[US Presidential Election Special: Visible Commentary] I. Analysis of Election Results:

YouTube Link : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ_B9uOX5EI

Video Script

This presidential election was not without several unprecedented events, but it was an election with many visible upheavals. A candidate was replaced two months before the election, and a Black female candidate ultimately emerged. It was also unusual for a former president to run. Additionally, there were two assassination attempts, and bloodshed occurred. Therefore, I believe it was a tremendous presidential election. Observing this election, Koreans worried greatly, thinking that this was not just another country's election but that their own fate would be determined by who won, given their deep dependence on the United States in terms of security, politics, economy, and culture, and the significant policy differences between the two candidates. Thus, we watched the election results with great anxiety. The individuals who will speak with us today are from the Future of America Research Team at the East Asia Institute (EAI); we have met monthly for the past year, studied, and held numerous late-night discussions.

Based on the results of those studies, we will analyze the recent U.S. presidential election and discuss future prospects. The future outlook will first focus on the United States, and then on the implications and impact for Korea based on that analysis. Before the election, the research team made predictions: eight individuals cast their votes, and the results were split 6 to 2.

Presidential Election Outcome Prediction and Analysis of Defeat

Six predicted Harris's victory, and two predicted Trump's victory. One of the individuals present today got it right, and three were mistaken. We will hear from the person who was correct about how they made their prediction, and the three who were mistaken will need to analyze their own reasons for losing, especially since the result was not a narrow one but had a considerable margin. Therefore, I would like to begin with an analysis of the election results and then proceed with each person sharing their thoughts or engaging in discussion. Since I was mistaken, I will go first. I have consistently believed there was a possibility of a Democratic victory since the beginning of the year. My reasoning was based on the point that early voting, which was revitalized for the first time in the U.S. since the pandemic election of 2020, was structurally advantageous to the Democratic Party. With young people, minority groups, and those who couldn't vote previously now able to cast their ballots, voter turnout would increase, and thanks to that, I thought the Democratic candidate would win.

The biggest miscalculation I must admit, and it connects to what I just said, is that the Republican Party and Trump strongly encouraged early in-person voting. I thought Trump and the Republican Party, still distrusting and suspicious of early voting, would be hesitant. However, Trump emphasized 'voting is essential,' and the rate of early in-person voting increased in states like North Carolina and Georgia. These factors limited the structural advantage of early voting for the Democratic Party to just the 2020 pandemic election. Another brief point is that the most frequently discussed issue in the analysis of this U.S. presidential election is the economy. The 1992 version of 'It's the economy, stupid' seems to be replaying.

Economic Issues and Trump's Strengths

This is the first time since the 1980 presidential election between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan that inflation has been the biggest issue in a presidential election. For nearly 44 years, there was no data indicating inflation as a major presidential election issue, so I mentioned that it would be difficult to predict the extent of its explosive power and ripple effects. Ultimately, there were significant ripple effects, but considering that Trump's candidate swept all seven swing states in this U.S. presidential election, it cannot be explained solely by economic issues. I believe it was a presidential election that cannot be adequately explained by the poor economy alone. So, what factors were at play? There may have been a Bradley effect for the Black female candidate, meaning people said they would vote for Harris but ultimately voted for Trump. When asked about strong leadership and a candidate who would bring change, Trump overwhelmingly received the most responses.

Regarding inflation, there is information that voters under 65 have never experienced such high price levels. Beyond the economy, there may have been discomfort or unease regarding the Black female candidate. In the final weeks, the Republican Party and Trump focused their TV campaigns for two to three weeks on 'transgender' issues, broadcasting extreme content from the Democratic Party. However, Harris and the Democratic Party could not effectively counter this.

For the Democratic Party, the economy could improve or worsen, but there was a perception that the Democratic Party itself had gone too far on the transgender issue. Beyond simple political correctness, how the Democratic Party will address the transgender issue remains a challenge. This was the background for the polls showing Trump widening the gap in the final stretch, but we will have to see if this leads to the birth of a 'Trump coalition' in 2024 that will change American politics, similar to Obama's coalition in 2008. Recently, in the Japanese election, despite a political scandal, the Liberal Democratic Party advocated for political reform, but the exit poll results showed that the public prioritized stability in national life, specifically inflation issues. The fact that the Constitutional Democratic Party won a large number of seats is in the same vein.

It seems that inflation-driven elections are a global phenomenon, not just in the United States. I agree with Professor Seo Jeong-geon. In my case, I voted for Harris, but when I spoke to students of American politics, I said, 'Head for Trump, heart for Harris.' I thought it would be difficult for Harris to win in many areas, primarily due to the economy. While the economy is important, I thought value-based elements like abortion and immigration would empower external forces, but ultimately, the economy was decisive. In American politics, the most well-known model for voters is the 'Economic Vote,' and it is generally understood that the economy is the most important issue. Voting decisions are determined by the direction of the economy, which can be explained by this principle.

Economic indicators were good. Stock prices and housing prices were both high. Consequently, those who benefited were Republican supporters, but conversely, those who lost due to inflation, rising housing prices, and interest rate hikes were likely workers, particularly those who had become alienated during a difficult period for the Democratic Party. It seems to have been an economic phase where the Democratic Party's base was inevitably hit by macroeconomic or real economy indicators. According to exit poll results, 30% of abortion rights supporters voted for Trump. Issues like abortion and immigration were considered important, but they did not translate into votes. This serves as a reconfirmation that inflation and the economy remain crucial issues in elections.

Did Harris have a strategy to counter inflation? Harris's campaign avoided this issue, and unfortunately, it was passive. I was ultimately wrong in my prediction. The temporary boom and popularity shown when Harris emerged, with celebrities leading the way and a magnificent acceptance speech, was a convention effect. Trump was someone who naturally created such effects, and the Democratic Party and its supporters always favor dramatic appearances and comeback stories. I thought there might be an opportunity for Harris to distance herself from the Biden administration's economic message and convey a coherent message that she was developing measures against inflation, which led me to predict her victory. However, disappointingly, there was none of that.

The Democratic Party's Lack of Strategy and Imagination

Instead, the campaign emphasized women and tried to counter Trump's far-right populism and xenophobia through the abortion issue, adhering to traditional universalism. However, the assessment that there was a lack of concrete proposals regarding other economic policies and support for vulnerable social groups or young people is valid. Consequently, Harris can be seen as having ruined the campaign. This reflects a lack of imagination within the Democratic Party, a deficiency in how to campaign if not with a message that captures the youth, as Obama did.

The Democratic Party, by its nature as a coalition of interest groups, struggles with consensus, making it a party with a strong status quo bias as one group cannot overwhelm another. Nevertheless, they had to conclude the campaign by mobilizing messages that stimulated the aspirations of young people, like Obama did, or by invoking fear of what would happen if Trump won. This can be described as a lack of content. Therefore, Harris had no economic policy. She failed to mobilize the 20-30s demographic, who should have been her supporters; if she had their support, it would have been a close election, but she couldn't even achieve that. Disappointment was evident from the first day.

Notably, voter turnout among racial minorities was lower compared to the 2020 election. Male votes, particularly from Latino and Black men, were down, and among those who did vote, support for Trump was higher than in the 2020 election. This suggests it was an unwinnable election, but I view this as a post-hoc interpretation. If we are to explain why this happened, it was clearly due to flawed messaging, which I believe stems from a lack of strategy in the Democratic Party, which has historically relied on racial politics and identity politics since the 1960s. This is a structural factor.

Factors for Trump's Victory and Harris's Weaknesses

I will explain how I predicted correctly. I am probably the least knowledgeable person about the United States in this room. My getting it right also involved luck. As I work in a think tank, I am constantly thinking about risks, and I also had a leaning. I considered the reasons why Trump might win and why Harris might not. My interest in the Republican Party began with Trump, and as I observed the Republican Party's transformation, although Trump was initially an outsider and lacked support, the party showed a different face at this convention, embracing big names. The nomination of J.D. Vance as vice president also demonstrated confidence and long-term vision.

What was most striking was that while the Democratic Party described it as strange and violent, I thought Americans would consider it normalized and think, 'I don't care.' Because there were indicators that the Republican Party's composition had changed, I saw it as advantageous for Trump. Why was Harris at a disadvantage? There were three main reasons. First, she had insufficient preparation time. Although she had a distinguished career as a female career politician, she was the first female vice president and faced many challenges as an Asian woman. It was a disadvantage to jump into the campaign unprepared, following an unpopular president. Second, I felt that her being a woman was by no means an advantage. While she tried to mobilize female votes through the abortion issue, it was a weaker issue compared to more significant ones like immigration. Third, there was a perception that the Democratic Party was too elitist and out of touch with ordinary people, and her background was elite. Therefore, it would have been difficult for her to shed the image of a 'California elite.' These factors increased Trump's chances. I did not have any particular insight.

To add, although it is cautious to draw parallels with Korean politics, there is a saying that a presidential candidate from the Democratic Party in Korea finds it difficult to become president if they come from Gwangju. To expand their appeal to the center, there is a tendency for Democratic presidential candidates not to be from California. There are stereotypes among people in the Midwest and South of the U.S. regarding California politics and its people. Harris had a different career and was a lawyer, but I questioned whether such a person could understand the hearts of hardworking ordinary people in the Midwest or South.

Additionally, while it is cautious to draw parallels to Korean politics, there is a saying that it is difficult for a Democratic presidential candidate from Gwangju to become president. To expand to the center, Democratic presidential candidates tend not to be from California. There are stereotypes among people in the American Midwest and South regarding California politics or people from California. Harris had a different career path and was a lawyer, but there were questions about whether such a person could understand the hearts of the hardworking ordinary people in the Midwest or South.

Didn't Trump's running mate, J.D. Vance, talk about 'cat moms'? That precisely hit the mark. It raised the question: 'This person represents middle-class women in America. I'm not demeaning women, but what does she really know? Does she understand the difficulties of ordinary life?' Despite being a political risk, it implied that she was a typical Californian, someone who only eats salads instead of hamburgers, perhaps someone without children. Unlike you, the Democratic Party's packaging of economic opportunity might be a lie. This was a highly calculated move, not a cowardly one.

To overturn this, the Democratic Party should have conducted a campaign focused on very specific policy issues. However, as pointed out elsewhere, they engaged in partisan and polarized campaigning. The Democratic Party reverts to its usual repertoire when there is no crisis. When people are mobilized, there is no room for contemplation. It has become a regrettable situation. Public sentiment, like in South Korean elections, judges harshly. She was a Black and female candidate, but the point where she failed to receive support was precisely there. Because she lacked any characteristics representing specific races, classes, or genders, she felt alien. Her parents were distinguished Harvard professors, but she approached people with humility. In reality, her difference from ordinary Black men might have prevented her from gaining their support.

She was a Black and female candidate, and I believe the point where that strength was not fully leveraged is precisely there. As a candidate who lacked any characteristics representing a specific race, a specific class, or a specific gender, there was rather a sense of alienation. Raised by parents who were Harvard graduates and distinguished professors, she adopted a humble demeanor, which was quite different from that of an ordinary Black woman and very different from Black people in general. In that regard, I think it is possible that she failed to gain their support.

Fear of Trump and the Democratic Party's Lack of Confidence

While Barack Obama had an image of being self-made, Kamala Harris does not. This point is also thought to have been a contributing factor. Donald Trump needs no further introduction. It can be argued that the Democratic Party failed to overcome its fear of Trump. After being dealt a blow by Trump and losing the presidency in 2016, they barely managed to regain power in 2020 amidst the pandemic, but the fear of losing it again prevented the party from having the flexibility to select a candidate. There was a proposal to confirm support among the public through a brief competition and then select a candidate.

The fear of losing to Trump, and the need to avoid appearing confused or sluggish, led to a rigid, unified front that ultimately proved detrimental. Of course, this is a retrospective analysis, but the underlying cause was the fear of Trump and a lack of confidence. The Democratic Party was so focused on hiding any doubts about Harris's capabilities that they became desperate.

If there were capability issues, seeking other alternatives would have been a viable option, but the situation where they too easily settled on Harris as the candidate and proceeded with the election might be attributed to the fear of Trump within a two-party system. As you mentioned, a lack of imagination also seems to be a cause. They should have been bolder. Trump effectively utilized non-mainstream channels.

There was a perception that the mainstream media was liberal, and the fact that Harris did not receive more support might be due to changes in the media's nature. Although I am not a media major, it feels as though Trump changed everything. Harris's lack of imagination in failing to recognize and lead this shift is a regrettable aspect. I felt that the process of Harris suddenly becoming a presidential candidate was too rapid and lacked sufficient discussion. When Barack Obama stepped down, Harris's name was never mentioned in meetings with American political scientists. Gavin Newsom's name came up, but it was met with negativity due to his being too liberal. Harris was not part of this conversation.

However, the sudden decision for Harris and the subsequent process of rallying behind her were incomprehensible. It felt too narrow. While there were opinions that Harris had to be the candidate for structural reasons, such as fundraising issues, she was also dismissed as an uncompetitive candidate in terms of quality. I was curious about her sudden emergence like Cinderella, but as you mentioned, it seems the decision was made too hastily due to a lack of imagination and fear of Trump. Along with the fear of Trump, a fear of history also played a role. The decision to hold the Democratic National Convention in Chicago was likely due to the fear of history, stemming from the protests that occurred in Chicago in 1968 during the nomination process of Hubert Humphrey.

Structural Factors and a Referendum Election

The complete defeat and complete victory were astonishing. Winning by popular vote is remarkable. The Republican Party had not won the popular vote against the Democratic Party since 2004, and there were many claims that the Republican Party was demographically doomed. There were also post-election assessment reports after Mitt Romney, but [Trump] won by popular vote and was overwhelmingly dominant in all aspects.

Even looking at the county-level data, Trump's support increased in cities on the East and West coasts. He also made gains across racial and gender lines. This suggests that it was the result of massive structural factors rather than campaign strategies or specific circumstances; it was a punitive election. The MBC exit poll shows a high percentage of dissatisfaction with the current situation, and most of these individuals voted for Trump.

The punitive election aspect was strong, and Biden's approval ratings were low. The core issues were the economy and immigration. People felt the economic situation was not good, and the perceived economy was worse than the indicators suggested. The proportion of people who considered the immigration issue serious reached 95%. Harris failed to differentiate herself in a situation where dissatisfaction with Biden was high. She stated that she thought the same as the president and had nothing to change, offering no sign of a turnaround. From a campaign perspective, there seemed to be a liberal bias. Harris initially focused on abortion rights and later on democracy issues, but according to exit poll results, these had no impact. White women's votes did not shift.

The abortion issue did not mobilize women as much as expected. She emphasized democracy issues, but when people who felt democracy was under threat were surveyed, Harris and Trump had equal support. This implies that Republican supporters also feel democracy is at risk but perceive voting for Trump as populism. Those who believed democracy was safe were also divided equally.

The democracy issue was not significant in differentiating between Trump and Harris. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party's continued emphasis on abortion and democracy is likely due to liberal bias. While these were considered important issues in the U.S., linked to political discourse, people, living in difficult times, sought to judge based on economic issues, inflation, and immigration problems. Harris essentially ignited the situation by saying she was the same as Biden, and everyone else lost without division.

Whether this was a forced choice or intentional will be directly linked to the future of the Democratic Party. With no inflation countermeasures and a failed border policy, they had no election strategy and thus had to talk about democracy. Talking about fascism a few days before the election appears to be a strategic misstep. However, what could Harris have said? Advocating for more spending amidst rising prices would be met with backlash. We must critically analyze whether she chose this because she knew it might be perceived as abstract or elitist, or if she believed this was a winning point. Bernie Sanders stated that the Democratic Party is too aligned with media elites and others, making it difficult to change.

Trump's Tax Cut Policy and Future Outlook

As Bernie Sanders said, the Democratic Party seems to be united only with big doors and media elites, making it difficult to change in the future. It is uncertain whether Trump's decisive victory will continue in four years. It is questionable whether Trump can resolve the inflation that the Biden administration cannot. Ronald Reagan also tackled inflation during his eight-year term. I thought an opportunity might arise for the Democratic Party if inflation was not controlled, but my thinking has now changed. Trump possesses a secret weapon that the Democratic Party lacks: tax cuts.

The Democratic Party is not a party that can implement large-scale tax cuts like Trump's. Trump's tax cuts, set to expire in 2025, can be extended by a simple majority next year. Inflation remains the same, but personal income increases, so from the perspective of voters and consumers, it will feel like a solution with increased income while prices remain stable. This is a tax cut plan that benefits ordinary citizens as well. Extending it could also have the effect of controlling inflation.

This could maintain a favorable situation for Trump even after the 2028 presidential election. David Brooks stated that the Republican Party has declared itself centered on a multi-ethnic working class, and whether this will continue is the key question. Trump passed legislation in 2017 that will expire next year; extending it will be the Republican Party's top legislative priority. Midterm elections are important, but what happens in between is crucial. In terms of the economy, when inflation became an issue, the Biden administration argued that macroeconomic indicators were good, but consumer sentiment was not. Disposable income did not increase, and inflation was not perceived.

However, if Trump's tax cuts or future economic policies lead to an increase in disposable income, consumer sentiment could improve even if inflation remains the same, leading people to feel that the real economy has recovered. Given that inflation is unavoidable, I thought Trump would have an advantage economically, but I now believe there may be an opportunity for Trump depending on how the real economy recovers.

Since inflation is not perceived, macroeconomic indicators are good, but real income remains unchanged. However, if Trump's tax policies or future economic policies serve as a catalyst for increasing real income, consumer sentiment could improve, leading to a perception of a very strong real economy, even if inflation persists. In reality, inflation has continued, but I considered whether Trump could overcome this economically. However, there is the variable of real economic recovery. Instead, I feel there is an opportunity for Trump.