Well, it is over.
Well the election is over. I think that is about the best outcome. Not the result simply the fact that it is over. We will no longer have to endure campaign ads, text messages and endless commentary on who is going to win. No polls, no predictions it is time to relax and get back to our daily lives. However what is an election without a post mortem of the results. For those of you not paying attention to the results, here they are:
As of Nov. 11th, 2024
Name Electoral College Popular Vote % of Popular Vote
Donald Trump 312 75 Million 50.3%
Kamala Harris 226 71 Million 48.1%
President Trump's victory has been described as resounding. Trump did win all 7 swing states. However he won them by very small margins. In only 2 of the swing states trump garnered more than 51% of the popular vote. His popular vote percentage in Arizona was 52.3 and in North Carolina it was 51.1%. In the remaining 5 swing states he did not get above 50.7% of the vote. I would categorize President Trump's victory as wide but not necessarily deep. For a wide and deep victory see President Reagan's victories in 1980 and 1984.
Before beginning this post I went make and reviewed my previous entry from April. In this post I opined about a lack of enthusiasm for either candidate. At that time President Joe Biden was the likely Democratic candidate and Donald Trump was the presumptive Republican candidate. As we all know President Biden dropped out and Vice President Harris became the Democratic candidate. This change did not really alter the election dynamics. Vice President Harris experienced a brief spell of enthusiasm after the Democratic convention. Once the initial euphoria waned and things returned to day to day campaigning melancholy set in. We were back to candidates that we were less than excited about. Both sides had avid electoral bases that they could count on, but those of us in the middle were left with the proverbial "lesser of two evils".
This previous post centered around the question:
So how does one make a decision when the options are less than optimal and the resulting outcomes would be difficult to ascertain?
In the previous post I referenced Dan Ariely, specifically his book Predictably Irrational. When choosing the lessor of two evils we tend to favor the choice with the least risk. This stems from the concept of loss aversion. Loss aversion is the phenomenon were the anguish of a loss is felt more deeply than the joy of an equal windfall. This aversion to loss fuels the desire to reduce risk. So how did the campaigns assuage our fears and reduce risk?
Before fully getting into that question I do have to acknowledge that since we are talking about emotional responses most of this is definitely skewed by my own biases. As an example I can rationally understand the issue of a women's reproductive rights. However it would be disingenuous of me to claim that I could fully understand the women's emotional response to the issue. I spent the last week with several sources analyzing the election results. Sources are from both the left and right. From all this consumption I have decided to focus on the economy and voter participation.
First the economy, people are generally hurting. I feel that both parties do acknowledge this. People feel that they are losing control of their economic futures. What differs is the way each party addressed the issue. From the political ads I saw the democrats soft balled this issue. They approached the issue from a few different angles. They presented economic data to show the strength of the economy. There were a few ads about taxing the rich and corporations. Vice President Harris outlined policy initiatives to take on price gouging and giving grants to first time home buyers. This all seemed very disjointed and unfocused.
The Trump campaign took the South Park approach. The message was straight forward and direct. The Trump campaign's message was that mass immigration has flooded the country with millions of workers and they have taken the jobs from those that are already here. Is this true? I have no way of knowing and I do not think anyone really does. When Trump enacts his mass deportations will there be a multitude of jobs available. Again who knows? The point here is not the factual accuracy of Trump's claim but the understandability of it. The assertion is clear, direct and uncomplicated. In summary the clear and uncomplicated message carried less risk than the unfocused basket of proposals. This I believe also lead to different voter demographics.
I has been reported that a major factor in President Trump's victory was flipping Black and Hispanic men. According to the data Trumps support within the Hispanic community rose 14% over is 2020 numbers. Support from Black voters rose slightly. This was especially true for the men of these communities. Is it possible that the simple message of immigration consuming jobs also resonated with these communities? It would explain why these voters flipped. When you combine this with the inroads Trump made with young white males there may be a lack of understanding of male emotions.
I stated earlier that I could not fully comprehend the emotional aspects of a women's reproductive rights, When I graduated University in 1984 the unemployment rate in Canada was over 11%. The inflation rate was over 4%. These are numbers that would send most people these days into a frenzy. In my career I have been laid off and downsized. In spite of all that I find it difficult to fully comprehend the emotional aspects of a immigrant who fears a job loss. If I rationally ponder it, I would imagine that an immigrant family would consider job security a high priority. This fear of loss would lead them to take all appropriate action to stabilize there job situation. They may even be inclined to vote republican. If I will admit this difficulty then maybe the democrats should too.
Comments
Post a Comment