WASHINGTON —  I spent much of 2024 warning readers that a second Trump presidency would do serious damage to American institutions, beginning with democracy and the rule of law.

“The former president neither understands nor respects the Constitution,” I wrote. “He would use the powers of the federal government as an instrument of his whims, prosecuting opponents and rewarding donors instead of serving the public interest.”

Judging from the election results, about half of America’s voters disagreed. Many of them wrote to tell me how wrong I was.

“Trump Derangement Syndrome,” a reader named Ed Osborne scoffed.

I hope he’s right and that I was wrong. A less destructive Trump would come as a relief.

This is my annual “mea culpa” column, an end-of-the-year look back at what I got wrong and what (if anything) I got right.

Writing a column is a recurring opportunity to make mistakes in plain sight and repent them at leisure. Election years offer even more chances than usual to make bad guesses.

A drawn-out finish and economic optimism?

Here’s one: I expected the presidential election to be closer — and to take longer to resolve — than it was. “We won’t know who won on election night,” I predicted.

Wrong! Trump swept all seven swing states in short order, piling up an impressive electoral vote majority. His popular vote margin turned out to be one of the narrowest in recent history, but that didn’t become clear until California finished its leisurely count this month.

One reason I forecast a razor-close election was that I believed Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, was successfully eroding Trump’s advantage on the most important issue: voters’ dissatisfaction with the economy.

“Maybe good economic news — a growing economy, easing inflation and lower interest rates — is finally seeping into voters’ consciousness, allowing Harris to reap some political benefit,” I wrote a month before the election.

Wrong again. Exit polls found that 45% of voters said they still felt worse off than they had during Trump’s first term. Only 24% said they were better off.

On one of the biggest stories of the year, President Biden’s disastrous performance in his June debate with Trump, another confession: I didn’t see it coming. Before the debate, I wrote that Biden’s age was clearly slowing him down; “he needs to show that he can not only find the stairs but think on his feet,” I advised. But I wasn’t concealing his condition; I never had a close enough look to support a tougher diagnosis.

To be fair (to myself, in this case), at least I didn’t commit the most basic error a reporter can make before an election: I didn’t predict who would win. In October, I wrote that the Trump-Harris race was too close to call — and it was.

I also noted that the Democratic nominee didn’t run a perfect campaign.

“She took a distressingly long time to define a clear, overarching vision,” I wrote. “Early in the campaign, her answers to tough questions often devolved into word salad. She struggled to explain how her presidency might differ from a second Joe Biden term.”

That made the election essentially a referendum on the Biden administration — a contest almost any Democrat was bound to lose.

A clear pattern and an unanswered question

When I sat in on focus groups of undecided voters last fall, a pattern became clear: Plenty had qualms about Trump, but they had confidence in his ability to improve the economy.

Many of them discounted Trump’s most worrisome proposals because they didn’t think he’d act on them — like Kevin, a home inspector in Atlanta, who said he thought Trump’s promise to slap huge tariffs on imports was “a bad idea, but I don’t think it’s going to really go anywhere.”

And that brings us back to the question of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Who was right: Kevin or me?

That depends on which version of Trump emerges once he’s in office.

Polls show that most of his voters elected him mainly to bring prices down and reduce illegal immigration. But many don’t support separating migrant families, imposing tariffs that would spike inflation, or prosecuting political opponents.

Will Trump moderate any of his campaign promises? So far, he’s having it both ways.

He’s stuck to his vow to launch mass deportations, but said he might make an exception for “dreamers,” migrants who came to the United States as children. He’s threatened massive tariffs against Mexico, Canada and China, but hinted that he might relent if they offer concessions. On some days, he says his critic former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) “should be investigated by the FBI”; on others, he tosses out a contradictory message of magnanimity, “Retribution will be through success.”

Here’s another prediction

Undaunted by my shaky track record, I’ve already made a prediction: Just as in his first term, Trump will try to carry out his promises, but will trim them back if he runs into opposition, especially from voters in his own party.

Mass deportation, for example, “is one promise Trump clearly intends to keep,” I wrote last month. “But there may be a debate in the new administration over how fast and how sweeping the deportation drive should be.” That debate, focusing mostly on the costs of a big operation, is already underway.

As for his most controversial Cabinet nominees — Pete Hegseth at Defense, Kash Patel at the FBI, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at Health and Human Services, Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence — my guess is that Gabbard is the only one whose confirmation is in serious jeopardy.

I’ll be glad if I was mistaken. If I was, I’ll be sure to let you know.