Trump won a decisive presidential victory. Simply put, why? That question will dominate discussion and provoke answers for decades to come. After all, no prior presidential candidate in American history had such potentially disqualifying baggage as Trump. Could Americans re-elect someone who had been twice impeached as president; was a convicted felon; a sexual predator designated a “rapist” by a judge and jury in a civil case in which he was ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in liability awards; who was accused of attempting to overturn the 2020 elections; a known liar and serial adulterer; and a president who added $6.4 trillion to the national debt? Yet, America elected Trump. One argument was that widespread public anger and fury with the Biden administration over immigration, costs of living and the general unpopularity of the president produced a decisive Republican electoral victory rather than Trump. That the public was so enraged would account for voters dismissing Trump’s sordid history. This factor was important. But that should not discount other reasons that produced Trump’s success and explains why in over 90 percent of the some 175,000 voting precincts scattered across the fifty states, Trump increased his share of the vote. And, at this writing, Trump is on the way to winning the popular vote. Most Americans would be hard pressed to define fascism or even understand its history. First, President Joe Biden removed himself as a candidate because of fundamental questions over his mental fitness to hold office. That meant that Vice President Kamala Harris had the impossible task with only a dozen weeks until the election to organize a campaign, set an agenda, raise huge amounts of money and select a vice president. Given Biden’s low performance ratings and crises over the flow of illegal entrants into the US and inflation, Harris was very much tied to the administration’s failures as Hubert Humphrey was in 1968 to Lyndon Johnson’s Vietnam debacle and could not distance herself sufficiently to make a difference. Second, because Harris had virtually no preparatory time or experience in winning a nomination, a combination of her misuse of language; an initial absence of specificity in outlining her policy proposals; and her inability to refute charges of “flip flopping” over virtually every issue from halting fracking to defunding the police were to Trump’s advantage. Third, the public tired over the overwhelming Democratic assault on Trump as Hitler and a fascist. Most Americans would be hard pressed to define fascism or even understand its history. So overplaying this hand helped Trump. Ironically, and this is an implicit linkage with Hitler. Hitler rose to power because in post-World War-I Germany, its citizens were desperate, facing the most dire economic and political conditions. With no options, desperate Germans turned to Hitler. That was catastrophic. Americans are not that desperate. However, 70 or 75 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong course which is why Trump became the de facto choice and added to his dominant win. Fourth, Trump challenged Americans to answer whether you are better or worse off in 2024 than in 2020 when he was in office. Democrats were incapable of responding to this question even though in 2020 the nation was in the grips of the Covid pandemic and in recession. Fifth, and this may be a lesser known reason, is the transgender issue. 80 to 85 percent of Americans oppose ex-boys being allowed to play girl’s sports. And few Americans understood why children should be allowed to undergo a sexual transition before reaching an age when they can fully appreciate the irreversible consequences of these procedures. This hurt Harris. What next? The election seemed to go, if not effortlessly, without any serious problems that will challenge its legitimacy. That leaves Democrats with few options. The results can be accepted and the party can conduct a major autopsy of why it lost to realign itself. It can do nothing and remain in the minority. Or, extreme elements can resort to violence as followed the murder of George Floyd in 2020 and the emergence of Black Lives Matter that precipitated widespread outbreaks of massive violence. And a tragic consequence of the election was the introduction of excessive coarseness and vulgarity in the political debate by Trump. This rejection of civility risks becoming irreversible. Two crucial questions may define the future of America’s democracy. First, will Trump act as the president for all Americans and reject his often fiery, partisan and provocative rhetoric? Second, will the far left refrain from excessive violence in protests? The answers may be forthcoming far sooner than anyone suspects. The writer is a senior advisor at Washington, DC’s Atlantic Council and a published author. He can be reached on Twitter @harlankullman.