Exclusive interview about US elections

Exclusive interview with the argentinian academic and professor of International Relations, about de Us elections

Lic. Alejandro Laurnagaray de Urquiza, the argentinian specialyst who anticipated several days ago the victory of Donald Trump: “The hispanic vote for Trump was underestimated”

International analyst Alejandro Laurnagaray de Urquiza explains the Republican's victory in the last elections. The specialist highlighted the different strategies used in the electoral campaign by the American magnate and the failure and errors of the Democrats.

Interview conducted by Pablo S. Otero 28.11.2024

Donald Trump's victory in the last presidential elections in the United States was predictable because the visualized scenario of a victory was consistent with everything that had been happening in the country on a multidimensional level, says international analyst Alejandro Laurnagaray de Urquiza.

A reality that, combined with the campaign strategy, led the Republican to add “young people, the Latino vote and the women's vote,” explains the graduate in International Relations and specialist in Strategy and Geopolitics.

The 45-year-old Buenos Aires-born academic, who is also a researcher, university professor and promoter of International Relations, held an exclusive conversation with La Prensa in which he addressed all these issues.

THE RESEARCH

What is the basis of your research on the US elections?

Due to my profession, I have been conducting studies and research on the United States for a couple of decades now. As a professor of Strategy, the element of prediction and evaluation of scenarios is fundamental, as well as foresight, which always allows us to work on the possible evolution of the International System, and North America is a key link. Statistics, on the other hand, and mainly surveys, are logically not decisive; they are analysis tools, in which sometimes there´s a lot of bias both in their execution and in their interpretation. And specifically in surveys, which one has to learn to read, and that takes time.

It was also very important to carry out a segmented study of society, current and historical, of the economy, of support for the government, of foreign policy and its internal impact, of geopolitics, of health, social, tax, subsidy policy, support for political leaders, specific proposals, campaign strategies, personal aspects of candidates, etc. We have considered at least 15 analysis variables. Specifically, unlike in 2020, where we were able to predict Biden's victory 5 days in advance, this time 10 days before (on October 25) I was able to publicly affirm that Trump would be the winner of the election with more than 290 electors. In the end, he ended up with 312.

What are the reasons that led you to anticipate the results of the presidential elections?

In the particular and circumstantial case of the United States, it was not easy, but it was possible to predict the result because the visualized scenario of a Donald Trump victory was consistent with everything that had been happening in the country on a multidimensional level: in the economy, in society, in foreign policy, within the Democratic administration, and so on.

 
The polls failed?

-It was openly stated, and one can get tired of reading it in big headlines, that the polls were wrong, but that is not entirely true, since 3 or 4 of the more than 25 pollsters that we analyzed were largely correct, and they were, among other things, the ones that had a very low statistical bias. That is to say, very few pollsters managed, among their respondents, to have a broad representation of American society, or at least, of the citizens of the State where the poll was conducted, mainly in the commuter population. That was one of the keys. One of those that got it right was Atlasintel, of Brazilian origin. It must be taken into account.

Was the Trump vote underestimated?

Regarding the underestimation of the vote for Trump, it was known and announced that this phenomenon was going to occur. And so it was historically, both in 2016 and in 2020. It was not going to be the exception now, so the response bias - the respondent does not respond or does not tell the truth - also includes this bias, the shame vote, which also played its role in many works carried out.

Why did Latino support for the tycoon grow?

The major media outlets opposed to Donald Trump have created a racist and xenophobic profile of the tycoon, and on many occasions it can be interpreted in this way, even from his own words. And the majority of black voters consider it that way. But the complete reading, especially for the Latino vote and that of other minorities, must be done from the North American cultural point of view and from the migrant segment itself, and particularly from the Hispanics who live in the country. It is not the same view that is made from other cultures. A very important part of Hispanic immigrants, and of other origins, who live legally in the United States, are critical of the so-called “open borders”, they see the whiteness that Trump represents as something aspirational, and they especially rejected the immigration policy of the Biden administration, from an even individualistic point of view. Even many Democratic voters were critical of it.

Many legal immigrants do not want for those aspiring to live in the country, “the easy way” that they themselves did not have. Discriminatory treatment, to put it mildly, is often a historical constant for part of the population; it is not a Republican heritage. Specifically, that critical view of Democratic immigration policy, or at least how it was perceived, was the view of many, among other factors. North American society is changing in demographic terms, but we must not fall into the simple deduction that more immigrants means more Democratic support, which is a mistake. The Hispanic vote for Trump was greatly underestimated, and we knew that it was not well measured. The growth compared to the 2020 election was more than 10 percent. That is quite a lot, and it rose among Latino women and men.

What were the different strategies used by Trump in his campaign?

The general strategy, on the one hand, aimed to strengthen Trump's positive and strong aspects, reduce the weaknesses and take advantage of the weaknesses of the Democrats, who had a bad strategy, a consequence of late decisions and a clear lack of leadership. In the theory of Strategy, one of the most used analysis tools is called SWOT (Strengths, Opportunities, Weaknesses, Threats), a basic but fundamental resource that is used by professional teams. Trump's was a well-developed and planned strategy for years, and those are the ones that work at the right time and place. That's what happened.

A clear strategic guideline of Trump's was the one they called "Maximize men, contain women", both segments rose compared to 2020. They have managed to adapt Trump to social changes, and minimized the negative aspects for the electorate. They modified issues that even Republicans criticized, and above all they targeted youth. From wanting to ban TikTok, the candidate became a reference in its use, with videos alongside influencers, women's groups, etc. The youth vote increased a lot.

Can it be said that he used “door to door”?

The republicans Micro-segmented the campaign, which is not a new tool, but they have used it successfully and that was not seen in the media, it was punctual in each rally. They also used the so-called "vote hunters" and the "door to door" campaign. It is the ant work, outsourced and also organized through websites, where a convinced Republican would register and receive data to contact neighbors of the same party who do not usually vote or were disappointed. This was key, especially in swing states. They developed clear, brief, graphic, direct messages, especially on economic issues, which reached all sectors, and mainly the independents, especially in what was a clear weakness of the Democrats: economic management.

What did these different strategies specifically achieve?

They managed to identify Trump with the working class, obtaining a majority in the middle class - the vote of the richest segment, with an annual income of more than 200 thousand dollars, voted mostly for Harris by about 8 percent, although many do not believe it - and they managed to establish Trump as the "peace candidate." One thing is clear: Americans do not want wars, nor for the country to get involved in any way. They believe that there is much to be resolved within their own country.

How much did foreign policy (the war issue) influence your voting?

Biden's foreign policy was perceived by the general electorate as bellicose, which is also true, and that was a real problem for the Democrats. The majority of American society does not want wars, does not want the country to get involved in conflicts in other parts of the world, although a significant part of the political establishment evaluates the geopolitical position and power of the country based on being able to influence those conflicts, which is also partly true. As a scholar and professor of Strategy and Geopolitics, I know the history and geopolitical planning of the United States, and both Eastern Europe and the Middle East are crucial for its global position. But I believe that this is not an adequate strategy for today's multipolar world, nor for the general vision of today's American society, which even sees Trump as a better balancer of power from the White House, and managed to establish himself as a peaceful candidate.

Whether this is true or not, is something we will see from 2025 onwards. This factor, and especially the war in the Middle East, even more than the war in Ukraine, was key, although the two together were a hard blow. And this is despite the fact that Trump surely supports the Netanyahu government more strongly. But here the focus of analysis should have been on the loss of support from many Democratic voters.

And how did all these issues play out at the polls?

The Republican candidate added support of young people, Latinos, women, and grew among men from different segments. He grew by 2.5 million votes compared to 2020, which had been his record support. Although many believe that he lost voter support in that election, compared to 2016, Trump had gained more than 11 million votes in the race he lost to Joe Biden. What happened is that the Democrats gained much more support in that election, and much of that was lost this year. These data could not be ignored. In 2024, the tycoon gained even more.

Where was the fault in the Democrats' campaign?

Regarding the electoral process, the Democrats had an original flaw, which was the late decision to change the candidate. Beyond the debate about whether Harris was or was not the “ideal” candidate, Biden’s decision not to seek reelection was taken too late, at least more than a year and a half late. In any strategy, time is key, and they failed seriously. The leadership crisis in the Democratic Party and particular interests were two of the reasons. Both errors were paid dearly. It was said that they did not know how to communicate the achievements of the government, but it was clear that Biden had many problems governing, even cognitively, but he and his inner circle clung to power and the idea of ​​reelection.

Support for the administration was low, and Harris is a key part of the outgoing administration, they failed to reverse or propose clear strategies to end the wars abroad, which even had an influence on the economic issue, many Democrats did not feel heard or represented, not even from a discursive point of view. The Democratic leaders were too busy speaking negatively about Donald Trump, they did not show a clear position regarding gun regulation, and they failed to position Trump as a threat to Democracy - they failed here too - since the democratic deficit was considered to be a significant part of the Democratic government, beyond certain progressive positions.

And there is another, profound debate that must be carried out even at a global level. The American middle class has been disappointed for many years with the political leadership in general, and the Biden administration was no exception. The lack of a clear strategy and proposals to deal with the immigration issue was another decisive factor, as well as a bellicose stance that could not be hidden under declared altruistic purposes, of helping partners and allies in their defense against enemies. The rejection of this stance was quite widespread. Between 2020 and 2024, the party lost support of at least 7 million votes. That is a lot.

What conclusions can you draw from the recent US elections?

Trump is often viewed with a cultural bias from the society from which he is evaluated. That is, if I am argentine, or Italian, or French, or Korean, I tend to interpret and judge Trump's statements in a particular way, and also through what reaches me from the media. In addition, there are features of American society that are also biased, due to its enormous historical international influence of soft power. In short, to accurately analyze an election in the United States, you have to take off your cultural blinders, something I have done. You should not be guided by media headlines, in the United States they openly play for one candidate or the other, and many reports and analyses are quite biased, even some surveys. And you also have to take into account the betting factor, which is legal in electoral processes. The United States is a complex electoral process, and you have to professionally analyze various variables, take them with a grain of salt, but it is possible to anticipate the result. We did it in 2020, and now again in 2024.


Interview with Alejandro Laurnagaray de Urquiza conducted by Pablo S. Otero, for La Prensa (Argentina)