In a piece published Wednesday, New York Times columnist David Brooks detailed the chances of former President Trump winning the 2024 election and the possibility that the Democrats and Vice President Kamala Harris would lose.
Brooks listed five reasons and ways that Trump would win. First, if voters choose the red model, He writes: “Low housing costs, low taxes, and thriving business,” whereas the blue model has “high housing costs, high taxes, and high inequality.”
The New York Times also published a piece on Tuesday by columnist Ross Douthat about the possibility that Trump and the Republican Party could lose the election, in which Douthat attributed Harris' chances of winning in large part to her “minimalist” campaign message.
Another “turbine” Brooks mentioned is that the Democratic Party “is the party of the ruling class,” which he argued ultimately comes down to the “degree gap” in America.
Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. (Getty Images)
CNN's Fareed Zakaria says Kamala Harris beats Trump on 'vibes'
“Educated Democrats like Harris want to expand the size of government to help the weak, but many Americans see these efforts as just the wealthy strengthening their own power in Washington, they conclude: 'That's what the educated elites do all the time: they promise to do things for us, but in the end it only serves themselves,'” he wrote.
He said “social and moral unity” would be another factor that would help Trump win, adding: “When Republicans talk about immigration, crime, faith, family and the flag, they are talking about how to maintain social and moral order. Democrats are great at talking about economic unity, but they don't talk about moral and cultural unity.”
General discontent, high levels of distrust and what Brooks called the “blue bubble problem” were the final elements on the list of ways the former president could win the White House.
Brooks pointed to Harris' decision to “run a campaign that gives something to each side of the party” and her choice of running mate, moderate Gov. Josh Shapiro, who he said would have given Harris a boost in her home state of Pennsylvania.
Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at a campaign event in Detroit, Michigan, Monday, Sept. 2, 2024. (Emily Elconin/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
For more articles on Media and Culture click here
“Progressives lobbied against Harris, so she picked the guy who helped her win a state she was sure she was going to win anyway,” Brooks said.
Brooks ended his column by making it clear that he wants Harris to win.
“Harris was my fervent favorite, but many Democrats were always a little too excited about her. Trump's victory didn't depend on running a great campaign. It depended on the five turbines gathering enough support in enough key places,” he wrote.
Click here to get the FOX News app
Douthat argued that Harris, who was not initially seen as the best choice to succeed Biden as the Democratic nominee, would win by running on a platform of “progressive minimalism.”
Harris, he wrote, “reduced a messy agenda to a few popular promises” and left out the rest. This hurt Trump's chances of victory, he wrote, because her “minimalism” would have prevented Trump from seeing “a threat to unity.”
“Even if you win by the narrowest of margins with the most limited agenda, it's still a victory. The 2024 campaign didn't permanently bury Trumpism or populism, fix progressivism's internal problems, or claim a mandate for any kind of sweeping change. It just won the tens of thousands of swing votes needed to win in the few battleground states that decided the election. A minimal message delivered a minimal victory. And that was enough for Kamala Harris and her supporters,” Douthat concluded.
