Our US students give their analysis and opinion on Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 US Presidential Election.
“Will the US slip into autocracy?”
Shock. Déjà vu. Fear. These are the primary emotions I have been cycling through in the hours since the election. I, like many others, expected it to be a much closer election, and considered it a guarantee that the race wouldn’t be called for at least several days. Yet as the night went on, an uncomfortably familiar feeling arose, and I was transported back to 2016.
However, the U.S. that elected Trump in 2024 is different from the U.S. that elected Trump in 2016. In the last eight years, the quality of American democracy has unequivocally declined. There is also no question that Trump’s re-election signals this trend will continue. The debate now becomes: will the U.S. slip into autocracy? There is, unfortunately, a plethora of evidence to support the affirmative.
Trump promises to tackle the “enemies from within” and punish his political opponents, both elected officials and the American people, undermining the fundamental freedoms promised in the First Amendment. Trump v. United States allows for presidential immunity from criminal liability, greatly loosening the restraints on executive power. He even explicitly stated he would be a dictator, though “only on day one”.
Given all this, it is incredibly difficult to not feel like the ship is sinking. Nevertheless, I believe that the death of American democracy is not inevitable. America’s political system, due to its system of checks and balances, is incredibly complex and rigid. It is nearly impossible to change the constitution. The U.S.’s federalist structure means that many aspects of executive, legislative, and judicial power remain in the hands of the states, of which many are still staunch supporters of democratic values and human rights.
I do not intend for this argument to convince you that American democracy will certainly prevail, and thus we have nothing to worry about. I only intend that you do not abandon the cause of protecting democracy and that you continue to have hope.
Johanna Seppälä is a student in the MSc Political Science (Conflict Studies and Comparative Politics) programme and voted in New York. She graduated from Binghamton University, State University of New York, this past May where she studied Political Science and Human Rights. Her research interests include democratic backsliding, civil conflict, and human rights.
“When called into the court of public opinion, ‘Bidenomics’ fell short”
The 2024 Presidential Election was a statement victory for newly-President elect Donald Trump, one that few pundits had seen coming on the eve of the election. Support for Trump increased in virtually every single demographic cohort. His vote share increased in all but two states. Turnout among Democrats was so underwhelming that Trump now stands on the brink of winning the popular vote.
Despite surprise at the wide margins that accompanied his victory, the proximal cause of Trump’s success was readily discernible. More than anything, Tuesday marked the electorate’s repudiation of the Biden-Harris economic agenda. In the list of voter’s top concerns, the economy ranked second nationally and placed first in several battleground states like Georgia. Of the voters who ranked the economy first, 80% split for Trump.
In the post-mortem following the 2016 Presidential Election, Democrat grandees chalked Hillary Clinton’s defeat down to the party’s failure to address the concerns of a working-class precariat punished by decades of neoliberal economic policies. Biden’s agenda, inherited by Harris, sought to remedy this. In 2020, the Biden-Harris campaign stressed the importance of broad-based inclusive growth and the revitalization of rural communities; once sworn into office, their administration took on big business; Biden himself picketed alongside striking auto workers. And yet, when called into the court of public opinion, ‘Bidenomics’ fell short.
No doubt, this is at least partially due to America’s transformation into a post-truth society, where preferences are grounded in ‘vibes’ rather than objective reality. That voters turned to Trump– who salivates at the prospect of a 10% universal tariff–as a cure-all for inflation attests to the irrationality of American politics. At the same time however, poor self-promotion, combined with the perception that the administration has dealt with rising prices callously, have exacerbated the Biden-Harris agenda’s lack of support among the public. Ultimately, the political failure of ‘Bidenomics’ is likely to give way to renewed soul-searching, as Democrats once more attempt to chart a new course through dangerous waters.
Matteo Cardarelli is an MSc Political Science (Political Science and Political Economy) student in the LSE Department of Government and voted in Washington, D.C. He graduated from King’s College London in 2024, and his research interests include the political economy of industrial policy, state capacity, and interest groups.
“Democrats need to bring Latinos, young voters (especially young men), and rural voters into the coalition”
This election presented Americans with a historic decision. The polls leading up to Election Day showed the race too close to call. However, as voting came to a close on Tuesday night, exit polling began sounding the alarm for Democrats. Data showed that Vice President Harris was underperforming with key voter groups who were essential to her path of victory.
The economy and immigration were particularly important to Republicans, while reproductive rights and the state of democracy were important to Democrats.
Young voters, who Democrats were relying on in key swing states such as Wisconsin and Michigan, split their votes evenly between Harris and Trump. Latino men who had supported Biden, flipped to Trump, and listed the economy as a reason for shifting their support. In addition, Trump was also able to regain support he had lost in rural areas in 2020.
Reproductive healthcare has been at the forefront of the Harris campaign and an issue that Democrats were hoping would motivate voters to support her. Unfortunately, about half of people nationwide who say abortion should be legal voted for Trump. This phenomenon is especially interesting to me because my home state Ohio voted overwhelmingly in favour of an amendment in 2023 to protect access to abortion in the state by almost 15 points. In 2024 Trump won the state by 11 points.
While it is important to recognize that Vice President Harris only had 92 days to prepare for Election Day when she replaced Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee, the campaign and the party clearly had deeper problems. As Democrats regroup it is critical that they bring Latinos, young voters (especially young men), and rural voters into the coalition. These voters will be essential for Democrats to be successful in key swing states in future.
Meredith Blair is a student in the MSc Political Science (Conflict Studies and Comparative Politics) program. She graduated from Kent State University in the U.S where she studied Political Science with a concentration in American Politics.
“Democrats need a rethink from the ground up”
Tuesday night was nothing short of cataclysmic for Democrats. President-elect Trump carried every swing state while Republicans flipped control of the Senate. And with key US House races still undetermined, the possibility of a Trump-led Republican trifecta hangs in the balance.
Democratic candidates—and Democratic causes down ballot—took a beating. Once we’ve taken the time to analyze and to process, we need to take a good, long look at our performance. To rebuild, we need a Democratic reckoning.
While this election was not a bloodbath, it was certainly a rout. Not one state swung left from 2020, marking the first time since 1976 that all states in a presidential election swung toward the same party.
The fact is that the American public punished the Biden-Harris team for perceived governance and vision failures. With results this clear, across so many demographics, crosstabs, and regions, there is no single factor, policy, or demographic to blame or to tweak.
We Democrats need to realign our vision and reframe our message. The Democratic party just can’t seem to shake its perception as the out-of-touch party of coastal, educated elites.
Perhaps most troublingly, we seem to have lost the ability to speak to the working class. As Senator Bernie Sanders put it in the aftermath of the election, “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.” This is the attitude and the posture we need to adopt. It’s a far cry from Senator Chuck Schumer’s infamous 2016 alternative: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia.” That attitude and belief cost us 2016, and it cost us again Tuesday night.
But it isn’t just the working class. The gender divide, especially among GenZ voters, is unsustainable. Harris led Trump 67-28 with young women, but with young men, Harris trailed Trump 37-58. And the urbanicity divide was similar. 59% of urban voters voted for Harris, but only 34% of rural voters did so. Same for education. Republicans lead voters without a bachelor’s degree by six points; for voters with a bachelor’s, Democrats lead by 13. And Democrats lead those with postgraduate degrees by a whopping 24 points.
If we want to regain the confidence of the American public, we have to address these polarizing divisions. We will only solve this by rethinking our Democratic vision from the ground up, and by listening to those who feel that we have left them behind. Our ability to win future elections—and our ability to resist the worst impulses of an empowered MAGA movement—depends on it.
Cooper E. Smith is an MSc Political Science (Conflict Studies and Comparative Politics) student at the LSE Department of Government. His research focuses on constitutional law, judicial politics, democratic backsliding, and criminal justice reform. Cooper is also a Constitutional Content Fellow at the National Constitution Center, which promotes nonpartisan education, discourse, and debate about US constitutional law and politics.
Note: this article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Department of Government, nor of the London School of Economics.
