Analysis of the central results
Contrary to most polls, which had predicted a close race or a narrow lead for Harris, Trump achieved a decisive victory, securing all seven swing states and winning 312 electoral votes compared to Kamala Harris’s 226. This broad sweep in traditionally contested regions highlighted a significant rightward shift that many polling models failed to capture, as well as strong resilience within Trump’s base and broader appeal across various voter demographics.
Voter Demographics and Shifting Support
Exit polls highlighted Harris’s struggle to galvanize the female vote as effectively as past Democratic candidates. While Harris retained strong support among Black voters, her appeal among Latino men faltered, a demographic that previously leaned Democratic in 2020 but now changed strongly toward Trump. Younger voters, typically a Democratic stronghold, displayed reduced enthusiasm this cycle and Trump was also strongly favored by first-year voters. Interestingly, Harris gained some ground among older voters, who traditionally align with Republicans, but it was insufficient to bridge the gap in key battleground states.
Economic Discontent and the Influence on Voter Decisions
Economic dissatisfaction played a pivotal role in the election. A majority of voters reported negative views on the economy in 2024, benefiting Trump, who campaigned on promises of economic recovery and stability. Issues like inflation and economic stagnation resonated more strongly with voters than the social issues, such as abortion rights, that Harris emphasized. Traditional battleground states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin flipped back to Trump after narrow victories for Biden in 2020, marking a nationwide shift to the right not seen since several decades. Trump also made inroads in Arizona and Michigan, turning what had been close 2020 Democratic wins into significant Republican margins in 2024. This led to Trump’s popular vote victory, a Republican milestone not reached since George W. Bush’s presidency in 2004.
Unified Government for the Republicans
Republicans regained control of the Senate and the House, which enhances Trump’s capacity to implement his agenda with fewer obstacles. With control over judicial appointments and major policy decisions, a conservative Republican Senate and House will likely expedite Trump’s domestic and foreign policy objectives.
Why Kamala Harris Fell Short
According to Forbes1 Harris was able to collect more than 1 Billion USD in less than 80 days which is an unprecedented record in raising campaign money. With outside groups the amount is estimated at around 1.6 Billion USD. Trump was able to raise around 400 Million USD, including outside groups around 1 Billion USD.2 Besides Harris’s financial advantage several factors combined to impede her path to victory. Economic issues proved a formidable challenge, overshadowing her focus on social topics that did not resonate as strongly with the broader electorate. Her limited success in energizing women and younger voters, along with a loss of support among Latino men, weakened the Democratic coalition in pivotal states.
Additionally, the dropout of Biden was highly likely to late for the democrats to build up a strong and well thought campaign to compensate the lost typical “incumbent bonus”. However, after the drop-out of Biden, Harris was in the end unable to distance herself and her policy ideas from him in a politically clever way, which would have been pivotal, since according to a NBC News-poll, two third of the population saw the country on the wrong way.3
Potential implications for Europe and the European Union
A Trump return to the White House could have significant repercussions for Europe and the EU, likely reviving his “America First” approach and reshaping established transatlantic relations across several key areas:
Trump has historically pressured European NATO allies to increase defense spending, and a renewed push in this direction could challenge EU members to allocate more resources toward military capabilities. This could lead to a shift toward a more independent European security framework and reduced reliance on American political backing.
Trump’s economic focus on reducing trade deficits and bolstering domestic manufacturing could reintroduce tariffs or trade barriers against the EU, potentially disrupting export-driven economies.
A renewed Trump administration may deprioritize global climate cooperation, conflicting with the EU’s aggressive climate agenda. First hints are out that Trump will leave again the Paris Agreement.4 Reduced U.S. participation in environmental initiatives could hinder EU-led efforts in global climate policy – or could be the chance to take on a leading role.
Trump’s potentially conciliatory stance toward Russia could create tensions, especially with Eastern European EU countries that favor sanctions and containment. Differences in approach to Russia and regional security, particularly concerning Ukraine, may strain the transatlantic alliance.
To summarize, a Trump presidency will likely test transatlantic resilience, with European leaders navigating these shifts cautiously while moving toward greater self-reliance in areas where U.S. support could become more conditional or limited.
It is highly likely, as Donald Tusk mentioned on X prior to the election, that “the era of geopolitical outsourcing is over”, and Europe must “take more responsibility”, as Commission President von der Leyen added in her statement regarding the U.S. election. Perhaps it is time for Europe and the EU to finally grow up and foster stronger internal cooperation to be internationally recognized as an equal global player. In short, it is time for us to be stronger together.
By Florian Gasser, PhD and YEPP Vice President
