Expert says '121,000 votes in 3 swing states' were key in Harris' defeat

Washington, DC — With President-elect Donald Trump defeating Democratic nominee Kamala Harris following the November 5 election, questions are being asked about what went wrong for the Democrats.

Even as some Democrats are blaming President Joe Biden, political scientists say there were many factors at play.

"For at least two years, I said that this election would be decided by a few swing voters in a few swing counties across a few swing states. My estimate was 150,000 to 200,000 voters would decide the election. While a little high, I think my estimate was on the mark," David Schultz, an expert on American politics and election law, told TRT World.

Schultz, who teaches political science and legal studies at Hamline University and is editor of Presidential Swing States: Why Only Ten Matter, said there were some broader dynamics that impacted the 2024 presidential election and that it is part of a critical realignment of the electorate and the parties that began in 2008.

"However, a shift of 121,000 votes across Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would have produced a different result with Harris winning," he said, adding, "We infer too much from marginal shifts in numbers. This election is another case of that."

Trump, a Republican, beat Harris in the presidential race, securing a massive 295 Electoral College votes, as of now, well above the required 270. While Democrats have not yet announced what went wrong, some of them have already found a suspect — Biden.

"The biggest onus of this loss is on President Biden," Andrew Yang, who ran against Biden in 2020 for the Democratic nomination and endorsed Harris' unsuccessful run, was cited by AP news agency.

"If he had stepped down in January instead of July, we may be in a very different place."

Biden finally bowed out on July 21 after many party elders pressured him to step aside. Biden ultimately endorsed Harris, who on Wednesday conceded the election to Trump.

Economy overshadowed abortion politics

There were multiple problems that Harris and the Democrats had, according to Schultz.

"Perhaps the most notable was the fact that the Democrats failed to connect with voters and with many individuals who felt alienated, frustrated or neglected by the political process," he said.

Trump appealed to those individuals who were left out of the system, those who felt like economically they were not being appreciated or benefiting from an economy that was helping those at the top but not at the bottom, Schultz added.

The expert on American election said abortion politics may have helped Democrats but economy played a role in Trump's favour.

He said women generally thought that abortion was an issue in 2024, but "they also saw the fact that the price of basic household goods such as milk, bread, butter, eggs, was more expensive. They voted with their pocketbook, thinking that perhaps the economy and prices were better under Trump than they were under Biden."

Schultz said Trump also appealed to a "macho aspect of politics" and mobilised voters across all races, especially male voters.

"Harris lost also because she underperformed in the suburbs and underperformed with men with women compared to how Biden had performed back in 2020."

"Altogether," Schultz said, "perhaps it was the wrong strategy with the wrong message, and maybe arguably even the wrong candidate that the Democrats put up."

Schultz said Trump's clean sweep or dominance in all seven swing states is a feat that has been achieved before, citing previous presidents — Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama.

Trump defied pollsters and media predictions of a tight race to beat Harris. His path to victory emerged more swiftly than anticipated.

'Blue wall is no longer a blue wall'

The 78-year-old focused on economy and immigration mostly but also made alliances with minorities.

Known for his past anti-Muslim bigotry, he cobbled together deals with Muslims of swing state Michigan and elsewhere, promising to end wars in Middle East.

It worked in his favour.

In 2020, Biden won Michigan with 51 percent of the vote to Trump's 48 percent.

In 2016, Trump won Michigan with 47.6 percent to Hillary Clinton’s 47.4 percent.

In Dearborn city, for example, where majority of the residents have Middle Eastern roots, Biden received 68.8 percent of votes in 2020 while Trump received only 29.9 percent.

In 2024, however, Trump won 42.48 percent of the vote, compared with 36.26 percent for Harris and 18.37 percent for the Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Harris meanwhile failed to persuade Muslim Americans who have accused her and her party of being complicit in Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

"Arguably, Harris pitched her message too far to the left, and Trump was much closer to where the voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the other swing states were. What we've just seen now is what political scientists call a critical realignment, a critical realignment in terms of changing composition of parties and who votes for them," Schultz said.

He said a shift that began with Obama in 2008 is taking America to new Trump era where the working class and persons of colour are moving to the Republican Party while the college-educated and female are moving to the Democratic Party.

"This is part of the polarisation of American society. And what it suggests is that the blue wall is no longer a blue wall," the expert said.