While I am incredibly disappointed by the results of the 2024 election, I respect the decision made by the American people. These issues played to the anger and fear felt by much of the electorate.  According to Peter Baker, The New York Times chief White House correspondent, the result was “Populist disenchantment with the nation’s direction and resentment against elites proving to be deeper and more profound than many in both parties had recognized… Rather than be turned-off by Mr. Trump’s flagrant, anger-based appeals along lines of race, gender, religion, national origin and especially transgender identity, many Americans found them bracing. Rather than be offended by his brazen lies and wild conspiracy theories, many found him authentic. Rather than dismiss him as a felon found by various courts to be a fraudster, cheater, sexual abuser, and defamer, many embraced his assertion that he has been the victim of persecution.” The American electorate has spoken and it is incumbent on the opposition party to accept the outcome and determine what it needs to do differently in the future to be more responsive to the needs of the electorate. Now is not the time for self-flagellation. Given the compressed time frame she faced I think Kamala Harris did a good job and with a few exceptions ran an effective campaign. By the end of the campaign, I liked her far more than I did at the outset. She showed she was smart, and articulate and came across as likable. Tim Walz did an adequate job – like almost every vice president candidate, his contribution to the campaign results was negligible. In retrospect, I think Josh Shapiro might have been a better choice as it might have helped a little in Pennsylvania, but it clearly would not have changed the overall election outcome. There are a few things I would have done differently in the campaign which I think might have made the race more competitive. Harris should have done a better job of defining how she was specifically different than President Biden.  Her answer on ABC’s The View that she couldn’t think of anything she would have done differently than President Biden during the last four years, aside from having a Republican in the cabinet, was lame. I realize that she had to walk a fine line between being loyal to her boss and spelling out the need for changes in various areas. However, it’s difficult to come across as a change candidate if you are not pointing out areas you is different from your predecessor. The one area that could, in retrospect, have been a possible game changer for Harris would have been for her to have taken a tougher position on the border which was a linchpin of the Trump campaign.  Given her prosecutor background, she should have made it clear that she viewed securing our borders as a necessity, and she was prepared to temporarily halt all immigration until measures could be put in place to properly process and fully vet all immigrants coming into our southern border. The flood of illegal immigrants is seen by many legal immigrants who have played by the rules as undercutting them.  Further, undocumented Immigrants were seen by many as creating increased competition for both housing and work.  Whether this is factually true or not doesn’t matter. I think the Harris campaign should have made a much bigger issue of Donald Trump being a cowardly chicken for his unwillingness to debate her a second or third time.  I would have been relentless in going after him on the campaign trail – including showing up at different venues and indicating that she was prepared to debate anywhere and at any time.  The goal would have been to get under Trump’s skin and reemphasize that she had whipped him in the first debate. And the Democrats were never able to overcome the concerns that the majority of Americans had about the economy primarily because of rising inflation.  In spite of the fact that inflation has come down dramatically during the Biden years to 2.4 percent from its post-pandemic high of 9.3 percent, that unemployment is at a record low and that wages of 80% of Americans were lifted, the public still felt real economic anxiety. I think the reason for the dissonance is that voters give far more credence to what is happening around them, i.e. increases in bacon and egg prices than they do about what the latest macroeconomic statistics tell them.  Presenting statistics that show prices are coming down or unemployment rates are at an all-time low relative to historical data means nothing to those feeling anxious because their wages declined relative to inflation or their raise just barely outpaced inflation. In The New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann in a recent article entitled “The Big Deal Joe Biden’s economic policies are starting to reform America.  Will anyone notice?” made this point: “It’s regional G.D.P. numbers versus how people feel about their lives, their families, their communities.  It’s their job, the jobs of the people around them, what jobs pay – not the aggregate numbers.” Donald Trump is an extraordinary political figure.  He did better with nearly every single demographic group in 2024 as compared to his 2020 loss to Joe Biden. The election results suggest that he paid no meaningful political price for the myriad of criminal charges, his indictments, his lies about election fraud, or his efforts to overturn the election or for his part in inciting the riots in the capitol. Donald Trump will begin office with Republicans in charge of the Senate, which should enable him to fill key governmental posts without meaningful oversight.  With this institutional check and balance removed it should be Katy-bar-the-door when it comes to implementing the Trump agenda. I hope that I’m wrong, but I have a very strong feeling that the economic and human consequences will be very different than the majority of Trump supporters are hoping for. Irwin Stoolmacher is president of the Stoolmacher Consulting Group, a fundraising and strategic planning firm that works with nonprofit agencies that serve the truly needy among us.