and respectful manner and that regardless of the result in November, politicians can come together to achieve results. For that alone they deserve the thanks of a nation tired of political tension, in desperate need for what Warren G. Harding termed ‘a return to normalcy.’  What a shame they were not at the top of their party’s ticket this year. 

2024 Election Forecast

Every 4 years at this point in a presidential election, every self-centered, self-satisfied academic who ever glanced through a Disney Resort brochure in a Thomas Cook travel agent suddenly fancies themselves as an expert on U.S. politics and decides that they can suddenly offer some mystical insight as to the next occupant of the White House. This is always done in such a way, of course, to ensure that whatever the result, they will be correct. It’s a little like those creatures at think tanks who take in fortunes in corporate sponsorship to fly around the world on fact finding missions without ever actually spending time with normal people to ascertain voting intent, who then quietly whisper a name in a dark room when no one is watching and then claim to have forecast the result.

After the fact of course. 

So. Instead of such tomfoolery I have decided to share some thoughts on the election as it stands today (September 24) and forecast a likely outcome.

Now, this is 2024, so I am very aware that making a forecast comes with all kinds of challenges, not least of which is the fact that by doing so, one is forced to pick a winner. Doing so is a risky proposition, as this may imply a personal preference and with it, a whole heap of personal and political baggage that leads to assumptions, accusations, and so on….

So, let me state unequivocally, that my forecast is not based on any personal preference. As a green card holder, I cannot vote in the election and therefore have no personal, political axe to grind, and am not trying to encourage anyone to vote in any particular direction. I would, however, encourage everyone to vote. Despite the attention that the race has received one thing will be sadly predictable: In state after state more people will abstain from voting than will ever vote for a particular candidate. 

So here is my forecast: 

I believe that the Republican Party candidate will prevail in November. I am predicting an Electoral College victory of 297 votes. I also think he will win a narrow plurality of the popular vote.

My conclusion is based upon a determination of previous voter turnout, apparent voter intent for 2024, and some good old-fashioned guesswork. 

Very clearly, and despite Obama’s flawed analysis, there are indeed red states and blue states, and these can easily be identified in any attempt to ascertain likely voter intent in November. Once these core states have been allocated, the remaining states can be analyzed in terms of recent polling decisions, demographics, etc.

Regardless of the result, I think it is beholden upon all of us who teach, pontificate, speculate, write, or think about these things to make some sort of determination. It’s not about being right or wrong, it’s about making a determination based upon a consideration of facts and making an analytical decision. I have made mine, and I encourage anyone reading this to do the same. Good luck.