Most pollsters and election observers had predicted a close presidential contest between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris and said it would be a “very close contest” with some even calling this closely contested election a “fair fight”. However, we did not hedge our bets and categorically stated that “Ab Ki Baar Trump Sarkar”, i.e. Donald Trump is likely to win. These views about the certainty of Trump’s victory were shared with a large section of the Indian press on the evening of November 5, 2024, when the elections were still underway in the US and were prominently featured in many major publications. So this is not a case of hindsight or post-event wisdom. So, there is no surprise in this, at least not to us.

Now that the US election process is over, we should not be influenced by cynical ideas. Let us look at Trump's landslide victory objectively and objectively. Why did Kamala Harris lose not only the swing states but also the blue states that were long considered Democratic strongholds? As William Shakespeare so powerfully wrote in his play Hamlet, "There is something wrong with the kingdom of Denmark".

First, we can say that Kamala Harris started with a different kind of discomfort, a kind of “original sin” in the sense that, as David Axelrod, the master strategist behind both of Barack Obama’s presidential victories, poignantly pointed out, “No incumbent party has ever won with a president who had a 40% or lower approval rating.” Axelrod also said, “No party has ever won with people’s attitudes about the economy.”

Perceptions vary, assessments vary, but she had to get it. Let us try to identify and isolate some of the basic reasons for her apparent defeat. Elections are rarely won or lost on a single issue, but the forces and factors of the economy, immigration and incumbency individually and collectively defeated Kamala Harris. And the rest is history. First, the economy – the importance of the economy in elections can never be underestimated. The state of the economy remains the key principle in a deterministic electoral strategy in most parts of the world. The paramount importance of the economy is eloquently expressed in Democratic strategist James Carville’s colorful Yankee phrase “The economy, stupid!”, which explains Bill Clinton’s victory in 1992.

The US has been going through a tough phase during the last four years of Democratic rule, there were widespread concerns on many fronts and some well-informed individuals and institutions had even brought to attention the dire threat of “stagflation” about two years ago. Things have improved since then but people at the “bottom of the pyramid” are having a tough time due to the cycle of rising food prices and inflation, especially the increased prices of grocery and gas, which has devastated the poor, marginalized and underprivileged sections of the population. Along with the increased prices, the bottom half of the US population faced a housing shortage, which dashed the American dream of owning one’s own home.

Second, open porous borders - most honest Americans hate uncontrolled illegal immigration. While much of Europe and the USA accept and even welcome need-based legal immigration, uncontrolled illegal immigration is unacceptable. Biden and Harris have played this critical issue lightly and ignored the fact that many millions of people cross the southern border, taking a toll on infrastructure, gainful employment opportunities and the law and order situation.

Third, the woke culture and its celebration of identity politics in the US and its educational institutions, especially after the attack on Israel by Islamists, alienated a large section of patriotic Americans. Fourth, Kamala Harris was one of the most unsuitable candidates – Biden’s decision to run for president led to the Democrats losing the presidency. He is now mentally and physically weak. No one knows who has been practically running the country for the last several months. Kamala was never taken seriously during her tenure. If the Democrats had gone into the primary election without Biden, they would have had no chance, so she was neither the most capable nor the most suitable person among the potential Democratic candidates. The Democrats harmed themselves with this wrong decision. She was basically considered by people as the candidate of Clinton, Obama and the Democratic Party elite. So widespread doubts about her electability and experience naturally attracted the fence-sitters to Trump in his apparent destiny to be elected in the 21st century.

Fifth, foreign policy- Trump's entire focus on "America First" was seen as logical and relevant. What makes this even more significant is that Trump was the only president in recent history who did not start a war. Biden's support for Ukraine was seen by many Americans as illogical and far removed from the grim realities of present-day America.

Sixth, the Muslim vote in Michigan - Kamala and the Democrats needed the Muslim vote in Michigan to win the state. But her support for Biden's Israel policy alienated Muslim and Arab voters in a big way. Even though they were not openly in favor of Trump, they did not vote for Kamala either. So it is not surprising that Kamala lost Michigan.

Seventh, Kamala's mistake in choosing her vice presidential candidate - her vice presidential candidate may have been hailed by the media as great, but his statements and expressions on national and international issues were lacking in substance and failed to connect with most Americans. If she had chosen the governor of Pennsylvania as her vice presidential candidate, she could have won Pennsylvania, although she would still have lost the presidency.

In this broader scenario, Americans elected a tried and tested man – a man who had been their president for 4 years. His vague or inconsistent policy and platform led to severe criticisms, undermining his credibility among voters. Americans understood Kamala’s game of being the second in command in the Biden administration, but disassociated herself from the failures of the Biden administration. You cannot enjoy the spoils and riches of office but refuse to take any blame for wrong decisions – you cannot have your cake and have it too! He was widely seen as a man who had no ideas or beliefs of his own. His extremely inadequate personal connection with voters and absence of emotional resonance made matters worse.

Thus, it clearly emerges that we should avoid making any hasty generalisations about the US making the wrong choice. More specifically, Americans are neither racist nor sexist as they were four years ago. They simply made a safe bet and it is unfair to underestimate the voters’ intelligence and understanding of the dynamics of change. Best of luck to them.