proposal

Trump's Victory Factors: Why Trump Wanted to be President Again1

Tsuneo Watanabe

A Landslide Victory?

The 2024 US presidential election was anticipated to be a historically close contest; however, Trump won in seven battleground states―Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona― scoring a blowout victory. It was feared before the polling that American citizens would, at worst, witness a legal battle similar to that between Gore and Bush in the wake of the 2000 presidential election over the Florida Recount or a chain of violent acts by dissatisfied supporters. In downtown Washington, citizens boarded up windows in fear of riotous vandalism.2

Trump's victory became decisive earlier than expected, and when ballots were yet to be counted, candidate Trump declared, "America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate." However, looking objectively at the subsequent vote-counting results, it has become apparent that Trump's victory was anything but an unprecedented overwhelming victory or a landslide victory.3

Looking at the total votes nationwide, Trump received 76,879,637 votes (99% of ballots opened), which is only 49.35% of the total votes. Harris received 74,441,442 votes, 48.35% of the total votes―far below the 79,554,222 votes (51.0% of the then total votes) Joe Biden received in 2020. In the three Rust Belt states out of the seven battleground states, where if she had won, Harris would have reached the 270 electoral votes necessary to secure the presidency, the differences in votes were within the statistical margin of error of 2 points: 0.4 points in Wisconsin, 1.4 points in Michigan, and 1.7 points in Pennsylvania. Trump won over Harris in all seven swing states, and in terms of electoral college votes, Trump won 312 to Harris's 226, which looks like an overwhelming victory, but in reality, it is not a landslide victory for Trump. A headline would run like "Trump fights well, Harris is outmatched."

Meanwhile, it is noteworthy that Trump has become the first Republican candidate since the 2004 presidential election who won the popular vote over a Democratic candidate. American voters have given Trump a moderate mandate. For example, in the blue state of New Jersey (where the Democratic Party is dominant), Trump won 1,966,521 votes (95% of ballots opened), approaching Harris' 2,218,076 votes by a margin of 243,000.

Why did Trump win all seven battleground states and outperform Harris in the nationwide vote despite the prediction of a close race? First of all, why did the majority of voters across the nation vote for Trump, who refused to admit defeat in the 2020 presidential election for groundless reasons, caused the January 6, 2021 ransacking of the Capitol building by instigating his supporters, and subsequently faced four criminal indictments, one of which resulted in a guilty verdict?

Mass Dissatisfaction with the Biden Administration over Rising Prices as Seen in Exit Polls

According to a CBS News exit poll, the issues that Trump voters emphasized were the "economy" (51%), followed by "immigration" (20%), while Harris voters emphasized "democracy" (56%), followed by "abortion" (21%).4

The US economy before the election was not necessarily in recession. On the contrary, the unemployment rate remained low, the inflation rate decreased, and stock prices were high. From an economic policy perspective, the Biden administration and the Federal Reserve Board have managed to make a soft landing that does not cool the economy while raising interest rates to suppress inflation. In the October employment statistics released just before the election, the number of non-farm payroll employees increased by 12,000 over the previous month, which, however, was significantly lower than market expectations. Still, the unemployment rate remained low at 4.1%, almost the same as the preceding month.

Voters do not evaluate the government's management of the economy by looking at figures like economists do. Even if inflation is subsiding, prices have not become lower than before. Wage increases are not sufficient. Many voters certainly feel that their household economy is weak.

According to the above exit poll, 53% of respondents answered that the economy is worse than four years ago under the previous Trump administration, only 24% replied that it has improved, and 20% said that it is the same. Regarding the household economy affected by inflation over the past year, 22% of respondents answered that it is serious, 53% said it is tight, and only 24% replied that there is no problem. 69% of those who said the economy is stagnant voted for Trump, and 29% for Harris.

In other words, the overall US economic situation was not bad, but the household economy was suffering from high prices. The Trump campaign effectively delivered the message that the economy was better under the first Trump administration. As a matter of fact, the US economy was strong before the COVID-19 pandemic under the Trump administration. However, the pandemic made it worse, and, as a result, mass dissatisfaction with the stagnant economic situation contributed to Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election.

Trump successfully reminded voters of the strong economy during his first term before COVID-19: practically, prices are much higher now than four years ago. The Trump campaign appealed to voters with a message effective in opposing the incumbent administration responsible for an inflationary economy: "Is your life better than it was four years ago?" This message takes after the one that Ronald Reagan sent out to the nation at the end of a televised debate one week before the polling day during the 1980 presidential election campaign under an inflationary economy. Then, Reagan won a landslide victory over incumbent President Jimmy Carter.

In contrast, the Harris campaign failed to issue a persuasive economic policy message to alleviate voters' dissatisfaction and concerns. It is not that the Harris campaign was unaware of the price problem. Harris advocated an "Economy of Opportunity," focusing on stabilizing prices and supporting the middle class. She called for regulations to penalize companies practicing price-gouging and expressed her willingness to lower prices, the practicability of which, however, was questioned. Her actual election message focused on criticism of Trump's tax cuts and tariff strategy; she failed to convince voters suffering from high prices of her economic policies.

The Trump Campaign's Message Reached Voters Suffering from High Prices.

In its November 5 issue, the American political magazine POLITICO summarized the final month of television ads by both campaigns in battleground states, pointing to a stark contrast between them. Those ads dealt with economic issues, with the Trump campaign criticizing the Biden-Harris administration's inflation policy and the Harris campaign calling for tax cuts for the middle class while criticizing Trump's policies favoring the wealthy.

According to the POLITICO analysis, only 10% of the Harris campaign's television ads from October 1 directly criticized Trump; behind this lay the campaign's intention to define Harris as a positive and fair leader. In contrast, the Trump campaign focused its attack on the personality of Harris. In many cases, recent presidential election ads compared the policies of the candidates for the consideration of voters, but many of Trump campaign ads failed to mention Trump's policies.

Apart from its ads on economic issues, the Harris campaign defended abortion rights and criticized Trump's character. The Trump campaign's ads covered a wide range of questions, focusing on strict border control, criticism of Harris' support for transgender rights, and linking Harris to the Biden administration's policies.

The final messages from the Trump campaign included: "Harris is the same as Biden," "Illegal immigration is soaring," "Prices are rising," "The world is in turmoil," and "Harris is unable to change this." On the other hand, the Harris campaign's final ad messages were: "Trump is not qualified to be president," "We will protect abortion rights," "Trump will favor the rich," and "Harris will cut taxes for the middle class."5

Comparing these ads, it is no surprise that independent voters struggling with high prices and wanting to improve their economic situation would perceive Trump as more likely to change the current situation than Harris. The exit poll mentioned earlier also reveals that 73% of voters anticipating a change in the current situation voted for Trump, while only 25% voted for Harris.6

Throughout the recent election campaign, there were many opportunities in the form of televised debates and interviews for Harris to directly appeal to voters by, for example, sympathizing with the hardships they face due to high prices. Yet, she repeatedly failed to make the most of these opportunities. Multiple media outlets pointed out that Harris could deliver persuasive messages in prepared speeches, whereas she became tense in television interviews, failing to convey convincing messages to viewers.7 The New York Times noted that Harris became tense during one-on-one media interviews because, despite her experience as a prosecutor and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she posed tough questions in significant debates, she had little experience being on the defensive.8 During the election campaign, Harris gave several television interviews in which she had opportunities to send messages that would resonate with voters suffering from high prices. She repeatedly missed those opportunities.

Meanwhile, Trump blamed high prices for the failure of the Biden administration's inflation policy by using groundless but easy-to-understand language. For example, in the televised debate with Harris on September 10, the most closely watched by voters, he said: "I had no inflation, virtually no inflation. [Biden-Harris] had the highest inflation perhaps in the history of our country because I've never seen a worse period of time." "People can't go out and buy cereal or bacon or eggs or anything else. The people of our country are absolutely dying with what [Biden and Harris have] done. They've destroyed the economy."9

Trump's remarks may sound quite exaggerated to Japanese people, but looking at the rise in egg prices in the United States, they seem to have resonated with low-income earners. As of September this year, the average egg price per dozen increased by 28.1% compared to a year ago.10 However, this was not due to poor economic management by the Biden administration but a supply shortage caused by the avian flu epidemic. Yet, voters suffering from rising egg prices have no means to know the reason. Experts say it will be challenging for low-income earners, who previously bought a dozen eggs for $2, to now pay $4 to $5, given their reduced living expenses.11 In this respect, Trump's message hit the mark.

67% of viewers who watched the TV debate felt that Harris performed well, while 37% believed that Trump did better; on the other hand, 55% said that Trump was more conversant with economic policies, while 35% said that Harris was more.12

The Trump campaign's ads seem to have appealed to voters about their claim that the Democratic Party is excessively protective of LGBTQ (sexual minorities) or the so-called "culture wars." In one of their TV ads, a transgender student―who had undergone a sex change to become a woman but preserved a masculine physique―was featured playing basketball with her female teammates―a scene that may alarm the mothers of female students.13 The Republican ad aimed to make pro-abortion rights women who have viewed it feel uncomfortable with Harris's defense of LGBTQ rights and doubt that she is not sincerely considering their concerns and difficulties of living.

Conclusion: Why Did Trump Run for the Presidency Again?

To summarize the reasons for Trump's victory, the campaign effectively communicated clear messages to independent voters, who ultimately decided the election. These voters were primarily concerned with Trump's strict border control policies, believing such measures would improve the challenging economic situation and lead to stable employment. In contrast, issues related to the rule of law and democracy appeared less significant to them, even though Trump refused to accept his defeat in the 2020 presidential election and was convicted of crimes.

Independent voters were disappointed and concerned about the Biden administration's economic and Mexican border policies. Instead of taking care of their primary concerns, Harris stressed that Trump was a threat to democracy and that women were denied the right to abortion. She failed to advocate policies distinct from the Biden administration's regarding the questions that constituted independent voters' primary concerns. She could not capture their hearts in the swing states.

What decided the winner and the loser in the recent presidential election was the cogency of their message to independent voters struggling with economic difficulties. That said, the Trump campaign did not present effective economic policies; it only succeeded in reminding voters of the strong economy and low prices during the previous Trump administration, giving the impression that Harris could not change the status quo. The incoming Trump administration's economic policies will have to undergo public assessment in the midterm elections in two years and the presidential election four years from now.

One of Trump's personal goals for seeking reelection seems to have already been achieved regardless of the success or failure of the policies of the next Trump administration. Indeed, this is the very reason why Trump ran for the presidency again.

On November 22, a New York judge indefinitely postponed President-elect Trump's sentencing in his extramarital affair hush money case, in which he was found guilty. The judge also allowed Trump's attorneys to file motions to dismiss the indictment and guilty verdict.14 On November 25, Special counsel Jack Smith, who has been investigating two criminal cases against Trump—one accusing him of plotting the 2021 Capitol Riot and another alleging he unlawfully retained classified documents—filed a motion to the Federal Court to withdraw those charges. He explained the move by saying that it is the Department of Justice's long-held view that the United States Constitution forbids the federal indictment and subsequent criminal prosecution of a sitting President.15 On November 26, the Supreme Court in Atlanta, Georgia, decided to remove Trump from the case where he was indicted for taking classified documents to his private residence.16

Trump's side has declared these moves a decisive victory. These legal victories resulted from Trump's victory in the recent presidential election. To repeat the opening sentence of this section, voters voted for Trump because they were more concerned with Trump's pledge of strict border control, which would improve the immediate economic situation and lead to their job security, than with a potential danger to the rule of law and democracy under the second Trump administration.

Theoretically, Trump could be indicted again after the end of his presidential term. If, however, Trump left office in the middle of his term, Vice President Vance, appointed as his election running mate because of his loyalty, could become president and pardon Trump.

In other words, by bringing the issue of whether to prioritize the economy or democracy into the recent presidential election and urging people to choose the economy, Trump not only won the presidency but is also winning his legal battle, which will have a lasting negative impact on the future of American democracy and the rule of law. Nonetheless, denying the results of the people's choice, too, is counter to democracy.

proposal
current topics
letter