Analyzing Trump’s Victory: Candidacy, Race, Anti-Incumbency, and Rhetoric

This post is an election special motivated by Donald Trump becoming the second American president, after Grover Cleaveland in the late 1880s, to have won, lost, and won in three successive presidential elections.

I will discuss Trump’s historic win through four interrelated factors listed in the title. Let me caution my post includes speculations about voter perceptions and is not data-based.

Candidacy Basis

Trump’s 2016 Republican nomination was a significant event in modern American politics. As a political outsider with limited ties with the Republican Party, he overcame pushback from the Party establishment to become its presidential nominee.

That was possible because he achieved what all political candidates dream of but very few attain—a deep connection with voters that sparked enthusiasm and loyalty.

Trump resonated with voters by rejecting political correctness and promising to deliver, especially for disaffected voters who felt sidelined by the political establishment. By 2020, he had become the standard-bearer for the Party based on his loyal voter base and presidential record.

In contrast, despite serving as a US senator and VP, Harris was not her Party’s nominee based primarily on her abilities or voter appeal.

She became VP mainly because of her gender and race as President Biden selected a running mate from a limited candidate pool—women of color.

The selection of not the most capable VP running mates, such as Harris, who, having gained recognition, often transition into presidential candidates, is not uncommon. However, they typically navigate a competitive primary process if they seek the presidency, and some can’t compete, for example, Dan Quayle.

Harris, however, became the presidential nominee following Biden’s withdrawal without going through the competitive primaries. Her path to becoming VP and presidential nominee was likely not confidence-inspiring for many voters.

Some voters may have felt uncomfortable that Harris did not have to earn her nomination fully, unlike Trump, who secured his nomination based solely on his abilities and efforts.

Race

Although Obama broke the racial barrier, Harris likely still faced race-related challenges.

While many Americans, especially Democrats, support their Party’s nominee, regardless of race, some White voters might still hesitate to support a Black candidate. For these voters, a slight nudge could make them vote either way.

I guess these reluctant voters strongly supported Obama, viewing him as fully deserving of their support but not Harris because of merit concerns.

Additionally, there is a nuanced racial difference between Obama and Harris. While both are half African American and were raised primarily by their mothers, Obama was raised by his White mother and maternal grandparents, which may have made some White voters more comfortable with him compared to Harris, who doesn’t have Black-White parentage.

Moreover, Harris likely faced not only racial bias but also gender bias. As a woman of color, she faced a significant handicap, more than what Hilary Clinton likely faced.

When I thought about the probability of an African-American woman becoming president fewer than ten years after the first African-American president served two terms, my gut feeling was that the chance was slim.

Anti-Incumbency

Trump faced anti-incumbency in 2020, and it seemed Biden would succumb to it in 2024. While Biden may have carried away some anti-incumbency baggage when he withdrew, Harris inherited some of it.

Because Harris was a vital member of the Biden administration, some voters must have perceived her as similar to Biden, especially on ideological issues. For instance, voters unhappy with Biden’s handling of illegal immigration would have channeled their frustration toward Harris, expecting her policies to be no different from Biden’s.

Likewise, consumers who experienced price pain in their daily lives during the last four years must have vented their frustration against the status quo, which would be Harris. When voters are hurt economically, especially through significant and persistent price inflation, they often vote out of anger and not analysis. For the crippling price inflation during Biden’s term, Harris had to pay an electoral price.

Campaign Rhetoric

The campaign to attack Trump’s personality and paint doomsday scenarios for a Trump presidency was misguided.

The doomsday scenarios of a Trump presidency painted in the 2016 campaign never came true, so many voters must have been unfazed by the dire predictions of a second Trump presidency.

In fact, setting aside the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, many voters positively experienced President Trump’s notable policy successes, especially his reduction of corporate and individual tax rates, simplifying the tax code, and broad deregulation that boosted the economy and the stock market.

Trump supporters are immune to condemnation by critics; opposition strengthens their resolve.

They are also skeptical of highbrow warnings that Trump poses a threat to democracy, minorities, women, and the like. Many recognize that the robust system of checks and balances in American governance is sufficient to guard against any individual undermining democracy.

And they would argue that if American democracy is so fragile that an individual can damage it, the system itself should be re-examined and strengthened.

Conclusion

In tight races, especially in swing states, minor shifts in voter behavior can have a decisive impact. Subtle factors such as candidacy and race discussed here can tip the balance in close contests. And this may well have happened.

Regardless, significant and persistent price inflation will hurt any incumbent or the incumbent’s proxy. An electorate accustomed to inflation below 2 percent experienced 4.7 percent, 8.0 percent, and 4.1 percent during the last three years. They had reason to be angry!