November 6th was a somber day on Grounds, to say the least. The mood shifted noticeably after Trump’s victory, and it was clear that the majority of the student body was far from happy. YikYak was flooded with posts full of disbelief and despair, while around me, I overheard countless conversations from peers expressing deep concerns about the future of the country and fearing their rights were at risk. Many solemn discussions unfolded throughout the day, and my Instagram feed was flooded with story posts shared by distraught UVA students. Reactions ranged from shock to disappointment, with many unable to comprehend how “America chose a convicted felon over a woman for president.” Post after post echoed the same sentiment: “I’m disappointed.”
While the election went the way I preferred, I can empathize with my peers who were upset about their candidate’s loss. I’d feel the same if the roles were reversed. Their belief that a Trump presidency will harm the country is their prerogative, and I accept that. However, I was struck by the number of people who resorted to accusing all 76 million Trump voters of being sexist and racist. Instead of reflecting on why their party lost, many blamed it entirely on the supposed moral failings of Trump voters, calling them terrible people. They genuinely believe we had no valid reason to vote for a “Nazi” other than our inherent bigotry.
The so-called Nazi made significant gains with nearly every minority group. The gender gap was unremarkable, and he performed better than Harris with working-class voters earning under $50K. In places like the Latino heavy area of Miami-Dade County, a Democratic stronghold for decades, Trump dominated with 55.2% of the vote. To suggest that such a diverse coalition of Americans—each with unique concerns and priorities—was driven purely by hate is deeply insulting. As a non-white woman, I will not tolerate the notion that voting for Trump meant betraying my identity, and I will not tolerate the moral superiority of those living in ideological bubbles, unable to fathom how anyone could vote differently from them.
I have many grievances with Trump. I think tariffs are irresponsible, his response to January 6th was terrible, his COVID response was flawed, and I oppose any administration sending American tax dollars to foreign governments. There are plenty of good-faith reasons to criticize him, but these are not the issues my peers use to demonize his voters. Like many dissatisfied Harris voters, I felt limited by the two-party system and chose what I believed was the better option.
In no particular order, I have outlined several reasons why for many Americans the obvious choice wasn’t Kamala Harris. My goal isn’t to convince my fellow students to support Trump—I simply want to explain why I, and half the country, made this choice, for those struggling to understand.
1. Politicians and the media lie about Trump, but it is easy to see right through it.
The media and many politicians have relentlessly lied about Trump, and their bias is impossible to ignore. Since July, networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC have showered Kamala Harris with 78% positive coverage while slamming Trump with 85% negative coverage, according to the Media Research Center. This isn’t new—think back to “Russiagate,” when the media and Democratic leaders falsely claimed Trump was a Kremlin agent and won in 2016 because of collusion with Russia.
Comparisons to Hitler, accusations of racism, and declarations that Trump is a fascist have been endlessly repeated. After an assassination attempt against him, many of the same voices accusing Trump of being a threat to democracy briefly toned down their rhetoric, even wishing him a speedy recovery. However, as Election Day approached, they resumed slandering him, once again calling him evil. Kamala Harris herself labeled him a fascist, and Tim Walz later compared his Madison Square Garden rally to a Nazi gathering. It is almost funny considering in this particular event, the audience cheered for the Jewish, Black, and Asian speakers. If these claims were true, wouldn’t it be a moral obligation to stop a supposed “Nazi” at all costs? Their hyperbolic rhetoric is nothing more than empty campaign talk.
The sheer absurdity of these attacks forces one to question whether half of America is truly evil enough to vote for a Nazi—or if these accusations are baseless smears designed to manipulate. The media’s lies are so blatant and ineffective that they only fuel support for Trump, which is a recurring theme in my argument. Voters like myself continue to grow increasingly disillusioned with the media and political establishment’s constant dishonesty.
2. Kamala Harris and the Democrats deserved to lose.
To me, Harris was a uniquely terrible candidate. Her campaign was so poorly received that she dropped out of the 2020 race before a single vote was cast in the Democratic primary. She was selected, not elected, as the Democratic candidate for president, a decision that robbed Americans of a democratic choice. This irony is especially glaring, considering the Democrats’ constant claims that Trump is the greatest threat to democracy.
Harris’s 2024 candidacy was plagued by inauthenticity and a lack of substance. She avoided the media for much of her campaign, repeating the same few talking points in every interview and failing to offer Americans a clear sense of who she was or what she stood for. In contrast, her opponent gave Americans hours of unedited interviews.
Harris abandoned many of her previous positions, such as her controversial support for banning fracking, without explanation, while insisting her values hadn’t changed. Her inability to differentiate herself from Biden further compounded her weaknesses, as did her neglect to run on any tangible accomplishments from her time as vice president. When asked if she would do anything differently than Biden, at a time when his approval ratings were at historic lows, she admitted she wouldn’t—a critical mistake.
Moreover, the media’s pathetic attempt to convince the public that Biden was sharp and capable, despite clear evidence to the contrary, was deeply frustrating. The White House dismissed concerns about his age and cognitive abilities, claiming videos of him appearing disoriented were “cheap fakes.” They minimized his public exposure by limiting press conferences, interviews, and meetings with Congress. In fact, watchdog groups noted Biden’s unprecedented avoidance of public questioning, with only 32 press briefings during his first three years—far fewer than Trump’s 52—according to the University of California, Santa Barbara’s American Presidency Project.
When The Wall Street Journal published an article in June titled “Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping,” outlets like MSNBC quickly dismissed it as baseless. This denial was particularly striking given that Democrats would soon force Biden out of the 2024 race due to his cognitive decline. Yet afterwards, Harris repeatedly insisted he was fit for office, exposing an obvious coverup. If the media and Democratic leadership could mislead the public so blatantly about Biden, why should Americans trust them to be honest about Harris?
3. The idea that Trump will take away rights is not grounded in reality.
Abortion was a key campaign issue for Democrats this cycle, and I’ll admit it’s a winning issue for them, as most Americans support access to abortion. However, the fearmongering targeted at women was baseless and unacceptable. Trump has made clear he would veto a national abortion ban, opposes laws like Florida’s six-week ban, supports birth control, and even supports federal funding for IVF—facts that contradict the media’s narrative.
Similarly, the claim that Trump opposes LGBTQ+ rights is equally unfounded. He was the first president to openly support gay marriage, unlike Obama, Clinton, and Biden, who initially opposed it. He even launched a global initiative to decriminalize homosexuality. On transgender issues, Trump’s stance has been misrepresented. He opposes boys competing in girls’ sports, a position based on the simple biological differences between males and females. He is against children–whose minds are still developing–undergoing irreversible medical transitions, such as puberty blockers, and could not care less about what transgender adults choose to do with their bodies.
On immigration, the idea that Trump “hates immigrants” ignores the distinction he has always drawn between legal and illegal immigration. When he threatens deportations and speaks of criminal activity, it is always in the context of illegal immigrants, though critics conveniently leave out this nuance.
It would be naïve to deny Trump’s excesses and sometimes inflammatory rhetoric, but there is no reason to fear another term. We’ve already experienced a Trump presidency, and he did not become the authoritarian dictator many predicted.
4. Trump surrounded himself with assets. Kamala Harris didn’t.
Trump’s appeal wasn’t just about his own persona—it was also about the people he aligned himself with, people who resonated with both the right and left. After speaking with many others who voted for him, I realized a common theme: we weren’t just voting for Trump; we were voting for the diverse, intelligent individuals around him–figures like JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Elon Musk.
Say what you will about JD Vance—love him or hate him, or think he’s “weird” for whatever reason—but he’s undeniably impressive. Raised by his grandmother in a lower-income household with a mother struggling with addiction, he served his country and rose to prominence. Vance connected with the working class in a way few others could, and he was a powerful asset for Trump. He did countless interviews, facing some of the most hostile media networks, and was much more articulate than Trump in defending policies on TV. His stellar debate performance and defense of Trump made him an invaluable ally. In contrast, Tim Walz, who was supposed to support Kamala Harris, did virtually nothing to help her. When confronted about his misleading statements on Tiananmen Square, he called himself a “knucklehead” on live television.
Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic presidential nominee who endorsed Trump, resonated with isolationist factions across the aisle due to her staunch views against the war in Iraq and foreign aid to Ukraine. On the other hand, Liz Cheney, a staunch pro-Israel war hawk and daughter of Dick Cheney, who played a central role bombing the Middle East under Bush, supported Kamala Harris. Harris, in turn, embraced Cheney’s endorsement—an especially misguided move given the growing anger among progressives over Israel’s assault on Gaza. This alliance only deepened the divide between Harris and a significant portion of the left, alienating voters who were already increasingly disillusioned with foreign interventionism.
Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk, both intelligent business leaders, appealed to libertarian-leaning factions on the right with their outspoken criticism of wasteful government spending and the unchecked growth of government power. Musk, in particular, garnered significant support for his unwavering commitment to free speech, especially with his leadership of X, where he championed open dialogue and opposed censorship. Both were firm advocates for reducing the size of government and reining in its influence, positions that resonated with those who want more freedom, less government interference, and the protection of individual rights like free expression.
Trump aligned himself with a diverse array of figures, appealing to different ideologies on both the right and left. Harris, by contrast, relied on celebrity support at various rallies, which ultimately proved meaningless. Working-class Americans, who are concerned about rising grocery prices and the looming threat of new wars, aren’t swayed by what Oprah or any other celebrity thinks about how they should vote.
5. Trump’s criminal convictions were seen as the weaponization of the justice system against a political opponent. A vote for Trump was a vote against the establishment.
What frustrates me most about Trump’s criminal convictions is the glaring double standard. For decades, Americans have watched presidents lie us into wars, authorize torture programs, and even order drone strikes on U.S. citizens without trial—actions that are far more egregious than anything Trump is accused of—yet none of these leaders faced meaningful accountability. Recent administrations have blatantly bypassed congressional authority to launch illegal wars, violating the Constitution with impunity. Despite this, when the government finally decides to prosecute a U.S. president, they target Trump for relatively minor infractions.
The timing of these indictments underscores the political motivation behind them. It is no coincidence that charges were brought soon before Super Tuesday. The corporate media and political establishment have long deemed him an unacceptable figure, and these prosecutions appear to be an extension of that disdain. If there were true political will to hold presidents accountable, any of Trump’s predecessors could have been charged for far more serious crimes. This selective pursuit of justice erodes trust in the system and highlights the hypocrisy of those in power.
Consider the classified documents case—while Trump is accused of mishandling records, other presidents, including Biden, have been found keeping classified documents at their properties. The contrast is stark: Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home was raided by the FBI, a dramatic and unprecedented move against a former president, while absolutely nothing was done against Biden or any other president.
Similarly, the business fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James reeks of political motivation, as James explicitly campaigned on a promise to prosecute Trump and pursued him relentlessly, using an unprecedented and vague interpretation of state laws. The case centered on allegations that Trump inflated the value of his real estate assets to secure larger loans and deflated them for tax purposes—a common practice in real estate development. Even the banks allegedly defrauded testified they would gladly do business with Trump again, as they conducted their own due diligence to value properties. This was essentially a victimless crime. Despite this, Trump was fined $355 million and barred from doing business in New York for three years. Alarmingly, this case has broader implications for real estate developers. After the ruling, fears among business owners prompted Governor Kathy Hochul to reassure the public that these rules would only apply to Trump—an admission that highlights the selective nature of this prosecution. Historically, the New York state laws used against Trump have never been applied in this way. This raises serious questions about the acceptability of an attorney general starting with a political target and searching for a crime, rather than beginning with evidence and building a case.
The most discussed case involves the 34 felony counts related to alleged falsification of business records. At first glance, the number of charges might seem overwhelming, but upon closer inspection, they amount to mundane accusations—each count is tied to specific invoices, checks, or ledger entries allegedly aimed at disguising hush-money payments as legal expenses. The supposed felony status hinges on claims that these records were falsified to conceal “another crime,” but prosecutors never clearly defined what that crime was. They referenced Section 17-152 of New York Election Law, an obscure and rarely enforced provision about “unlawful means” in elections, without specifying how it was violated. Judge Juan Merchan even told the jury they could convict without agreeing on what the “unlawful means” actually were. This case, essentially a glorified misdemeanor, revolves around how Trump spent his own money and categorized payments—not exactly the sort of thing that keeps Americans awake at night.
If laws can be bent and twisted to target a billionaire and former president, they can be used against anyone. This is not just about Trump—it’s about preventing the law from becoming a tool for political retribution. The accusations of Trump being authoritarian don’t resonate with many voters who recognize the real authoritarian behavior coming from our own government.
6. The economy and immigration were key issues. Republicans capitalized on these concerns while Democrats remained completely out of touch.
Inflation may not concern the elite college student, often comfortably funded by their parents, but for working-class Americans, it’s a real, pressing issue. The economy under Donald Trump felt better for the working class during his first three years than it has been under the Biden administration. When asked if Americans are better off today than they were under Trump, Harris failed to provide a clear answer, instead rambling about her middle-class upbringing and vague notions of an “opportunity economy.” If Democrats truly believed the economy had improved, they would have run on it, but they didn’t. Instead, Harris responded to concerns about the economy by speaking in platitudes, completely disconnected from the struggles of Americans facing rising grocery and gas prices. Her administration’s energy policies have only contributed to skyrocketing costs, and the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which she cast the tie-breaking vote for, did nothing to address inflation.
The immigration issue, Trump’s top talking point for years, was likely a key factor in turning nearly every border county in Texas red. Despite having ample time to address border issues in the first three and a half years of their term, the Biden-Harris administration denied there was a problem until it became a political liability. The border crisis is no longer just a local concern; it has national implications, yet many politicians and media figures, downplayed or ignored its effects. In 2024 alone, there have been over 1 million encounters at the Southwest border, surpassing any yearly total under Trump. Harris and the Democrats can try to deflect blame for their failed immigration policies, but voters saw right through it. A significant majority of Americans—78%—view the influx of migrants attempting to enter the U.S. as either a crisis (45%) or a major problem (32%).
Voting is a complex and deeply personal decision. Everyone has individual perspectives, shaped by unique experiences and values. It’s easy to fall into the trap of seeing the world the way we wish it were, and Democrats, in particular, have been guilty of this. They assumed that painting Trump as a threat to democracy or a bigot would be enough to secure a win, yet these issues are arbitrary and subjective. Real people with real problems voted on issues that directly impacted their lives—issues that had little to do with the identity politics many Democrats have championed. It’s concerning when those who claim to advocate for the betterment of minorities and the working class turn around and demonize those very people for not voting the “correct” way. My question is simple: do you like losing? If you continue to alienate and insult those who disagree with you rather than try to understand their concerns and priorities, you will continue to lose.
The opinions expressed within this piece represent the views of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Jefferson Independent.
Leave a Reply