Although Donald Trump emerged victorious in the presidential election, political scientist Peter Enns emphasizes that this outcome does not signify a voter mandate for sweeping changes. Enns, a professor at Cornell University, used a model to forecast Trump’s success in key battleground states by analyzing approval ratings and economic indicators; he suggests that voter discontent with Biden and Harris, combined with current economic challenges, guided the election results rather than a desire for Trump's divisive agenda.

In his study released shortly before the election, Enns collaborated with colleagues from New York University, Yale University, and a German media firm, accurately predicting that Trump would win all seven swing states. The model combined approval ratings and a Federal Reserve economic index, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of voter behavior than standard polling typically provides.

The analysis revealed that, while Trump secured a notable electoral victory and became the first Republican in two decades to win the popular vote, the electoral dynamics were highly influenced by dissatisfaction with the Democratic candidates and economic conditions. Enns pointed out that if Trump aims to galvanize support moving forward, he should consider a more cautious approach regarding his policy initiatives.

Reflecting on Kamala Harris's tenure as Biden's substitute nominee, the authors concluded that her uphill battle to sway public sentiment was compounded by Biden’s low approval ratings and difficult economic landscape, particularly in light of high inflation. They argued that had Harris managed to differentiate herself more from Biden, she might have had a stronger chance at success based on the model's predictions, but she ultimately fell short in gaining the necessary approval ratings.

Consequently, the research pointed to a need for Harris to have built a more prominent profile prior to her campaign to alter public perceptions. Enns ultimately remarked on the accuracy of his team's forecasting, noting that their predictions aligned closely with the election outcome, indicating that her campaign did not effectively surpass the low expectations set by their analysis.