WASHINGTON – I spent much of 2024 warning readers that a second Trump presidency would do serious damage to American institutions, starting with democracy and the rule of law.
“The former president neither understands nor respects the Constitution,” I wrote. “He would use the powers of the federal government as an instrument of his whims, prosecuting opponents and rewarding donors rather than serving the public interest.”
Judging by the election results, about half of American voters disagreed. Many of them wrote to me telling me how wrong I was.
“Trump derangement syndrome,” scoffed a reader named Ed Osborne.
I hope he's right and I'm wrong. A less destructive Trump would be a relief.
This is my annual “mea culpa” column, a year-end look back at what I did wrong and what (if anything) I did right.
Writing a column is a recurring opportunity to open up about mistakes and quietly regret them. Election years offer even more opportunities than usual to make misjudgments.
Protracted end and economic optimism?
Here's one: I expected the presidential election to be closer and the resolution to take longer than it did. “We won’t know who won on election night,” I predicted.
Incorrect! Trump quickly captured all seven swing states and achieved an impressive majority of voters. His vote margin turned out to be one of the narrowest in recent history, but that only became clear as California completed its leisurely count this month.
One of the reasons I predicted a close election was because I believed Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, was successfully undermining Trump's lead on the most important issue: voter dissatisfaction with the economy.
“Perhaps good economic news — a growing economy, easing inflation and lower interest rates — will finally penetrate voters’ consciousness and allow Harris to reap political benefits,” I wrote a month before the election.
Wrong again. Exit polls showed that 45% of voters said they were still worse off than they were in Trump's first term. Only 24% said they were feeling better.
On one of the biggest stories of the year, President Biden's disastrous performance in his debate with Trump in June, another confession: I didn't see it coming. Before the debate, I wrote that Biden's age was clearly holding him back; “He needs to show that he can not only find the stairs but also think quickly,” I advised. But I did not hide his condition; I never looked closely enough to support a harder diagnosis.
To be fair (in this case, to myself), at least I didn't make the most basic mistake a reporter can make before an election: I didn't predict who would win. In October, I wrote that the race between Trump and Harris was too close – and it was.
I also noticed that the Democratic candidate didn't run a perfect campaign.
“It took her a shockingly long time to define a clear, overarching vision,” I wrote. “At the beginning of the campaign, their answers to difficult questions often turned into word salad. She found it difficult to explain how her presidency might differ from a second term for Joe Biden.”
That essentially made the election a referendum on the Biden administration — a contest that almost every Democrat was bound to lose.
A clear pattern and an unanswered question
When I participated in focus groups of undecided voters last fall, a pattern became clear: Many had concerns about Trump, but they had confidence in his ability to improve the economy.
Many of them rejected Trump's most worrisome proposals because they believed he wouldn't act on them — like Kevin, a home inspector in Atlanta, who said he thought Trump's promise to impose high tariffs on imports was “a bad idea, but I don't think it's really going to go anywhere.”
And that brings us back to the question of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Who was right: Kevin or me?
That depends on what version of Trump emerges once he's in office.
Polls show that most of his voters voted for him primarily to lower prices and curb illegal immigration. But many are not in favor of separating migrant families, imposing tariffs that would drive up inflation or prosecuting political opponents.
Will Trump weaken one of his campaign promises? So far he has both.
He is sticking to his promise to begin mass deportations, but said he might make an exception for “Dreamers,” migrants who came to the U.S. as children. He has threatened massive tariffs against Mexico, Canada and China but indicated he might relent if they made concessions. Some days he says his critic, former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), “should be investigated by the FBI”; To others, he spreads the contradictory message of magnanimity: “Retribution will come through success.”
Here is another prediction
Undeterred by my shaky track record, I have already made a prediction: Just as he did in his first term, Trump will try to make good on his promises, but will backtrack when he faces resistance, particularly from voters in his own party.
Mass deportations, for example, “is a promise that Trump clearly intends to keep,” I wrote last month. “But there may be a debate in the new administration about how fast and how comprehensive the deportation offensive should be.” That debate, focused largely on the costs of a major operation, is already underway.
As for his most controversial Cabinet nominees – Pete Hegseth at Defense, Kash Patel at the FBI, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at Health and Human Services, Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence – I suspect Gabbard is the only one who has confirmed this is in serious danger.
I'm glad if I was wrong. If so, I will definitely let you know.