AMERICA’S VOICES: THE SCOOP’S US ELECTION COVERAGE

A Nation Divided: What Pre-Election Survey Results Reveal About Trump’s Surprising 2024 Victory.

By JESSICA TOAL

___________________________________________________________________________

Donald J. Trump has secured a second, non-consecutive term as President of the United States, winning 49.9% of the popular vote and a commanding 312 electoral votes. The victory, achieved despite intense scrutiny and a politically charged atmosphere, defied polls and punditry that predicted a closer outcome or even a Democratic win. In the weeks leading up to the election, a comprehensive survey sought to understand voter sentiment, providing a roadmap to the priorities, frustrations, and ideologies shaping this contentious race.

The results, analysed against the backdrop of Trump’s unexpected triumph, offer critical insights into how Americans navigated their voting decisions and why the electoral coalesced in ways that handed Trump another four years in office.

Clarity Amid Polarisation

The survey, conducted before Election Day, revealed that all participants had already decided whom they would vote for, highlighting the entrenched nature of political identities in the U.S. However, their reasons for choosing candidates were far from simplistic. A majority (63.6%) cited a combination of party affiliation, specific issues, and candidate character as their guiding principles, with only 3% voting purely along party lines. This suggests that while political polarisation runs deep, voters remain discerning in how they approach their decisions.

Trump’s re-election campaign effectively tapped into this complexity, focusing on economic messaging while countering character criticisms with appeals to scepticism toward the justice system and media. His ability to maintain a loyal base while drawing support from undecided voters who prioritised specific issues may explain the breadth of his electoral coalition.

Trust, Allegations, and the Trump Base

Trump’s legal troubles loomed large throughout his campaign, yet the survey revealed that his base was largely unfazed. Many respondents dismissed the charges against him as politically motivated or irrelevant to his ability to govern. For instance, Brianna from Florida commented, “I don’t believe the charges are important enough to alter his policies or running of the country.”

This sentiment reflects the durability of Trump’s core support. While some, like Pat from Georgia, cited concerns over character and leadership in their decisions to vote against him, these voices were not widespread enough to significantly erode his electoral foundation. Trump’s ability to frame the charges as part of a broader narrative of political persecution likely resonated with many voters, especially those already distrustful of traditional institutions.

Policy Gaps and Debate Frustrations

One striking finding was the widespread dissatisfaction with the platforms of both major candidates. Only 6.1% of respondents felt the candidates adequately addressed their concerns, while 63.6% believed they addressed some issues but left significant gaps. This dissatisfaction underscores a missed opportunity for the Democratic Party, which failed to build a broad enough coalition around key issues like healthcare, climate change, and social justice - areas where Kamala Harris held a commanding lead in the survey.

Real-time fact-checking during the presidential and vice-presidential debates further highlighted these gaps. While appreciated by some for its transparency, the feature did little to sway opinions. Many voters entered the debates with fixed perspectives, often dismissing fact-checking as biassed or insufficient. “I liked the feature since most Americans do not fact-check,” said Heather from Indiana, but others criticised its inconsistency. This dynamic illustrates the limited power of debates to shift deeply entrenched opinions in an age of hyper-partisan media consumption.

Gender Dynamics in Leadership

The survey also delved into perceptions of women in political leadership, reflecting broader societal attitudes that shaped the election. While 54.5% of respondents emphasised the importance of increasing female representation, 51.5% believed female candidates faced “significantly different challenges” compared to their male counterparts. These findings suggest a recognition of systemic barriers but also hint at the persistent cultural divides over the role of women in leadership.

Kamala Harris’s candidacy, while historic, may have faced these challenges head-on. Despite her strong performance on issues like climate change (72.7% favoured her policies) and healthcare (60.6%), scepticism about her ability to lead and attacks on her record likely hampered her ability to unify key voting blocs.

The Economy as a Deciding Factor

Economic concerns played a pivotal role in Trump’s re-election. While the survey revealed mixed evaluations of the current economy - 36.4% rated it “fair,” 33.3% “good,” and 30.3% “poor” - Trump’s messaging on economic recovery and job creation struck a chord with a significant portion of the electorate. Despite Kamala Harris’s advantage in the survey on handling the economy (60.6% preferred her), Trump managed to leverage doubts about Democratic policies to rally support in key swing states.

This economic focus likely helped Trump secure voters who were dissatisfied with other aspects of his leadership but viewed his approach to economic stability as a safer bet in uncertain times.

Climate Change and Social Justice: The Progressive Dilemma

Progressive issues like climate change and social justice dominated Democratic campaign rhetoric, yet the survey suggests these issues failed to resonate broadly enough to shift the electorate decisively. While 57.6% of respondents said climate change was “very important” in their voting decisions, and 72.7% favoured Harris’s policies on the issue, Trump’s opposition to environmental regulations appealed to voters wary of economic disruption.

Similarly, racial equality and social justice, while significant to many voters (58.3% rated them as “very significant”), did not translate into widespread support for the Democrats. This disconnect points to the challenges of mobilising a coalition that extends beyond progressive urban centres into more conservative or economically anxious communities.

Confidence in Democracy and the Role of Institutions

The integrity of the electoral process remained a divisive issue, with 48.5% expressing strong confidence in their state’s voting systems, but significant numbers voicing doubts or outright distrust. Concerns about voter suppression or fraud were also notable, with 15.2% viewing them as “major issues” and another 30.3% considering them “minor issues”.

Trump’s ability to navigate these doubts, coupled with his narrative of being an outsider fighting entrenched elites, likely bolstered his appeal among voters sceptical of institutional credibility. Conversely, Democrats’ emphasis on election security may have failed to reassure or mobilise voters in critical swing areas.

Conclusion: The Lessons of 2024

Trump’s victory reflects a deeply divided and complex electorate, where entrenched partisanship intersects with nuanced issue-based priorities. The survey reveals an electorate disillusioned with political platforms yet deeply engaged with key issues like the economy, healthcare, and climate change.

For Democrats, the challenge lies in bridging the gap between progressive priorities and the broader concerns of moderate and undecided voters. For Republicans, Trump’s ability to frame the election as a referendum on institutional trust and economic leadership underscores the enduring power of populist rhetoric in American politics.

As the nation moves forward, these dynamics will shape not only the next four years but the strategies of both parties in an increasingly fractured political landscape. The question remains: Can American find common ground, or will these divisions deepen further?

Trump vs Lula: A Brazilian Lens on Populism, Politics and Power.

BY ISABEL EDGE

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

As a Brazilian, it's often fascinating (and occasionally frustrating) to see how politics unfolds in different parts of the world. Here, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (or simply Lula) has always been a dominant figure in our national story, just as Donald Trump has shaped America's recent political landscape. At first glance, these two couldn't be more different. Lula is a working-class hero turned leftist icon; Trump is a billionaire businessman with a knack for branding. Yet, as someone living through the Lula era in Brazil and observing Trump from afar, I can't help but notice striking similarities between the two. Their personas, political strategies, and the reactions they inspire from the public create parallels that might surprise even their most ardent supporters or detractors.

The Cult of Personality

Both Lula and Trump are larger-than-life figures. Lula’s rags-to-riches story is legendary in Brazil: a poor metalworker who became president and lifted millions out of poverty. Trump, on the other hand, rose to prominence as a flashy real estate mogul and reality TV star. Despite their vastly different backgrounds, both have cultivated fervent followings that see them as symbols of hope and change.

In Lula’s case, his supporters view him as the embodiment of Brazil’s potential - a man who overcame systemic inequality and fought for the marginalized. Trump’s supporters, meanwhile, see him as an outsider who defied the Washington elite to champion "forgotten Americans." The cult of personality surrounding each man is so strong that their followers often dismiss any criticism as slander from biased media or corrupt institutions. For them, Lula and Trump aren't just politicians; they are movements.

Populist Rhetoric

Both Lula and Trump excel at connecting with ordinary people through populist rhetoric, though their styles differ. Lula speaks in the language of the working class, emphasizing unity, equality, and the fight against economic disparity. Trump, with his blunt, unfiltered style, appeals to a different kind of frustration, one tied to immigration, globalization, and perceived cultural decline.

Their messages resonate because they channel the anger and aspirations of their respective bases. Lula’s “I’m one of you” ethos and Trump’s “drain the swamp” mantra are two sides of the same populist coin, tailored to very different cultural and economic contexts.

Polarizing Figures

Perhaps the most glaring similarity between Lula and Trump is how polarizing they are. Here in Brazil, you’re either a fervent “Lulista” or an ardent opponent. There’s very little middle ground. It’s a similar story with Trump in the United States. Both leaders have a knack for inspiring loyalty from their base while driving their detractors into a frenzy.

This polarization extends to media narratives as well. In Brazil, conservative outlets demonize Lula as a corrupt socialist bent on ruining the country, while left-leaning media hail him as a saviour. Similarly, in the U.S., Trump is either a misunderstood patriot or a dangerous criminal, depending on who you ask. In both cases, the extreme divides have created a toxic political environment.

Legal Troubles and “Comeback” Stories

Another shared trait is their resilience in the face of legal and political adversity. Lula was jailed for corruption in 2018, only to have his convictions annulled later, paving the way for his political resurgence. Trump, too, has faced a litany of legal challenges, from impeachments to ongoing investigations, yet remains a dominant force within the Republican Party.

Both men have skilfully turned these challenges into narratives of victimhood and vindication. Lula framed his imprisonment as proof of a political witch hunt, while Trump has used his legal troubles to rally his base, claiming he’s being targeted for daring to challenge the status quo.

Charisma and Relatability

Charisma is another unifying factor. Lula’s warmth and ability to connect with ordinary Brazilians is legendary. He knows how to speak to a crowd in a way that feels genuine and personal. Trump, in his own way, has a similar effect on his supporters. Whether it's through a rally speech or a blunt Truth Social media post, he has an uncanny ability to make his base feel like he’s speaking directly to them.

This relatability is crucial in a world where politics often feels distant and disconnected. Both leaders have a knack for making themselves seem approachable, even as their critics point out their flaws and contradictions.

Economic Promises

While the policies they advocate differ, both Lula and Trump place a strong emphasis on economic growth and prosperity. Lula’s tenure is remembered for social programs like Bolsa Família, which lifted millions out of poverty. Trump frequently touts his tax cuts and economic policies that he claims benefited working-class Americans. Both leaders understand that economic issues are central to their appeal and craft their messages accordingly.

Final Thoughts: Two Sides of the Same Coin?

Living in Brazil, it’s hard to ignore the similarities between Lula and Trump despite their ideological differences. They represent two very different visions of leadership, yet their strategies, personas, and the reactions they provoke are strikingly similar. Both are masters of populism, capable of rallying millions while sowing division.

In a way, Lula and Trump are products of their environments, leaders who rose to power by channelling the frustrations and hopes of their respective nations. Whether you love them or loathe them, their impact on politics is undeniable. And as someone living in Brazil, I can’t help but wonder: are we more alike than we think, even across continents and ideologies?

A Seat at the Table: How a Young Voice Shaped the Conversation

By Cara Connolly

__________________________________________________________________________________________

In the complex world of political discourse, debates are often the domain of the highly educated and meticulously prepared. These thoughts lingered at the forefront of my mind as I prepared to speak at The Scoop’s American Election Panel. Prepared and educated.

When Jessica, the Head of The Scoop, asked me to participate, I jumped at the opportunity. She wanted a young voice in the world of culture to discuss social media’s impact on the election. What I didn’t realise at the time was the prominence of the event - or the stature of its guests. Still, I was eager to embrace the challenge, no matter how daunting.

The atmosphere was tense when I arrived, the room buzzing with the weight of that morning’s political developments. Jess leaned over to fill me in: one of our guests had worked for both Obama and Harris. My heart dropped.

I listened intently as Amanda Ferguson, a Belfast-based freelance journalist, spoke beside me. Then came the inevitable:

“And Cara, what are your thoughts on that?”

The words flowed. Jubilee, Dean Withers, Charlie Kirk, Hasan Piker. I couldn’t even recall exactly what I said, but I distinctly remember a five-minute craft video slipping into the discussion…

Listening to voices like Amanda Ferguson and public affairs leader Jamie-Lukas Campbell engage in a healthy, open dialogue was an invaluable experience. It offered a chance to learn from highly educated individuals with vastly different perspectives. That day, I realised I was part of a once-in-a-lifetime event.

Speaking at the panel, even for a brief moment, was an opportunity I will always cherish. It was empowering to contribute to the kind of dialogue that highlights human rights issues and captivates every person in the room. Jamie-Lukas, in particular, was a superhero at commanding attention while tackling complex issues,

I’m proud to say this event launched my role as Culture Editor here at The Scoop. It served as a powerful acknowledgment of the role young voices play in shaping democratic society - and a reminder that every voice, no matter its size, contributes to the larger conversations that must be had.

Trump’s Inaugural Address: A Vision of Restoration, but at What Cost?

By Jessica Toal

January 21, 2025

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Washington D.C. – President Donald Trump’s second inaugural address, delivered within the Capitol Rotunda on Monday, was as sweeping in its promises as it was sharp in its critiques. His speech painted a picture of a nation at a crossroads, poised to either seize a new “golden age” or continue to languish under what Trump characterised as the failures of Biden’s leadership.

“America will soon be greater, stronger, and far more exceptional than ever before,” Trump declared early in the speech, setting the tone for what would become a manifesto of restoration. He asserted that his administration would prioritise sovereignty, security, and economic resurgence. Yet, behind this rhetoric lies a mix of aspirational goals and contentious realities.

The Promised “Golden Age”

Trump promised an era of prosperity and unity, one where national borders are secured, crime is eradicated, and economic vitality is restored. His assertion that “the American Dream will soon be back and thriving like never before” struck a chord with his supporters, who view his return to office as a repudiation of perceived globalist overreach and domestic mismanagement.

But some of his claims, while bold, raise questions about feasibility. His plan to return the Panama Canal to U.S. control, for instance, directly contradicts long-standing international agreements and would likely face fierce resistance from both Panama and global powers. Additionally, his pledge to “rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America” reflects a symbolic gesture with unclear practical impact, one that could stoke diplomatic tensions with neighbouring countries.

A Nation in Crisis – or Opportunity?

Trump’s speech presented a grim diagnosis of the state of the nation. “Our government confronts a crisis of trust,” he said, blaming a “radical and corrupt establishment” for what he described as years of betrayal. He singled out a range of issues, from ineffective disaster response to systemic dysfunction in education and public health systems.

This rhetoric, while compelling to his base, is not without contradictions. For example, Trump criticised past leaders for failing to defend American borders while simultaneously touting his administration’s success in securing significant voter support, including “powerful wins in all seven swing states.” If the electorate had indeed embraced his vision so decisively, it raises the question: to what extent is this crisis of trust rooted in reality, and how much of it is a reflection of the partisan divisions Trump himself has been accused of exacerbating?

Sweeping Policy Declarations

True to form, Trump announced an aggressive policy agenda aimed at reversing what he described as decades of decline. He declared a national emergency at the southern border and vowed to reinstate his controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy. He promised an end to environmental policies like the Green New Deal, prioritising energy independence through oil and gas production.

“Drill, baby, drill,” Trump said, signalling a return to fossil fuel dominance. Yet this approach may conflict with market realities, as global energy trends increasingly favour renewables. While Trump’s disdain for electric vehicle mandates was clear, automakers have already invested billions into electrification, raising doubts about whether such a reversal is even economically viable.

Unity or Division?

In perhaps the most striking pivot, Trump sought to position himself as a unifier, invoking Martin Luther King Jr. and pledging to “strive together to make his dream a reality.” He thanked Black and Hispanic communities for their “tremendous outpouring of love and trust,” pointing to what he described as record-setting support from these groups.

Yet his rhetoric often leaned into divisive cultural issues, such as his declaration that the government would recognise “only two genders, male and female.” While this promise resonated with his base, it is likely to deepen cultural and political divides, complicating efforts to achieve the national unity he championed.

Historical Context and Legacy

Trump frequently cast his presidency in historic terms, declaring Jan. 20, 2025, as “Liberation Day” and framing his election as the most consequential in U.S. history. “From this moment on, America’s decline is over,” he proclaimed, echoing themes from his first inaugural address while amplifying their intensity.

His characterisation of America’s future was similarly grandiose. He promised not only to restore the nation’s greatness but to expand its horizons, even pledging to “launch American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars.” While this vision evokes the optimism of the Space Race, it raises practical questions about funding, international collaboration, and long-term viability – especially given the significant fiscal constraints facing the federal government.

Conclusion

Trump’s inaugural address offered a bold vision for America’s future, steeped in nationalist rhetoric and ambitious policy goals. For his supporters, it was a rallying cry for a renewed sense of purpose and pride. For his critics, it was a stark reminder of the divisive politics that have defined his career.

Whether Trump’s promises will materialise remains uncertain. His confidence, however, was unmistakable: “In America, the impossible is what we do best.” Yet as his administration embarks on its second term, the challenges of turning rhetoric into reality will test the limits of his leadership – and the patience of a divided nation.