A stream of excited texts and calls from friends last July inundated my phone when Vice President Kamala Harris replaced President Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential candidate. Days after Biden’s subpar debate performance that raised questions about his cognitive ability for many voters, Harris’ energy was welcomed. My friends thought she had a great shot, but I was skeptical.

Historically, the Democratic Party has been the party of change. But running as the incumbent, Harris would be subjected to criticism due to the tumultuous nature of the last four years. The many national and foreign hardships our country is faced with, from inflation to the crisis in the middle east, have further led to questions about the capability of our current leadership.

The Trump campaign saw this and decided that they had an advantage when it came to rallying supporters who were desperate for novelty. He called America a “failing nation,” promising to return it to its glory, calling upon both patriotism and desire for reforms.

As the new changemaker who would allegedly bring back the American Dream, Trump was able to resonate with voters who desperately wanted to see reforms in critical issues — the economy, immigration and safety— regardless of legal troubles concerning his candidacy, ranging from tax evasion to sexual assault. Voters that may not have taken Trump as seriously in previous years flocked to support him. 

The Democrats wanted to emphasize to undecided voters how dangerous a second Trump presidency would be. Harris’ campaign stressed that Trump is unfit, as a convicted felon with lesser political experience. However, this seemed to backfire on Harris — she appeared too caught up in putting Trump down and didn’t adequately emphasize how she would bring about the change that voters so desperately desired.

And this year Americans wanted some form of change — even if they didn’t exactly understand it or just heard about “concepts of a plan”— and saw that the Republican Party was exactly that. To me, it’s no surprise that Harris fell short against president-elect Donald Trump because the Democratic Party failed on the three fronts they could usually rely on: being a beacon of change and hope, galvanizing the working class and appealing to young voters.

To me, the Democratic party was full of hope. And to Democrats, it was. But for most Americans who were undecided, constant fear-mongering of a second Trump presidency made Trump seem like the underdog, the one fighting patriotically to bring about change. 

As for the working class, Harris prided her campaign on her “opportunity economy” and while this sounds effective in theory, it’s appealing more to entrepreneurs and small business when really, many Americans are struggling just to find jobs. 

Finally, many young conservative voters, particularly men, felt increasingly marginalized by mainstream media coverage and social movements in recent years. This is largely due to feminist movements that trigger perceived cultural shifts around gender and power. Furthermore, social media content moderation unfairly limits their voice in public discourse. This sense of diminished social influence may have made them more receptive to leaders like Trump who projected an assertive, traditionally masculine image. By receiving endorsements from everyone from wrestler Hulk Hogan to podcaster Joe Rogan to Youtuber Jake Paul, Trump effectively swayed voters who resonate with this narrow definition of masculinity. These leaders seemed to offer a way to reclaim the power these voters felt they had lost.

Similarly, Harris used endorsements from celebrities and humanitarian organizations to increase her political stature — ranging from celebrities like Oprah Winfrey to gun control organization March for Our Lives —which ultimately did not help as much since they fit too narrowly into the existing liberal base and failed to tap into more moderate voters. 

The 2024 election wasn’t just about policies or politics — it was about perception. Harris represented continuity in an unfortunate circumstance where Americans were crying out for change. Trump, despite his legal troubles, managed to position himself as a disruptor. Trump’s strong personality felt refreshing in a world of curated media. His flood of outlandish remarks and scandalous stories desensitized the public to any controversial media.

The Democrats’ traditional strengths became their weaknesses. Their message of steady progress felt tone-deaf to those demanding immediate change, their economic vision seemed disconnected from working-class realities and their cultural positioning alienated voters in key swing states. The irony is striking: the party that had always promised change and hope became the party of fear and status quo, whereas a former president felt like the answer to America’s problems.

Throughout his campaign, Trump ended his rallies with the same anaphoric structure:

“We will make America — powerful, wealthy, strong, proud, safe, and of course, great — again!”

Ultimately, it was the simple promise of change that swayed the American people.