Pritam Singh 
Three aspects of the 2024 US presidential election results should sober down those over-excited about Republican Donald Trump’s victory and cheer up those who view this as one of the most depressing news of the year. The emerging election data, the Democratic victories in Senate races in some swing states where Kamala Harris had lost and the economic scenario in the US after Trump takes over in January 2024 underscore the need for a more nuanced and balanced account of the US political and economic scene, providing a more informed and aware perspective for all.
The available data shows that Trump garnered around 75.5 million votes in 2024 and around 74.2 million votes in 2020, an increase of just over a million. It is worth comparing these numbers with the Democratic vote share in 2024 and 2020. In 2024, Harris received around 72.4 million votes; in 2020, Joe Biden had gotten around 81.3 million votes. That shows a loss of almost nine million votes from 2020 to 2024. There might only be a very minor revision later to this vote tally, but that would not change the broad picture that in terms of the popular vote, there is no truth in the widespread media narrative that there was a significant swing towards Trump in the 2024 election.
Trump’s victory is due to the collapse of the Democratic vote in 2024 compared to 2020. Therefore, the most significant takeaway from the 2024 US presidential election is not a resounding endorsement of Trump but rather the disillusionment of almost nine million Democratic voters with their party and its leadership under Biden and Harris. However, these voters are not lost. They represent a significant opportunity for the Democratic party to regain their trust. If the party can chart a new political course, it could secure victory over the Republicans not only in 2028 but also in the midterm elections in two years on November 3, 2026. This presents a hopeful and optimistic prospect for their future.
Also read: Donald Trumps Rewards Close Aides with Key Roles, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy Get DOGE
Who are those democratic voters who abstained, and who among them may have even voted for Trump? These abstained voters can be divided into three segments: one, student and youth voters who were overwhelmingly against the Biden administration’s pro-Israel policy. Around 100 campuses had demonstrations and encampments against the Gaza genocide. The police administration dealt harshly with protesting students. Three leading university heads faced calls to resign under pressure from pro-Israel billionaires because they refused to ban student protests.
Harris did not distance herself from Biden on his pro-Israel stance. She, in fact, warmly welcomed the support of anti-Trump Republicans such as Liz Cheney and her father, Dick Cheney, who is widely viewed among Democratic supporters as a war criminal for his role in the Iraq War.
The second segment of potential Democratic voters who either abstained or even voted for Trump out of protest against the Biden-Harris regime’s policy on Gaza were Arab Americans. In the heavily Arab-American city of Dearborn, Michigan, which voted heavily for Joe Biden in 2020, Harris’ vote fell and she lagged behind Trump by over 6%.
The third segment which voted for Biden in 2020 – due to the active support of the veteran socialist Bernie Sanders – was the working-class white and non-white population, but they were disillusioned by the Biden administration’s failure to abandon pro-corporate policies. In her election campaign, Harris did not announce any significant pro-working-class initiatives if she were to win.
The most progressive part of the Biden administration was the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) initiative. Though the name is misleading, it was the most transformative programme in any developed capitalist economy for the transition to clean energy, focussing on renewable replacement for fossil fuels. Still, the Harris campaign hardly touched upon this, including the potential of creating millions of green jobs, which would have attracted working-class voters. This highly admirable programme would, unfortunately, be the biggest casualty of Trump’s presidency because he denies climate change and unabashedly supports fossil fuels.
The recent Senate election results in Arizona, Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin further amplify the analysis that this election is not a straightforward Trump victory. In all four states, the Democrats have won the Senate seats despite Harris losing to Trump in the presidential elections. Arizona’s victory was especially glorious because of the defeat of hardcore right-wing politician Kari Lake. She is such an ardent supporter of Trump that she has been consistently maintaining that Trump did not lose in 2020. The discrepancy between Senate and presidential election results in these swing states indicates a more complex political matrix than simple Trump/Republican victories.
Finally, Trump’s weakest spot is his economic programme. He represents the isolationist tendency in American economic, foreign and security policy compared to the internationally interventionist tendency represented in a more recent period by Bill Clinton. Trump’s planned imposition of 10-15% tariffs on imports – especially 60% on Chinese imports – will raise domestic inflation and come to haunt the Republicans sooner rather than later. The drastic reduction of immigration and planned expulsion of some immigrants will reduce the labour supply, especially of unskilled labour that is much needed in agriculture and the construction, health and care industries. Reducing taxes on the rich will accentuate the state’s fiscal deficit, thus jeopardising the provision of public services, especially when the state of US infrastructure is dire.
Those celebrating Trump’s victory need calm reflection to realism and those mourning need not despair.
Pritam Singh is a professor emeritus at Oxford Brookes Business School, UK.