Labeling Trump’s Victory as ‘Resounding’ Is Not Only Incorrect, It's Dangerous.
Both the right and the left have embraced the narrative of a resounding victory. However, they are mistaken.
TroibNews 
**Is it newsworthy that Donald Trump’s share of the 2024 presidential vote has fallen below 50 percent?**
The recent milestone of Trump achieving just 49.9 percent of the vote passed with minimal media coverage, which might suggest that it’s not particularly significant, especially as states like California continue their slow tabulation of ballots.
Yet, even with a slight majority, Trump still outpaced Kamala Harris, who garnered 48.3 percent. As the final votes are counted, this margin may very well narrow further. Regardless, Trump still claims 312 electoral votes from a populace that enabled the Republican Party to maintain control of the House and Senate. He won.
However, the statistics may raise eyebrows among those who have been tuned into the narratives being spun by triumphant Republicans and self-castigating Democrats, all of whom seem to embrace a storyline of a decisive Trump victory.
It's understandable; as votes were being counted, Trump's win was labeled as “resounding” by an array of news sources, including the Associated Press, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and PMG. Others described it as a “commanding win,” “runaway win,” and “dominant victory.”
But why are we celebrating such terminology?
We’ve seemingly recalibrated our understanding of dominance. After years of living in a 50-50 country, even a slight edge is often heralded as a major triumph. Winning office with less than half the popular vote in a binary contest used to signal weakness, a mere squeaker. So why do we now treat a marginal success as monumental? Perhaps, in the wake of the tumultuous events of 2020, a “dominant victory” now merely signifies a win that doesn’t spiral into recounts or civil unrest.
Washington, it’s time to curb this consensus!
This observation isn’t an attempt to commend the lackluster Democratic showing or dispute Trump's victory. He successfully carried the crucial battleground states, improved his performance in typically challenging areas for Republicans, and aided his party in retaining the House while narrowly clinching the Senate. Under the U.S. system, this translates to Trump assuming residence in the White House and enacting legislation pushed by him and his allies. Ultimately, in the eyes of the Constitution, victory margins hold no weight.
What Trump accomplished recently resembles what Joe Biden achieved four years prior, though with less public support. Biden won the national vote by about four-and-a-half points, gaining traction among GOP demographics and capturing pivotal swing states while his party retained the House and reclaimed the Senate by the narrowest margin. There was no chatter at the time about a Biden blowout.
And rightly so: Despite having a popular majority, Biden's victory was also a narrow one.
The legislative implications of both Trump's and Biden's respective victories were similarly unimpressive: Biden's Democrats held onto the House but lost seats, and the Senate was only won after an unusual Georgia runoff, influenced by Trump's post-election tirades that helped Democrats. Likewise, Trump’s Republicans have yet to expand their slim House majority and experienced losses in Senate races across several states he carried.
In the political arena, such comparisons can spark contentious debates about which victory was more impressive — as if that impressiveness translates to additional powers once inauguration day arrives.
What’s more intriguing is how this blowout narrative may affect our political calculus moving forward.
On social media, some attribute the overwhelming victory narrative to media naiveté or worse. Trump, with his background in real estate, tends to glorify even modest successes as grand triumphs. Time and again, critics allege that those who should know better have bought into the exaggerations.
Additionally, there are alternative explanations worth considering. One factor is myopia: Those most invested in politics concentrated heavily on select swing states and key demographics during the campaign season. Trump's performance in these areas exceeded expectations. This narrow focus creates a dilated lens through which to view the overall national picture.
A larger factor may actually be psychological. After an extensive campaign, it’s natural to seek a sweeping conclusion to justify the emotional investment — even if that conclusion isn’t fully grounded in reality. Simply ascribing control over the U.S. government for the next four years may seem too simplistic.
Ironically, this mistaken clarity around election results could benefit the Democrats.
Rather than fixating on whether a specific strategy or demographic could have tipped the scales in their favor, the increasingly shocked party now appears destined to grapple with its long-standing issues: How did the historical party of the working class end up losing the support of workers? What is the fallout of catering to identity-based activist groups? Is it time to reconsider their longstanding commitment to neoliberalism?
These are critical discussions that Democrats should have initiated long before Election Day. Yet, had elite circles spent the last two weeks framing the electoral outcome as a close contest rather than a Trumpian rout, insiders might have been more inclined toward self-reflection.
For Republicans, the narrative of a landslide victory presents a more mixed picture.
While Republicans can bask in the glory of feeling like winners, the reality is that they are still not overwhelmingly popular. A portrayal of the 2024 election showing them stumbling into office with a modest vote count might prompt necessary conversations: Why is a party that champions lower taxes alienating many who would benefit from those policies? How can they avoid botching the next national crisis when they consistently exhibit skepticism toward experts? Are their overly online aides reminiscent of post-collegiate Democratic staffers, risking damage to their own party’s brand?
If Trump and the slim Republican majorities entering office learn the wrong lessons from this experience, they would do well to look at the Democrats they are set to replace.
Biden and his party may not have claimed a landslide, but they interpreted their results as a mandate to satisfy social justice activists who mobilized in 2020, sidestepping perceptions of centrism while dismissing concerns about inflation or age as mere media recycling of Republican talking points. Many of these choices are now being scrutinized for their contribution to the current unpopularity of the 46th president.
By accurately portraying the election in all its nuanced complexities, media commentators could actually assist Republicans. More popular presidents than Trump have fallen victim to the hubris stemming from inflated election results.
And this misguided conviction within the Beltway can have detrimental effects on the public as a whole.
Trump is already leveraging the conception of his status as a dominant political figure to strengthen his influence over Republican legislative leaders. Pushing for Senate recess appointments showcases a mentality fitting of a substantial victor, rather than someone who failed to capture half of the American electorate. For a sitting president, projecting the image of being a juggernaut brings power. For Trump, who has little regard for traditional norms and speaks of retribution against opponents, as well as advocating radical change, the implications can be particularly perilous.
As evidence, a recent op-ed penned by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy expresses their aim to terminate public servants through budget cuts without congressional approval—currently illegal: “On Nov. 5, voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it.”
For analysts celebrating clear election outcomes or Democratic reformers who recognize a need for profound change, countering these misleading claims about a sweeping mandate becomes increasingly challenging when they echo those statements.
The presidency naturally grants significant authority. Why grant a slim-margin winner the moral authority often associated with a popular mandate? For those reporting results and analyzing outcomes, while it might provide satisfaction to declare clarity following months of conflict, the crux of the matter is that the clarity is misleading.
Olivia Brown contributed to this report for TROIB News
The recent milestone of Trump achieving just 49.9 percent of the vote passed with minimal media coverage, which might suggest that it’s not particularly significant, especially as states like California continue their slow tabulation of ballots.
Yet, even with a slight majority, Trump still outpaced Kamala Harris, who garnered 48.3 percent. As the final votes are counted, this margin may very well narrow further. Regardless, Trump still claims 312 electoral votes from a populace that enabled the Republican Party to maintain control of the House and Senate. He won.
However, the statistics may raise eyebrows among those who have been tuned into the narratives being spun by triumphant Republicans and self-castigating Democrats, all of whom seem to embrace a storyline of a decisive Trump victory.
It's understandable; as votes were being counted, Trump's win was labeled as “resounding” by an array of news sources, including the Associated Press, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and PMG. Others described it as a “commanding win,” “runaway win,” and “dominant victory.”
But why are we celebrating such terminology?
We’ve seemingly recalibrated our understanding of dominance. After years of living in a 50-50 country, even a slight edge is often heralded as a major triumph. Winning office with less than half the popular vote in a binary contest used to signal weakness, a mere squeaker. So why do we now treat a marginal success as monumental? Perhaps, in the wake of the tumultuous events of 2020, a “dominant victory” now merely signifies a win that doesn’t spiral into recounts or civil unrest.
Washington, it’s time to curb this consensus!
This observation isn’t an attempt to commend the lackluster Democratic showing or dispute Trump's victory. He successfully carried the crucial battleground states, improved his performance in typically challenging areas for Republicans, and aided his party in retaining the House while narrowly clinching the Senate. Under the U.S. system, this translates to Trump assuming residence in the White House and enacting legislation pushed by him and his allies. Ultimately, in the eyes of the Constitution, victory margins hold no weight.
What Trump accomplished recently resembles what Joe Biden achieved four years prior, though with less public support. Biden won the national vote by about four-and-a-half points, gaining traction among GOP demographics and capturing pivotal swing states while his party retained the House and reclaimed the Senate by the narrowest margin. There was no chatter at the time about a Biden blowout.
And rightly so: Despite having a popular majority, Biden's victory was also a narrow one.
The legislative implications of both Trump's and Biden's respective victories were similarly unimpressive: Biden's Democrats held onto the House but lost seats, and the Senate was only won after an unusual Georgia runoff, influenced by Trump's post-election tirades that helped Democrats. Likewise, Trump’s Republicans have yet to expand their slim House majority and experienced losses in Senate races across several states he carried.
In the political arena, such comparisons can spark contentious debates about which victory was more impressive — as if that impressiveness translates to additional powers once inauguration day arrives.
What’s more intriguing is how this blowout narrative may affect our political calculus moving forward.
On social media, some attribute the overwhelming victory narrative to media naiveté or worse. Trump, with his background in real estate, tends to glorify even modest successes as grand triumphs. Time and again, critics allege that those who should know better have bought into the exaggerations.
Additionally, there are alternative explanations worth considering. One factor is myopia: Those most invested in politics concentrated heavily on select swing states and key demographics during the campaign season. Trump's performance in these areas exceeded expectations. This narrow focus creates a dilated lens through which to view the overall national picture.
A larger factor may actually be psychological. After an extensive campaign, it’s natural to seek a sweeping conclusion to justify the emotional investment — even if that conclusion isn’t fully grounded in reality. Simply ascribing control over the U.S. government for the next four years may seem too simplistic.
Ironically, this mistaken clarity around election results could benefit the Democrats.
Rather than fixating on whether a specific strategy or demographic could have tipped the scales in their favor, the increasingly shocked party now appears destined to grapple with its long-standing issues: How did the historical party of the working class end up losing the support of workers? What is the fallout of catering to identity-based activist groups? Is it time to reconsider their longstanding commitment to neoliberalism?
These are critical discussions that Democrats should have initiated long before Election Day. Yet, had elite circles spent the last two weeks framing the electoral outcome as a close contest rather than a Trumpian rout, insiders might have been more inclined toward self-reflection.
For Republicans, the narrative of a landslide victory presents a more mixed picture.
While Republicans can bask in the glory of feeling like winners, the reality is that they are still not overwhelmingly popular. A portrayal of the 2024 election showing them stumbling into office with a modest vote count might prompt necessary conversations: Why is a party that champions lower taxes alienating many who would benefit from those policies? How can they avoid botching the next national crisis when they consistently exhibit skepticism toward experts? Are their overly online aides reminiscent of post-collegiate Democratic staffers, risking damage to their own party’s brand?
If Trump and the slim Republican majorities entering office learn the wrong lessons from this experience, they would do well to look at the Democrats they are set to replace.
Biden and his party may not have claimed a landslide, but they interpreted their results as a mandate to satisfy social justice activists who mobilized in 2020, sidestepping perceptions of centrism while dismissing concerns about inflation or age as mere media recycling of Republican talking points. Many of these choices are now being scrutinized for their contribution to the current unpopularity of the 46th president.
By accurately portraying the election in all its nuanced complexities, media commentators could actually assist Republicans. More popular presidents than Trump have fallen victim to the hubris stemming from inflated election results.
And this misguided conviction within the Beltway can have detrimental effects on the public as a whole.
Trump is already leveraging the conception of his status as a dominant political figure to strengthen his influence over Republican legislative leaders. Pushing for Senate recess appointments showcases a mentality fitting of a substantial victor, rather than someone who failed to capture half of the American electorate. For a sitting president, projecting the image of being a juggernaut brings power. For Trump, who has little regard for traditional norms and speaks of retribution against opponents, as well as advocating radical change, the implications can be particularly perilous.
As evidence, a recent op-ed penned by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy expresses their aim to terminate public servants through budget cuts without congressional approval—currently illegal: “On Nov. 5, voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it.”
For analysts celebrating clear election outcomes or Democratic reformers who recognize a need for profound change, countering these misleading claims about a sweeping mandate becomes increasingly challenging when they echo those statements.
The presidency naturally grants significant authority. Why grant a slim-margin winner the moral authority often associated with a popular mandate? For those reporting results and analyzing outcomes, while it might provide satisfaction to declare clarity following months of conflict, the crux of the matter is that the clarity is misleading.
Olivia Brown contributed to this report for TROIB News
