There is a lot of talk about how the election result is a great realignment and/or a mandate for Trump's policies.
Perhaps evidence will eventually show this is true.
But here's why I disagree, based on the data available so far:
When all votes are fully counted, it looks like Trump will win the popular vote by 1.5-2 points and have 1-4 point margins in the 7 swing states. That's not the kind of big margins typically associated with realignment elections (e.g. 1932 or 1980). It's actually a narrower victory than Bush won in 2004 or Obama in 2012. Biden in 2020 won the popular vote by a bigger margin and had nearly the same electoral vote margin (306 for Biden in 2020; 312 for Trump this year). Trump's popular vote margin may actually be a little smaller than Hillary Clinton's was in 2016 (yes, I know, obviously, she lost the electoral college).
Around the world, there has been a big backlash against incumbents because of inflation/price increases. As I noted even before the election, this is standard "retrospective voting" (punishing incumbents for perceived bad conditions), and it was weighing heavily against the Democrats. The others who faced elections all got clobbered or are about to be. The Democrats actually greatly outperformed these background conditions by losing only narrowly.
It IS true there has been a much bigger shift in the Hispanic vote than elsewhere. Trump lost it by only about 53-45. However, that means he got about the same share of the Hispanic vote as..... Bush in 2004 - the last time the GOP ran a presidential campaign with this highly favorable background conditions. Also, it has long been clear that Hispanic identity is highly fluid and diverse, and therefore that the group is far less politically monolithic than, e.g., blacks. It's possible the GOP will be more competitive for Hispanic votes from now on. But even that would be something of a continuation of possible preexisting trends. Worth noting (and I have pointed out before) that many second and third generation Hispanics don't even identify as "Hispanic" on surveys. It's also notable there is now a big gender gap among Hispanics (Trump won the male H vote, but lost the female one by a big margin). I'm not sure why the gap was that big. But, of course, there is a big gender gap among whites, as well! Developing a gender gap is a bit of a sign of Hispanic assimilation.
I do recognize that the election result is painful and disappointing for those (emphatically including me!) who hoped Trump's egregiousness and that of the MAGA movement generally would enable Kamala Harris to overcome the background conditions and win. These factors DID help keep the election close, however.
None of this proves that the Democratic Party has optimal issue positions or that Kamala Harris was a great candidate. Neither is true. They DO have some unpopular positions (e..g. - on various "woke" issues). And Harris had her flaws. But the same is true of the Republicans and Trump (who, unusually for a winning presidential candidate has a highly negative approval rating that is almost 10 points underwater). If not for point 2 above, the Democrats would have won relatively easily, despite their very real weaknesses on some issues.
You can say my analysis lacks credibility because I predicted the election result wrong. It's a fair point. However, I did say it would be very close (it was) and I emphasized point 2 above in more than one preelection piece.
Worth adding that the House and Senate results are consistent with the above. The GOP will have only a narrow House majority (probably about 220-215) and may even lose seats on net. The Republicans gained only 4 seats in the Senate, despite a very favorable map, and actually lost 4 of 5 swing-state Senate races, despite Trump winning all 5 states on the top of the ballot.