In a hypothetical scenario, a NYT columnist outlines the possibility of Trump winning the election and Democrats failing to secure victory.

In a column published Wednesday, New York Times columnist David Brooks outlined the potential for former President Trump to win the 2024 election and the possibility of the Democratic Party and Vice President Kamala Harris losing.

Trump could win, according to Brooks, if voters opt for the red model, which offers low housing costs, lower taxes, and business vitality, in contrast to the blue model, which provides high housing costs, high taxes, and high inequality.

On Tuesday, the New York Times published a column by Ross Douthat on how Trump and the Republicans could lose the election. Douthat attributed a potential Harris victory to a "minimalist" campaign message.

Brooks described another "turbine" by arguing that the Democrats are the party of the ruling class, which he attributed to the "diploma divide" in America.

Highly educated Democrats, like Harris, believe that increasing the size of government can help the downtrodden. However, many Americans view these efforts as a way for affluent people to gain more power in Washington. They conclude that this is a common pattern among the educated elites, who promise to help but ultimately serve their own interests.

Another factor that could aid a Trump victory, according to him, is social and moral cohesion. He stated that when Republicans discuss immigration, crime, faith, family, and flag, they are essentially focusing on maintaining the social and moral order. On the other hand, Democrats excel at discussing economic solidarity but often overlook moral and cultural solidarity.

The "Blue Bubble problem," along with general dissatisfaction and high levels of distrust, were the last factors that could help the former president win the White House, according to Brooks.

Brooks highlighted Harris' decision to run a campaign that catered to both wings of the party and her choice of running mate, Gov. Josh Shapiro, who would have helped her gain support in his home state, Pennsylvania.

Brooks said that the progressive wing opposed him, so Harris chose a man who helped her win a state she was already likely to win.

At the conclusion of his column, Brooks expressed his desire for Harris to succeed.

"Harris was my fervent choice to win, but many Democrats were always a bit too enthusiastic about her. Winning for Trump is not about running a brilliant campaign; it's about generating enough support in key places," he wrote.

Harris won the election by offering "progressive minimalism," as argued by Douthat.

Trump's chances were hurt by Harris' "minimalism," which prevented him from identifying a "unifying threat," as he wrote.

Winning by the narrowest of margins on a limited agenda is still considered a victory. The 2024 campaign did not permanently bury Trumpism or populism, resolve progressivism's internal issues, or claim a mandate for significant change. It only won over the tens of thousands of swing votes needed to carry the swing states that decided the election. A minimalist message resulted in a minimalist victory, which was sufficient for Kamala Harris and her supporters.