It took a while to write this one, in part because I wanted to avoid knee-jerk reactions and facile answers, but mostly because I wanted to wait until the vote was actually counted (which also, for that matter, makes a lot of those knee-jerk reactions seem a lot jerkier). Now, almost four weeks later, the tabulation is more or less complete.

Donald Trump, former president, reality television star, and convicted felon, won the election against Kamala Harris, the vice-president of the United States, by a tally of 49.8% vs. 48.2%. There is a chance that when the final vote is counted, that margin might narrow a little bit, but 1.6% percent of the vote is probably close to what the final margin will be. The margin is much narrower than what it appeared to be on election night, and many of the hot takes about Trump riding a populist wave turned out to be just that, hot takes.

But Trump did win. This is a very unusual event historically, with only one other president, Grover Cleveland, winning non-consecutive elections. It is also unusual in that a felon who has been impeached twice would even be considered for the proverbial dog catcher, let alone for the presidency. It involves an abandonment of some fundamental expectations and norms of the American political system. Despite that, the election itself was not terribly unusual. As mentioned, despite election night narratives about it being a "landslide", it came down to narrow victories in a number of swing states. I have been debating how much editorializing and guessing to put into my analysis. I will try to confine myself to a few obvious points.

I have actually heard two different obvious versions of what went on. One of them you can read here: It was obvious that the Democratic Party had abandoned normal, working class voters to chase the support of tumblrites and social justice warriors online, which alienated the normal, working class people who were the party's backbone. It is an incredibly obvious answer, especially for people who know nothing about the United States and have never been here. I heard another obvious answer, which is the Democratic Party had abandoned the activist base in a vain attempt to appease suburbanites and the "donor class". Strangely enough, this opposite "obvious" answer was also the theory of someone who didn't actually live in the United States.

Both of these "obvious" answers do have something behind them, which is that the coalition that Barack Obama won with in 2008, which consisted of the remains of the old "New Deal" of organized labor, farmers and minorities, together with college educated people, especially young people in urban areas, has fallen apart. Several key groups that the Democratic Party counted on for enthusiastic support, such as women, young people, and Latinos, either didn't have high turn out, or actively switched their votes. One thing to remember though, is that the United States is a large country, and that the election was still decided by a small margin, so the idea that Latino voters are uniformally turning Republican is a bit more of a narrative than a reality. The fact that younger people in the so-called "Generation Z" are seemingly less liberal than the "Millennial Generation" is surprising, but it is difficult to tell based on exit poll data how deep this trend is. It is also difficult to tell whether the Democratic coalition has really disappeared over irreconcilable differences or whether it was a fault of messaging.

My next answer is more esoteric, so feel free to ignore it. One of the things I found most surprising this cycle was how narratives started to take control. Political narratives are certainly not a new thing, but the extent to which narratives took control this cycle was difficult for me to understand. In July, when President and then-candidate Biden stumbled in the presidential debate, the questions automatically started: "Who will be the first Democratic Party member to call for Biden to withdraw?", and once the story became a story, no one could avoid it. Often these concerns were formed in the passive voice: "Questions are being asked", and we never did find the source of who was asking the questions. But once it was found in the conventional wisdom that this was a topic, it became a topic, and an unavoidable one. At the same time, it was generally agreed in the conventional wisdom that Donald Trump's felony convictions would not be an issue, or would even be a plus, because it was relatable or something. And while Biden's age was a matter of grave concern, the 78 year old Trump's lapses and erratic behaviors were not. The frustrating inflation of Biden's presidency was a serious issue, but the economic and human disaster of Covid-19 under Trump was not an issue. And while some of this narratization could be put down to actual planning by parties acting intentionally (such as Russian troll farms), some of is just that we have reached a point where internet narratives have managed to consume reality.

I have not managed to be either as objective or systemic in discussion this election as I would have liked. And of course, for people reading this in the future, like those reading my writeup about the 2020 election, they might be laughing at my naivete. Perhaps other people would like to add their own views to this faceted topic.

This is my first post, so I apologize if it's not up to snuff. For now, I have given up on trying to make sense of the 2024 United States Presidential Election, but this gives me a jumping-off point to begin ordering my thinking.

While it may be true that the Obama-era coalition has fallen apart, I think it's too early to say definitively. Another obvious fact about this election is that Joe Biden's last-minute decision to drop out denied any democratic candidate the opportunity to build a coalition similar to Obama's. Obama's savvy as a politician was both highlighted and perhaps catalyzed by his primary campaign. If Joe Biden had followed through with his plan to be a "generational bridge," and only serve one term, a democratic primary might have exposed a more savvy politician. Even if Harris came out as the party's nominee, which I think would be unlikely given the (misguided) American association of the Biden Administration with inflation and lack of her overall experience, she would've at the very least had more time to build a connection with the Obama-era coalition, and possibly maintain it.

On the narrativity point, it feels to me like there were two polarized narratives which were vying for "electoral legitimacy." On the Democratic side, this narrative was largely centered on Trump's unfitness for office. The decision of the party to fall in line behind Harris, rather than push for a rushed primary, might be partly a result of this narrative. Trump's personal behavior and crimes would surely be enough to prevent him from holding office again, regardless of who ran on the Democratic side, and surely, the American public was still cogent enough to recognize this. On the Republican side, the narrative was centered on harkening back to "draining the swamp," downplaying Trump's record in office and the threat posed by his candidacy, while emphasizing that the real threat lay with the government, which was responsible for economic stagnation, a flood of illegal immigrants, and an unjust persecution of a major political candidate.

While the Republican narrative won electoral legitimacy in 2024, I wonder how long it can sustain itself once Trump starts enacting policy. Whether it will even matter, is perhaps the better question to ask.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.