Making sense of it
Putting Trump’s far-right stance on pretty much every issue aside, a genuine analysis of the business magnate’s campaign strategy reveals tactical ingenuity that highlighted his what-you-see-is-what-you-get persona
The frenzy surrounding what was perhaps the most controversial US election of all time has finally come to a screeching halt. Against all odds and expectations, Donald J. of the house Trump has emerged victorious; shocking political pundits, veteran campaign managers, and pretty much the entire human race everywhere.
While the world watches the president-elect take victory laps in disbelief, dissections of what went wrong for Clinton are already starting to roll in. Questions whether Trump’s victory – an individual with no prior public service experience, whatsoever – was a simple consequence of the American people wanting an outsider to replace the tried and tested insider, or were there more profound reasons at play are beginning to surface.
Putting Trump’s far-right stance on pretty much every issue aside, a genuine analysis of the business magnate’s campaign strategy reveals tactical ingenuity that highlighted his what-you-see-is-what-you-get persona, ferocious attacks on political correctness and what he considered was the corrupt elite epitomised by the Clintons.
From women, Hispanics, Muslims and even a crying baby at one of his whirlwind rallies, Trump’s rhetoric left no stones unturned to offend all those under the sun. His words caused rifts to form in the Republican encampment itself; to the point of making disassociation necessary for some of his allies – notably house speaker, Paul Ryan. His conventions were largely circuses that often turned violent against protestors.However, for the largely white rural working class Americans that primarily voted him as their next leader he is a saviour. People with expensive college degrees; high student debt, but no jobs. People that had grown increasingly disillusioned with corporate America outsourcing manufacturing to China; therefore directly affecting their livelihood.
But not everything Trump said or did could be considered a masterstroke. Clinton herself has played a pivotal role in handing out the White House to the GOP. Accusations of identity politics, cronyism, and unwavering support of hostile foreign interventions resonated strongly with undecided voters during the final run of the campaign. In spite of the Democrats being full aware of Clinton’s close ties with Wall-Street, her private email server and her floundering stance on free trade, the party made Hillary their prime candidate; overlooking both Vice President Joe Biden and the progressive Bernie Sanders.
There is little doubt that the Democrats took Hillary’s win for granted; and as president they would trust her to serve party interests above else. A fatal error in judgment while contending against a person who loves firing people on reality TV for making similar mistakes. If Donald Trump indeed was an authoritarian, right-wing politian, as the Democrats often portrayed him to be, then quelling such a threat required a scandal-free political scientist who would make stopping him a part of his prime directive. Putting party interests first and people’s interest seconds have cost the Democrats dearly, as well as dangerously exposed their preference for opportunism.
Though the US continues to expand on its diversity, white voters still constitute more than 60pc of the population; ergo commanding the lion’s share of the electorate – especially as far as state elections are concerned
Strategically, switching tactics from discussing issues of importance to targeting non-whites and millennials didn’t bode well for Clinton’s campaign. The sizeable chunk of population Trump had offended with his sharply worded comments pale in comparison with the overwhelming white majority that has propelled Trump into office. To make matters worse, despite being burnt by Trump’s political rhetoric, non-whites found no solace in the first female frontrunner either; choosing not to show up in expected numbers to ensure a Clinton victory. Similarly, the progressives failed to account for the fickle nature of the millennial demographic whose turnout during previous elections has never been reliable.
Though the US continues to expand on its diversity, white voters still constitute more than 60pc of the population; ergo commanding the lion’s share of the electorate – especially as far as state elections are concerned. So even though the Democratic Party made significant headway clinching several points from key diverse states like Texas, Georgia and Arizona, it simply wasn’t enough to ensure victory. The white majority in those states makes it vital for presidential candidates to sweep as many white voters to continue to have edge. What seemed like a sudden surge in Hispanic voter turnout in Florida, for instance, was easily curbed by the surge in the white voter turnout.
The Democrats now have the next four years to ponder how to appeal more effectively to working-class white voters till Trump’s second-term election. Trump lost all pre-election polls left, right and center. Nonetheless, he has clinched victory to prove that not only all polls were wrong and all projection models flawed, but that the American people saw enough promise in his words than offence to choose him as their next commander-in-chief.
