Kamala's Defeat to Trump Is More Humiliating Than It Appears, as Even Blue States Deliver a Harsh Verdict

If you think Kamala Harris’ loss to Donald Trump only involves “hemorrhaging votes” across the pivotal seven swing states — with four located in the Sun Belt and three within the so-called “blue wall” — you’re missing the broader picture of how she failed in areas she was supposed to “win easily” on Tuesday.

Yes, Trump clinched victories in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, with a high probability of also securing Arizona and Nevada as the final counts come in. Yet, the most surprising development occurred in states many overlooked.

Consider states that The New York Times anticipated she would “win narrowly”: Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Virginia, along with Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which distributes some electoral votes by district due to unique state laws.

In these areas, Harris leads Maine by only 7 points, Minnesota by 4, Nebraska’s 2nd District by 4, New Hampshire by 3, New Mexico by 6, and Virginia by a slim 5.

Now, look at Trump’s supposed “win narrowly” category: Florida (13 points), Iowa (13 points), Maine’s 2nd District (8 points), and Texas (14 points).

Let’s revisit Iowa, where Harris was expected to make significant inroads, bolstered by a final poll indicating she was ahead by 3 points. That prediction turned out to be a major overestimate. In fact, her performance in supposedly safe Democratic states was barely better than Iowa.

In states she was forecasted to “win easily,” the margins tell the story: Colorado (11 points), Connecticut (13), Illinois (8), New Jersey (5!), New York (12!!), Oregon (13), and Rhode Island (13).

That’s troubling. If the Midwest’s Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are a “blue wall,” Harris’ support in several other regions is as frail as a “deep deep deep navy blue wall,” nearly black to the eye. These margins in her presumed strongholds match or even underperform compared to Iowa.

Liberals might try to deflect by arguing, as MSNBC’s Chris Hayes did, that the Electoral College system is to blame:

However, this claim doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, mainly because if the popular vote was prioritized, the GOP would have adjusted its strategy to maximize it instead of just focusing on swing states.

Putting that aside, it appears Trump is also winning the popular vote. By 9 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, he had over 72.5 million votes, making up 50.9 percent of the total. Harris trailed with 67.8 million votes, or 47.6 percent. Even as the last votes are tallied, this outcome likely won’t shift.

The main reason? The supposedly “blue” states aren’t as blue as Democrats hoped.

Take New Jersey, for example, where Kamala didn’t benefit much from Bruce Springsteen’s backing. It’s worth noting that New Jersey hasn’t favored a Republican for president since George H.W. Bush in 1988. Traditionally, this would mean the GOP wouldn’t waste resources there. But things have changed.

Now, New Jersey is neck-and-neck with Arizona and Nevada, with over 80 percent of the votes counted. What if the GOP had invested in flipping the Garden State red? Or perhaps focused on Virginia, New Hampshire, or Minnesota — Harris’ own backyard, where she barely managed a +4!

We were told that Trump’s coalition was unlike any in GOP history, and that assessment appears accurate. This coalition is far broader than anticipated, promising a bright future for populist conservatism. This election is a solid foundation, not just for the next four years, but for advancing the vision of making America great again, one election at a time.