By Our Wednesday Columnist (Edentu Oroso)
The rise of Donald Trump as the 47th President-Elect of the United States, following the recent election, has reverberated across the globe. In a campaign as charged as any in modern history, Trump’s victory was framed by pundits as both an ideological and existential battle for the spirit of the United States—and, by extension, the world. The stakes couldn’t have been higher, with the election poised to shape America’s internal economy and redefine its international alliances. It wasn’t merely a political contest; it unfolded as a clash of values, fuelling debates over race, identity, and the foundational freedoms upon which the “land of the free” stands.
The pre-election period was intense, marked by fierce campaign rhetoric, a test of financial and political power, and relentless media scrutiny on both sides. The Republican front runner Trump, encumbered by a staggering 32 court convictions, faced a formidable Democratic opponent: Kamala Harris, the incumbent Vice President and Democratic Party standard-bearer. As legal obstacles and political scrutiny mounted, many predicted an uphill struggle for Trump, anticipating an upset. Yet, in a move that defied conventional expectations, he rose like a phoenix, not only securing the Republican nomination but achieving a decisive victory on November 5, 2025.
While the world may have absorbed the outcome, the underlying lessons of this election remain significant. They highlight the resilience of the American electoral process, the complexities of ideological divides, and the shifting tides of public opinion and political strategy. Trump’s election, despite formidable obstacles, speaks volumes about the nature of democracy, the power of populist appeal, and the evolving dynamics of political engagement in an increasingly polarised world.
In the 2024 U.S. presidential election predictions, Allan Lichtman remained steadfast in forecasting a Kamala Harris victory, guided by his “Keys to the White House” model. Lichtman’s framework, which has accurately predicted every U.S. election outcome since 1984, relies on 13 factors, emphasizing elements such as party unity, governance, and societal mood rather than conventional polling. He argued that Harris’s historical candidacy, symbolising both continuity and change, had advantages over Trump, whose polarising approach might alienate moderate voters. Despite criticism and public backlash—reminiscent of the resistance he faced in his correct 2016 prediction for Trump—Lichtman’s historically grounded system predicted Harris as the likely winner, provided no major shifts occurred.
Meanwhile, economic analysts offered mixed predictions based on the nation’s fluctuating economic indicators. Trump appeared to gain some favour among voters concerned with inflation and job growth, as his past policies were associated with a strong economy. In like manner, Harris’s economic approach, focusing on social safety nets and stability, had appeal among voters focused on long-term economic resilience. This division among economic forecasters highlighted how individual issues, particularly economic challenges, became key factors in shaping public expectations, emphasizing the importance of each candidate’s approach to handling the cost of living and financial stability.
From prediction markets to betting odds, the gaming community displayed ongoing uncertainty as election day neared. Markets oscillated between Harris and Trump, often reacting to recent events or public appearances. This fluctuation reflected the highly polarised national sentiment, with neither candidate securing a clear advantage. Lichtman’s model thus stood out for its stability in a season marked by fluctuating polls and volatile betting odds. Ultimately, while Lichtman’s prediction method underscored Harris’s potential strengths, the economic and betting communities revealed a split, with no definitive consensus on who might win—a striking testament to the nation’s political and social divides.
Billionaire support and celebrity influence have been significant aspects too of the 2024 U.S. election campaigns, impacting both Trump and Harris. Elon Musk, who has actively supported Trump, leveraged his influence and platforms to reach broad audiences and galvanise support. Musk used his social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to promote Trump’s campaign aggressively, placing pro-Trump content prominently for users and even partnering with high-profile influencers like Joe Rogan. Musk’s engagement, including a voter-targeted sweepstakes, was intended to inspire and mobilise young male voters, reinforcing a populist approach that champions deregulation and free speech while stirring controversy over ethics and legality.
On the other side, Kamala Harris received substantial backing from Hollywood and the entertainment industry, with many celebrities rallying behind her. This sector traditionally leans Democratic, and its support reflects a cultural alignment with Harris’s progressive policies. Entertainers wield influence that resonates strongly with younger and more urban demographics who are often drawn to social justice themes and liberal causes championed by Democratic candidates. These endorsements add cultural legitimacy and visibility to Harris’s campaign, appealing to voters who may see her as a continuation of progressive social reforms and inclusivity
In the election’s final outcome, both the billionaire-backed strategies and celebrity endorsements seemed to intensify polarisation, energising each side’s base rather than swaying undecided voters significantly. Musk’s alignment with Trump underscores a shift where major tech figures openly influence politics, creating a new arena of competition distinct from traditional media. Meanwhile, Harris’s alignment with Hollywood offers counterbalance, yet the effectiveness of these endorsements in actually tipping votes appears limited by an increasingly divided electorate, where voter commitment was deeply rooted before these endorsements intensified.
A pivotal takeaway from Trump’s victory was Harris’s dignified response. Despite an intense and hard-fought campaign, Harris conceded defeat and reached out personally to congratulate Trump, upholding democratic values even while acknowledging ongoing policy disagreements. This moment of grace underpins the strength of democratic principles, where respectful transitions are integral to the political process. Harris’s concession stands as a reminder of how democratic systems thrive when leaders place institutional integrity above personal ambition.
In contrast, Nigerian politics rarely witnesses such moments of open concession and graceful handover. Former President Goodluck Jonathan’s 2015 call to Muhammadu Buhari, conceding even before the final tally, was an exceptional and lauded instance of democratic maturity in Nigeria. Jonathan’s actions not only demonstrated leadership but also set a powerful example for Africa and beyond, showing how peaceful transitions can reinforce national unity and strengthen democratic institutions. His decision helped defuse potential tensions and promoted stability in Nigeria, gaining him international respect as a symbol of political integrity.
This ideal—prioritizing the democratic process over individual political careers—should be a cornerstone of national values worldwide. Nigerian politicians, in particular, could benefit from embracing this ethos, strengthening public trust in elections and fostering a culture of accountability. By enshrining such values, nations can ensure that democracy remains a force for unity, resilience, and hope across political divides. Voters seek leaders who address real concerns in national interest, showing clear understanding and a concrete commitment to the country’s welfare. The success of a candidate hinges not on forecasts but on their alignment with what truly matters to the populace.
Social welfare, healthcare, and a strong economic blueprint form the pillars of an impactful campaign. Leaders who promise to reduce poverty, improve access to quality healthcare, and boost economic opportunities earn public’s trust. Voters need assurance that proposed economic policies are not only visionary but also actionable, touching on key aspects like job creation, cost-of-living reduction, sustainable development, and national security. Such commitments to social and economic well-being resonate more profoundly than abstract predictions.
Also, public understanding of what is at stake empowers voters to make informed decisions. Leaders who clearly communicate the national risks, democratic principles, and values at play help voters grasp the importance of their choice. When people are aware of the dynamics affecting their future, they are more inclined to support leaders who prioritise unity and practical progress. Ultimately, it is this connection to tangible issues—rather than mere forecasts—that galvanises voters, shaping an election’s true outcome, even the popular choice seldom wins.