The Working America organization deployed a force of 400 trained canvassers over a month, traveling in more than 60 vans with seven canvassers per vehicle, going door-to-door to campaign for Kamala Harris in the entire Michigan. Despite this substantial investment and effort, the results fell short of expectations, with Trump leading significantly in Michigan, capturing 51.9 percent of the vote compared to Harris’s 46.3 percent. The likely victory by Trump also contradicted many national surveys that had consistently projected Harris as the frontrunner.
This trend extended beyond Michigan, as Republicans were enjoying a comfortable lead across much of the country, leaving Democrats anxious as the midnight hour approached. The unexpected shift also sent shockwaves to Democratic supporters and international allies in Europe and beyond.
Harris had secured 194 electoral votes, trailing Trump’s 246, leaving him only 24 votes shy of the 270 needed to win the White House as the clock passed midnight in the USA. He secured the necessary votes in the wee hours of Wednesday.
This created an atmosphere of global uncertainty and concern. While absentee and mail-in ballots are still being counted, a reversal appears almost impossible. Importantly, the election process has been deemed fair by 83 percent of surveyed voters, minimizing any doubts about potential manipulation.
Overall, Harris’s campaign appears to have underperformed across multiple states, highlighting the effects of a perceived lack of effective campaigning. Notably, her projected support among women and Black voters did not meet expectations, reflecting a broader struggle to resonate with key voter demographics.
Trump was successful in swaying male voters, securing 54 percent of their support by focusing on issues like abortion rights, economic challenges, inflation, and job losses. In contrast, Harris garnered 44 percent of the male vote. Among new and younger voters, many of whom recently entered the job market, discontent with the Democrats’ economic performance led to a shift toward Trump, with 55 percent favoring him compared to 44 percent for Harris.
White voters heavily supported Trump, with 72 percent aligning with him on issues related to immigration, white identity concerns, and opposition to legalized abortion. Although Harris won 66 percent of the female vote—driven by strong support for abortion rights—this was insufficient to swing the election in her favour.
There was a notable alignment among white men aiming to prevent a Black and South Asian woman from ascending to the presidency and becoming the commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces, one of the world’s most powerful positions.
Economically, Trump is likely to prioritize policies aimed at GDP growth, possibly including tax cuts and reducing regulations on fossil fuels to spur energy independence. However, these moves could risk higher inflation if not carefully balanced with monetary policy. The overall impact on inflation, jobs, and GDP growth would depend heavily on his administration’s ability to navigate international uncertainties while managing domestic economic pressures effectively.
Confidence in Trump’s crisis-management abilities was also higher, with 50 percent of voters believing he could handle crises better than Harris, who received 48 percent in this regard.
In Washington, DC, a large crowd of Democratic supporters had gathered outside the party’s headquarters, hoping for a decisive win. However, as the night wore on, disappointment set in as they watched the election slip away. Meanwhile, a jubilant crowd at the Republican headquarters in New York celebrated noisily, ready to welcome Trump’s expected victory. Disappointed, Harris postponed her planned address to supporters. In contrast, Trump prepared to give a victory speech, laying out his vision for the next four years for one of the world’s most powerful nations.
Trump skillfully dismantled the Democrats’ election agenda, which had centred on promises to reduce food prices, support working families, provide $25,000 to first-time homebuyers, and cut tax rates for middle-class households. However, public sentiment leaned heavily toward scepticism. Many questioned how the Biden Administration, with Kamala Harris as Vice President, could fulfil these promises now when they had struggled to deliver on similar commitments while in power. This perception further strengthened Trump’s position, as voters viewed the Democrats’ pledges as hollow, given their track record over the past term.
The post-midnight results stunned Democrats. In Arizona, Trump led Harris narrowly at 49.7 percent to 49.5 percent, with abortion rights proving pivotal. Harris won her home state of California with a strong 61.2 percent, securing 59 electoral votes. However, Trump claimed Florida with 56.2 percent over Harris’s 42.9 percent and took Georgia (50.7 percent) and Iowa (55.1 percent) due to strong rural support. In Idaho, Trump led with 59.1 percent, while North Carolina also went to him with 50.7 percent over Harris’s 47.8 percent. Harris won Oregon comfortably at 59.2 percent, yet underperformed in Pennsylvania, a critical swing state, where Trump led 50.8 percent. Trump also led in Wisconsin, 51 percent to 47.3 percent, cementing his edge in key battlegrounds.
Now it is not rocket science that Donald Trump has won the 2024 U.S. presidential election and the situation is not going to change even if all votes are counted, which might take a few more days.
With Trump the world is now unscrambling itself to face sweeping changes in the USA’s approach to the Middle East, the Russia-Ukraine war, NATO, and China could significantly change.
Trump has traditionally favored a “peace through strength” doctrine, potentially leading to an assertive stance in supporting Israel while promoting diplomatic engagements to avoid direct US involvement in new conflicts.
Trump’s previous scepticism about NATO could resurface, with calls for greater burden-sharing among member countries, potentially affecting NATO’s united front against Russia. In the case of Russia-Ukraine, Trump has shown interest in swiftly negotiating an end to the conflict, which may lead to a pressured peace deal that could favour Russia or at least reduce US military aid, drawing criticism domestically and internationally.
On the domestic front, Trump’s economic policies have historically included tax cuts, deregulation, and tariffs— especially against China, which he views as a critical economic rival. A more protectionist stance on China could lead to heightened trade tensions, potentially impacting global supply chains and increasing US manufacturing costs, though it may boost certain US-based industries.
Trump’s past emphasis on limiting immigration to protect American jobs could lead to stricter immigration policies, which may face opposition from businesses reliant on immigrant labour, particularly in tech and agriculture.
Economically, Trump is likely to prioritize policies aimed at GDP growth, possibly including tax cuts and reducing regulations on fossil fuels to spur energy independence. However, these moves could risk higher inflation if not carefully balanced with monetary policy.
The overall impact on inflation, jobs, and GDP growth would depend heavily on his administration’s ability to navigate international uncertainties while managing domestic economic pressures effectively.
