General George S. Patton famously noted, “The fog of war works both ways. The enemy is as much in the dark as you are. BE BOLD!!!!!” He was referring, of course, to actual warfare, yet his now oft-repeated adage could apply equally well to analysis in the aftermath of an election – or any seismic event.
For example, President-elect Donald Trump just made one of the most significant political comebacks in history. The foggy days of recrimination in which we now reside, with each flank of the political divide grasping for glory or at straws, is as opaque a period as one might find. Yet, in the dark, damp mist of confusion, data is available that is as illuminating as it is fascinating.
Back to Basics
Let’s start with a statement of fact: The election results should not have been a surprise. Here are a few factors to consider:
Vice President Kamala Harris was one of the least popular politicians in the country before she was anointed as Joe Biden’s replacement.
Almost all the polling of the last 100 days suggested that, at best, this would be an extremely close race in terms of the national popular vote.
Almost all of the battleground-state polling pointed towards Donald Trump winning at least five of the seven.
The betting markets (often a more reliable indicator than polling) had Trump in the lead since Kamala entered the race.
Indeed, it seemed that the legacy media was engaged in a full-court press to deny the basic facts of the election, and this is why so many people were surprised at the outcome. Liberty Nation News Senior Political Analyst Tim Donner wrote back in September that the election was Trump’s to lose. He based his exposition on polling that measured not candidate or party preference, but on which contender voters felt was better able to deal with significant issues facing the country. According to the Gallup survey, Republicans dominated. As Mr. Donner surmised:
“Add it all up, and the really bad news for the Democrats is that they are not favored on a single measure. This would suggest that the Democratic Party better pray – or, more likely, hope – that abortion and Trump derangement can become predominant issues, enough to wipe out advantages Republicans enjoy on every measure that has proven crucial to previous elections.”
But let’s veer gently away from why things happened and look at how they occurred.
A Numbers Game
Certainly, the post-election “fog of war” hangs heavy over those desperate to lay blame or plaudits. British wartime leader Winston Churchill wrote, “The pictorial battlefield becomes a sea of mud mercifully veiled by the fog of war.” But should we decide to remove said mud from our boots and examine what brushstrokes remain, the fog lifts. Here are the numbers that defined the election:
46: All told, it is estimated that 46% of Latino voters went for Trump (55% of all Latino men). That beat George W. Bush’s 2004 44% grand slam and marks the highest percentage in 50 years for a Republican. Among the Hispanic men, this was a 35-point swing!
6.5: Donald Trump won the nation’s first majority-Muslim city of Dearborn, Michigan, by a little over six percent. That’s a big swing towards the GOP and one that was, in part, aided by two factors. First was Arab/Muslim American disaffection with the Biden administration’s response to the war in Israel. Second was the ground game of Green Party candidate Jill Stein. But Trump’s splash went beyond the narrow pond of Dearborn. As Detroit News reported:
“In Macomb County's Sterling Heights, where about 27% of the population was born outside the U.S., according to Census Bureau data, Trump won 39 out of 40 precincts in unofficial results.”
11: Did misogyny sink the Harris campaign? Was a visceral hatred of women by men the “root cause” of her political demise? Well, not according to the numbers. Yes, Donald Trump won male voters by a margin of 11%, but historically, that’s pretty normal. According to data from the Center for American Women and Politics, it seems that (aside from the younger Bush’s re-election in 2004) women tend to favor the Democratic contender by between 10 and 15 points each election cycle, regardless of who is on the ticket.
If men had really decided to vote for Trump because the alternative was female, we would have seen an increase in this gap rather than an average result.
90-ish: Out of the nation’s more than 3,000 counties, it seems more than 90% swung to the right this cycle. It was not distinct pockets that rejected the Democratic contender, but instead, an across-the-board swing either away from Harris or toward Trump.
Whether that’s rural counties, suburbs, or even mid-metro or urban centers, the vast majority determined that it was not the right time for Kamala’s brand of politics.
And this might be the most damning number of all. If, after a hard-fought but ultimately unsuccessful campaign, one can lick wounds and ponder whether an extra rally here or more ad-spending there would have made a difference, that provides solace and a reason to continue fighting for your brand. But when nine out of ten counties lack any kind of enthusiasm for what you’re selling – even those that are normally a lock for your party – well, that’s a game changer. And perhaps one who suffers that kind of loss might prefer to stay enveloped in the comforting dark of that oh-so-protective fog.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
