Isn't it fascinating? Even a supposedly conservative British newspaper on Nov. 4, only a day before the U.S. presidential elections, made clear what their preferences are. A headline in the middle of the Daily Mail paper mentioned "Kamala inches past Trump in last polls"

Reading what colleagues in other countries write about a certain issue of global interest is often a mirror image not only of public opinion but editorial lines, too. Think about the U.S. presidential elections: Figuratively speaking, looking over their shoulders, particularly in the United Kingdom, allows for an insight into how the anti-Trump rhetoric works. Why "anti-Trump"? This forms part and parcel of this brief analysis with a focus on British attitudes plus a short trip across the English Channel to continental Europe, namely Germany.

Back to the Daily Mail quoted above, we all know that polls should be interpreted with a pinch of salt. What struck me most is the following: In the article, Democrat candidate and Vice President Kamala Harris was almost affectionately mentioned by her first name "Kamala," yet her opponent Republican candidate and former President Donald Trump was referred to as "Trump." I will come back to this in my closing paragraph – floppy stylistics or a deeper meaning?

Let us continue with more balanced pre-vote coverage at least to some extent was found in the Financial Times on the same day. One headline said "Total warns Trump on climate ‘wild west.’" Still, in that Nov. 4 edition, we learn that America's economic boom is a mirage. So, we have one analytical comment about the expected deregulation of climate change under a new Trump administration, should there be one, and at the same time another comment declaring America's economic boom a mirage.

Fair enough, this latter piece was one article stemming the anti-Trump tide and we are not talking about years of coverage but only one day of it. Moving on to The i paper, we are faced with the "Trump has poisoned US democracy; Families are fractured amid America's toxic political debate." The contribution then, of course, discreetly overlooks the fact that while it is correct to say that some of Trump’s public campaign talk was not necessarily gentlemanly, Kamala Harris had likewise her shocking verbal warmongering moments. But their front page on the same day "Britons hope for Harris win - but most think Trump will be US president" makes it clear what the editorial line is anyway.

We could finally mention "The dark last days of Trump's campaign" returning once again to the FT and we are still on the very same day. Now we could certainly write a book about this topic. Leave the U.K. behind for a moment and go to central Europe including Germany and we did see a similar media picture.

Why Americans were for Trump?

British and continental polemics put aside, it is much more rewarding to try answering two questions: Why did Americans actually vote for Donald Trump? And second, why are so many in Europe worried about a second Trump term in office? Are there perhaps serious and legitimate concerns?

The Democrats claimed that the U.S. economy is in perfect shape. The fact is that the economy indeed grew by 3% past year. But the ordinary citizen would not benefit from that growth. Exit polls duly reflected on that attitude as the two most important issues when deciding whom to vote for were the economy and democracy.

Interestingly enough the former not only helped Trump to return to the White House but underlined that regular Democrat voters including the large Hispanic voter base turned Republican. And ordinary citizens vote with their wallets and not linked to supposedly in places far-away international relations agenda items. The business community was not amused by the economic performance either – especially the American family business, the backbone of the economy and in particular in rural areas – was not confident as costs and expenses were rising.

But the democracy issue is noteworthy too – Harris argued Trump endangered American values and democracy. Trump, on the other hand, argued that he guaranteed American values and democracy, hence in all likelihood a split between Republican and Democrat voters. So, the economy as a major vote decision maker did it, or in other words and quoted from James Carville, former Democrat strategist who back in the year 1992, said, "It’s the economy, stupid."

Besides, what Trump managed well was to tap into the ideology-based voter potential – searching for a new national purpose after four years of U.S. President Joe Biden and his vice president's rule, when America lost exactly that purpose, according to Trump's campaign. His Make America Great Again (MAGA) slogan summed that feeling up.

Why Europeans were for Harris?

An IPSOS poll carried out in Germany shortly before the elections found that 67% of Germans preferred Harris over Trump. Here a combination of domestic and international concerns came to the fore. Respondents feared that a Trump win at the ballot box would lead to higher defense spending requirements and perhaps even to rethinking a stronger Europe-based security policy and mechanism away from only relying on NATO. And then there were trade-related matters – would a Trump presidency for example hamper Germany’s automotive industry, which plans to invest heavily in the U.S. but not with Trump’s "halfway" red carpet as he said perhaps only U.S. workers might be employed? Between less trans-Atlanticism from the side of Washington and potential tariff wars – these German concerns are understandable worries, indeed.

So, did British stakeholders and most media play according to the ill-fated script book of anti-Trump polemics just for the sake of it while German stakeholders and ordinary citizens care about "real" issues that might threaten trans-Atlantic relations?

Not so fast one would say. Britain has a new national government, which by definition preferred Harris as Labour is a "left" party. For a long time, mainstream media bar a few exceptions challenged the Conservatives for country mismanagement, so it does not come as a surprise that pre-election coverage was clearly pro-Harris, too. Britain has of course the closest trans-Atlantic relations of any European country but that is not based on personalities. It is state policy and state politics regardless of who occupies the White House.

The German scenario is different: Trans-Atlanticism is state policy same as in Britain but Germans tend to think personality before ideology. And the ever-smiling Harris instead of "Mr. Strongman" apparently was their preferred candidate choice.

And another point greatly differing between Britain and Europe including Germany is the rise of far-right extremist parties. Some argue that having Trump return to the White House signals a shift to far-right policies stateside too. This in turn could further help European far-right movements to gain the upper electoral hand so to speak. Britain’s Reform Party is in no way as successful as continental far-right parties.

Answering our initial question – anti-Trump media coverage in Britain points to continental Europe floppy stylistics or deeper meaning? The latter it is – yet how this will play out in the next few years is anyone’s guess. Pulling up the anti-Trump mental drawbridges and creating a fortress Britain, plus a fortress Europe isolated from what happens across the North Atlantic would not make sense. And the good news is that President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers will fully understand that erecting barriers to trans-Atlantic cooperation would equally be a non-starter.

Come early 2025 we should give Trump his 100-day grace period as is customary anywhere in the world of politics. Then the real work starts – winning the election turned out to be easy for Trump. Governing his country will not. Europe should lend him a hand, not a "you are not welcome!"