For the third time, Donald Trump failed to win more than 50 percent of the electorate. The Republican Party should thus thread carefully if it wants to hold on to its majorities in Congress.
David Schultz
Presidential candidates in the United States like to claim that their victories are political mandates. President-elect Donald Trump is no exception. But the final numbers are now in, and they show that Trump may not have secured that much support for his agenda after all.
For the third straight presidential election in a row, Trump has failed to clinch more than 50 percent of the votes. Though he won three million more votes in November than in 2020, his final popular vote was 49.72 percent of the electorate, barely one and a half percent more than Kamala Harris.
It was the second smallest popular vote victory for a US president in the last 40 years.
Yet the winner-takes-all aspect of American politics has given Trump and his party a false claim of a mandate that misinterprets voter preferences in 2024 and could potentially lead to the loss of one or both houses of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections.
What's in a mandate
What it means to have a political mandate is a matter of debate. One definition is that a "mandate is the authority that voters confer on an elected official to act as their representative."
In a democracy, this often means at least a majority of the voters have supported you and endorsed your policies.
Using this definition, Trump and Republicans may not have a mandate. It is more likely the results were a protest vote against US President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and the status quo.
Thus, Trump's victory was less a vindication and support for him, and more the consequence of other factors.
For example, Harris was tainted by Biden's general unpopularity and a disapproval for his policies, as well as her failure to break from him and distinguish her possible administration from Biden's.
US President Joe Biden, First Lady Jill Biden, Vice-President Kamala Harris and Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, December 8, 2024 (AFP).
Additionally, Harris herself was a weak candidate, generally underperforming across the country compared to other Democratic candidates for the Senate or other statewide offices. Trump, in effect, beat a weak candidate in the popular vote.
By the numbers
In the electoral vote, had Harris picked up approximately 124,000 more votes in the critical swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, she would have won the presidency.
However, because Trump consistently beat her across the critical seven swing states, the distorting effects of the Electoral College gave Trump 312 electoral votes to Harris's 226.
Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, Republicans have barely held on to their majority. Democrats picked up one House seat, creating the narrowest partisan majority in US House history since 1930, when Republicans and Democrats were even.
In the US Senate, the Republicans did flip the chamber, but Democratic Senate candidates received 1.4 million more votes than were cast for Republican candidates.
Finally, when one looks at some critical issues on the ballots across the country, abortion or reproductive rights ballot propositions passed in seven of 10 states.
In Florida, one of the three states where it failed, it still received 57 percent of the vote— 3 percent short of the 60 percent requirement for a constitutional amendment.
From a numerical perspective, it is hard to conclude that Trump and the Republicans have a mandate. Yet in a polarised political world of winner-take-all politics, Republicans and Donald Trump have the numerical majorities in Congress to potentially legislate what they wish. Still, they do so with peril.
Voter punishment
One lesson in American history is that candidates or parties who overestimate their strength overreach are punished by the voters in the next election.
The dome of the US Capitol is seen at dusk in Washington, DC on November 13, 2023. Who controls Congress is 2026 remains to be seen (AFP).
For example, after their election in 2008, former President Barack Obama and the Democrats upset voters by passing the Affordable Care Act, leading to Republicans capturing both Houses in 2010.
Then when Trump and the Republicans who were elected in 2016 overreached with conservative Supreme Court appointments, Democrats captured both Houses in the 2018 elections.
Already, the 2026 American elections are on the horizon, even though Trump and other Republicans have not yet been sworn into office. Historically the president's party loses seats in Congress in midterm elections.
,,
The Republicans and Trump have an excellent opportunity. They attracted many working-class voters, including people of colour, and they moved many middle-class voters to their side in November.
In 2026, there will be 33 US Senate seats up for elections, with 20 held by Republicans and 13 by Democrats. Thus, the 2026 electoral map favors the Democrats.
The question is, will Trump and his Republicans listen to voters and address the concerns they have, or will they push their own narrow base agenda despite what might be majority preferences.
The Republicans and Trump have an excellent opportunity. They attracted many working-class supporters, including those from diverse backgrounds, and shifted significant middle-class support to their side in November.
Were Trump and the Republicans to adopt an agenda addressing more narrowly the concerns of these voters, such as illegal immigration and health care costs, they could redefine the political alignment of America for a generation to come.
Whether they will accept that choice is yet to be seen. If they do, perhaps then they will have forged a proper mandate.
SOURCE: TRT World
David Schultz is Hamline University Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Legal Studies, and Environmental Studies in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is the author of more than 45 books and 200 articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment