Michael Medved

Despondent Democrats view Donald Trump’s astounding victory as a sign of the apocalypse, with their beachhead of White House power suddenly engulfed by a tidal wave of angry populism. Triumphant Republicans, on the other hand, feel energized and exultant over the electorate’s unexpected right turn, with newly mobilized hordes surging to the polls to power GOP victories at every level.

In the midst of such emotional reactions to the recent contest, both sides should take a few deep breaths and pause for a closer look at the actual numbers that emerged from the election. These figures provide little reason for Democratic desperation, and scant basis for swelling Republican confidence in facing the future.

The most striking aspect of the popular vote total for the triumphant Trump is how ordinary, how predictable, how underwhelming his actual support turned out to be. Amazingly, Trump has received 554,000 fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012.

As a matter of fact, the “compassionate conservative” George W. Bush received 1.7 million more votes in his successful 2004 campaign than Trump drew in his “Make America Great Again” crusade 12 years later. It’s also worth noting that Bush drew that stronger response at the polls despite the fact that there were 11 million fewer potential voters.

These numbers contradict conventional wisdom: President-elect Trump didn’t base his startling upset on some new surge of indignant blue-collar true believers who had failed to mobilize for prior candidates. In fact, among first-time voters (just 10% of the electorate in 2016, according to exit polls), Hillary Clinton won handily — 56% to 40%, with the rest going to minor-party candidates.

How, then, did Trump beat Clinton?

GOP needs radical rethinking: Michael Medved

The answer is, she beat herself. As a Washington veteran and a status-quo candidate, she inspired far less enthusiasm than the charismatic avatar of hope and change, Barack Obama. While Trump slightly underperformed more standard-issue Republicans, Clinton fared far worse than prior Democrats — getting more than 8 million fewer votes than Obama in 2008. Even John Kerry, who ran a dispirited losing campaign in 2004, achieved a nearly identical vote total to Clinton’s, despite more than 5% growth in the electorate since then.

These incontestable facts should provide some comfort for depressed Democrats, and raise some serious concerns for resurgent Republicans. For Democrats, this year’s Electoral College defeat hardly amounts to some sweeping rejection of the party’s brand. In the future, Democrats will win again with candidates who inspire passion more than grudging respect, and with even greater focus on the mechanics of drawing liberal leaners to the polls.

Republicans, meanwhile, must recognize that Trumpian boasts about inspiring fresh recruits to flock to the GOP banner, of persuading enthusiastic hordes to mobilize for the first time to the conservative cause, lack all basis in the actual numbers. Despite the unconventional aspects of his campaign, Trump fared about as well as a conventional Republican — no better, and only slightly worse.

Electoral College is no way to show off democracy: Column

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Most important, he failed to make significant progress on the principal task highlighted in the Republican Party’s much-discussed “autopsy” that followed Romney’s painful defeat: generating more support among black, Latino and Asian voters. Trump drew only 8% of African-American voters (compared with Romney’s 6%) and only 29% of both Hispanics and Asians (to Romney’s 27%). These figures would have spelled disaster against a more formidable candidate than Clinton and will likely doom Republican hopes without meaningful improvement in outreach efforts. With the percentage of non-white voters rising significantly every four years, the GOP has no future without incorporating far more ethnic diversity into its base.

Yes, the election returns established upcoming Republican control in every branch and at all levels of government. But that advantage won’t change the facts of a polarized, nearly even partisan split in public opinion and the likelihood of more unpredictable, highly competitive campaigns that await this weary, wary nation in the years ahead.

Michael Medved hosts a nationally syndicated talk radio show and is a member of the USA TODAY Board of Contributors.

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To submit a letter, comment or column, check our submission guidelines.