Election analysis: 5 POLITICO journalists discuss key factors
A lot occurred during this cycle. In the end, what was the outcome?
TroibNews 
In the routine challenges of covering a presidential campaign, it can be difficult to discern the key factors that influenced the outcome. There were numerous twists and turns, including a Democratic ticket switch, two apparent assassination attempts, non-endorsements from unions, and bomb threats on Election Day.
Now that the election has concluded, politics editor Kay Steiger asked five of our campaign reporters to reflect on what truly mattered. Notably, it wasn't the media frenzy over a comedian disparaging Puerto Rico at his closing rally or high-profile celebrity endorsements. The pivotal element may not have even been the ground game.
Steiger: Let's start with the obvious: This election cycle was incredibly messy. The immediate analysis suggests it was largely about the economy. Do you think that's accurate, or is there more to consider?
Holly Otterbein: Democrats are just beginning to process the results and ponder these questions. In Pennsylvania, a key battleground state where I'm based, inflation was a significant worry for many voters I spoke with. This state has experienced some of the worst food inflation in the country. Additionally, working-class voters represent a substantial portion of the electorate here.
One notable moment I think back to: The Friday prior to the election, I attended a barbershop event in West Philadelphia, primarily attended by Black men, alongside former Attorney General Eric Holder, who was a surrogate for Kamala Harris. Holder argued that the Biden administration had been beneficial for Black workers, but one voter vehemently disagreed. He characterized Holder's view as "wishful thinking" versus "reality." This sentiment resonated with many voters.
Meridith McGraw: The issues of the economy and immigration were dominant. I encountered many voters who expressed reservations about Donald Trump's personality, but felt compelled to support him due to their financial struggles or because they believed their concerns about immigration were being dismissed by the left. Trump’s team had always maintained that if the election was focused on policy rather than personality, they would have the advantage. This assessment proved largely accurate.
Adam Wren: It seems the impact varied depending on which part of the ticket we're addressing. Numerous Democratic Senate candidates, despite losing, outperformed Harris. Since Labor Day, I have spent considerable time in Michigan. Take Elissa Slotkin, for example. She won an open Senate seat in a Blue Wall state that Trump had flipped. Clearly, voters attributed more blame to the Biden-Harris administration—Harris in particular—than they did to down-ballot Democrats.
Myah Ward: I align with Holly and Meridith. Even though there appeared to be a surge of momentum for Harris in the final weeks—whether it was the Madison Square Garden rally or the focus on democracy—it ultimately came back to the same issue that plagued Joe Biden a year ago: High prices. Residents recognized the stark contrast between their financial situations before COVID-19 under Trump and their current struggles. They remembered having more disposable income and a less challenging life. Among the critiques Democrats are discussing is that she could have worked harder to separate herself from Biden.
Natalie Allison: Throughout the year, voters frequently expressed their dissatisfaction with the cost of living, and it was often the foremost concern raised. Holly is right; now it seems Democrats must confront what aspects of their messaging failed to resonate.
Otterbein: To echo Meridith, immigration and the sense that the world is in disarray—viewing conflicts and the Afghanistan withdrawal—were also significant issues.
Ward: I would add that it took Democrats until this year to finally unify around a coherent argument on immigration, taking cues from Rep. Tom Suozzi. Republicans have long excelled in the immigration messaging war, and Democrats were merely catching up.
Steiger: Let's address an uncomfortable question head-on: Harris performed worse than Hillary Clinton and considerably worse than Biden. Do we think her race and/or gender influenced her loss?
Otterbein: It's interesting that there isn't a clear consensus among Democratic women politicians and strategists regarding that question. Some assert that gender and sexism played a role in her defeat, while others attribute it to broader issues surrounding the economy and immigration. Harris did not emphasize her gender, but she faced persistent criticism that her rise to vice presidency was largely due to her identity.
Allison: It's not something that can be easily captured in a poll, nor is it something everyone would respond to honestly. The shifting polls indicated a closer race once Harris was at the top of the ticket, which complicates the argument for sexism affecting her campaign—voters indicated they preferred her over Biden. That said, I've spoken with several voters who expressed discomfort with the prospect of a woman in the presidency.
McGraw: There were certainly many contributing factors, including her inability to clearly define how she would differ from Biden’s administration.
Wren: As a white man from the Midwest, I’m aware that my perspective might not be in high demand, nor do I claim originality. However, conversations with voters—particularly older working-class white women in places like Flint and Indiana—revealed some gender-based criticisms of her voice and laugh. While this likely had some influence, the national Democratic losses appeared so sweeping that it raises the question of whether this was a primary issue.
Ward: Building on Holly's comments, many female politicians and strategists would contend that sexism and racism are inherent in our political landscape, regardless of their views on how these factors played into Harris's race against Trump. Time and again, pollsters and strategists noted Trump’s adeptness at reinforcing masculinity to bolster his support among men.
Steiger: Reflecting on the assassination attempt, it was such an unpredictable moment for the campaign. Watching that rally, it was genuinely shocking. Do you believe this incident resonated with voters?
Otterbein: Absolutely. It enraged and galvanized Trump's base, leading to increased turnout.
Wren: One hundred percent. Holly is correct. But it wasn’t just with his core supporters. Even Jeff Bezos commented on X that Trump demonstrated “tremendous grace and courage under literal fire.” This incident conferred a certain gravitas on him that he previously lacked. The powerful imagery of his raised fist, along with his rallying cry "fight, fight, fight," contributed to this. That’s part of why the campaign revisited Butler, Pennsylvania: to recapture that momentum.
Otterbein: Furthermore, one of Trump's final ads showcased him with his raised fist as a means to drive voter turnout.
McGraw: Reflecting on the RNC, that moment indeed helped unify the party in unprecedented ways. Yet, I was surprised by how quickly it faded from the campaign narrative.
Ward: Right, and that iconic photo of him raising his fist was ubiquitous until the campaign’s close. It’s challenging to evaluate its impact since events unfolded rapidly afterwards: Trump was shot, the RNC occurred in Milwaukee, and then Biden exited the race, elevating Harris.
McGraw: What a whirlwind that week was!
Allison: Absolutely. For instance, while covering young Black voters in Georgia who were contemplating voting for Trump for the first time, I learned that discussions about Trump being targeted were quite common at his gym. Young men who had never previously supported Trump were speaking about conspiracies against him, which they believed justified backing him. The shooting also prompted endorsements from some of Trump's high-profile independent supporters, including Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Steiger: Natalie, that's an intriguing observation regarding RFK Jr. Did his candidacy end up affecting the outcome?
Allison: Definitely. His candidacy, as some Democrats anticipated from the outset, proved to be a significant boon for Trump. Kennedy helped Trump secure support among independent voters, including suburban moms concerned about childhood health issues, swaying many to back Trump.
Steiger: Harris emphasized championing democracy as her closing argument against Trump. Was this a misjudgment?
Wren: In hindsight, it certainly appears that way. She oscillated between deriding him and expressing alarm about his danger. I would be interested to see how a more vigorous separation from Biden on economic issues from the beginning might have influenced voters. However, with only 107 days to make that case, it’s uncertain if it would have changed anything.
Allison: The message from Biden never truly resonated with the wider electorate, clearly failing to influence the necessary moderate and Trump-skeptical Republican voters.
McGraw: Some Democrats might argue that Harris should have concentrated more on connecting with her base, but data suggested that focusing on democracy could attract moderate Republicans and independents. It's worth questioning how many of those voters ultimately held their noses to vote for Trump or chose not to vote at all.
Ward: Democrats were definitely divided on this approach during the closing weeks. Still, democracy wasn’t her sole closing argument. If you review her speeches at the Ellipse and during the last week in battleground states, it’s apparent that her campaign’s mid-October response was largely reactive to the John Kelly report and Trump’s “enemy from within” rhetoric. I speculate that many Democrats would have criticized her had she not addressed these issues as well.
Steiger: Lastly, what aspect seems overrated—the factor that dominated the headlines but didn’t ultimately matter?
Ward: I’ve been reflecting on what this election reveals about the future of campaigning. The Harris campaign raised substantial funds, showed signs of a strong ground game, and secured major endorsements—yet I wonder how much these elements still hold weight. Social media has transformed the landscape of politics, and Republicans have excelled in this arena, building a robust online presence since 2015 across platforms like YouTube, podcasts, and traditional media. An immigration advocate noted that this dynamic is even visible in their work.
Allison: In terms of what voters prioritized, it seems that the narratives surrounding Trump’s rhetoric were ineffective in shaping opinions about him. Coverage dissected his language, highlighting violent terminology and comparisons to previous years, but these discussions failed to resonate with many persuadable voters.
Wren: I share Myah's skepticism regarding fundraising and ground game. Harris amassed a billion dollars yet ended up $20 million in debt. The Trump campaign confidently conveyed that they had the resources for their preferred campaign strategy, which was met with skepticism. Concerns surrounding Trump's less-organized, makeshift ground operations were raised, yet Harris's team appeared to be misguided; Trump’s strategy proved successful.
However, I also reflect on the chaotic daily narratives—especially instances like Springfield, Ohio, and Trump’s unfounded claims about Haitian immigrants consuming pets, along with the Madison Square Garden rally. These messages broke through in memes, jokes, and conversations that I had with casual political observers. The perceptions they reinforced about Trump were already deeply rooted in the electorate.
Otterbein: One question I ponder is whether the "garbage" comments had any impact on swaying Latino voters to support Harris—though it clearly wasn’t enough! Did Harris’s last-minute focus on Latino areas just indicate an awareness of their campaign's deficit?
It was significant that on the eve of the election, Harris campaigned in two majority-Latino cities alongside AOC. Throughout the campaign, it was evident that Latino men represented a vulnerable demographic for Harris, suggesting an urgent need to address their concerns.
Building on the earlier points regarding ground game, it's worth examining whether Harris truly had an advantage. That sentiment was the consensus among political experts, yet it may have actually been Trump's energy and the conservative social media ecosystem that catalyzed Republican voter turnout. We know that Republicans were notably effective in encouraging early voting this cycle, which suggests a strong ground game.
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
Now that the election has concluded, politics editor Kay Steiger asked five of our campaign reporters to reflect on what truly mattered. Notably, it wasn't the media frenzy over a comedian disparaging Puerto Rico at his closing rally or high-profile celebrity endorsements. The pivotal element may not have even been the ground game.
Steiger: Let's start with the obvious: This election cycle was incredibly messy. The immediate analysis suggests it was largely about the economy. Do you think that's accurate, or is there more to consider?
Holly Otterbein: Democrats are just beginning to process the results and ponder these questions. In Pennsylvania, a key battleground state where I'm based, inflation was a significant worry for many voters I spoke with. This state has experienced some of the worst food inflation in the country. Additionally, working-class voters represent a substantial portion of the electorate here.
One notable moment I think back to: The Friday prior to the election, I attended a barbershop event in West Philadelphia, primarily attended by Black men, alongside former Attorney General Eric Holder, who was a surrogate for Kamala Harris. Holder argued that the Biden administration had been beneficial for Black workers, but one voter vehemently disagreed. He characterized Holder's view as "wishful thinking" versus "reality." This sentiment resonated with many voters.
Meridith McGraw: The issues of the economy and immigration were dominant. I encountered many voters who expressed reservations about Donald Trump's personality, but felt compelled to support him due to their financial struggles or because they believed their concerns about immigration were being dismissed by the left. Trump’s team had always maintained that if the election was focused on policy rather than personality, they would have the advantage. This assessment proved largely accurate.
Adam Wren: It seems the impact varied depending on which part of the ticket we're addressing. Numerous Democratic Senate candidates, despite losing, outperformed Harris. Since Labor Day, I have spent considerable time in Michigan. Take Elissa Slotkin, for example. She won an open Senate seat in a Blue Wall state that Trump had flipped. Clearly, voters attributed more blame to the Biden-Harris administration—Harris in particular—than they did to down-ballot Democrats.
Myah Ward: I align with Holly and Meridith. Even though there appeared to be a surge of momentum for Harris in the final weeks—whether it was the Madison Square Garden rally or the focus on democracy—it ultimately came back to the same issue that plagued Joe Biden a year ago: High prices. Residents recognized the stark contrast between their financial situations before COVID-19 under Trump and their current struggles. They remembered having more disposable income and a less challenging life. Among the critiques Democrats are discussing is that she could have worked harder to separate herself from Biden.
Natalie Allison: Throughout the year, voters frequently expressed their dissatisfaction with the cost of living, and it was often the foremost concern raised. Holly is right; now it seems Democrats must confront what aspects of their messaging failed to resonate.
Otterbein: To echo Meridith, immigration and the sense that the world is in disarray—viewing conflicts and the Afghanistan withdrawal—were also significant issues.
Ward: I would add that it took Democrats until this year to finally unify around a coherent argument on immigration, taking cues from Rep. Tom Suozzi. Republicans have long excelled in the immigration messaging war, and Democrats were merely catching up.
Steiger: Let's address an uncomfortable question head-on: Harris performed worse than Hillary Clinton and considerably worse than Biden. Do we think her race and/or gender influenced her loss?
Otterbein: It's interesting that there isn't a clear consensus among Democratic women politicians and strategists regarding that question. Some assert that gender and sexism played a role in her defeat, while others attribute it to broader issues surrounding the economy and immigration. Harris did not emphasize her gender, but she faced persistent criticism that her rise to vice presidency was largely due to her identity.
Allison: It's not something that can be easily captured in a poll, nor is it something everyone would respond to honestly. The shifting polls indicated a closer race once Harris was at the top of the ticket, which complicates the argument for sexism affecting her campaign—voters indicated they preferred her over Biden. That said, I've spoken with several voters who expressed discomfort with the prospect of a woman in the presidency.
McGraw: There were certainly many contributing factors, including her inability to clearly define how she would differ from Biden’s administration.
Wren: As a white man from the Midwest, I’m aware that my perspective might not be in high demand, nor do I claim originality. However, conversations with voters—particularly older working-class white women in places like Flint and Indiana—revealed some gender-based criticisms of her voice and laugh. While this likely had some influence, the national Democratic losses appeared so sweeping that it raises the question of whether this was a primary issue.
Ward: Building on Holly's comments, many female politicians and strategists would contend that sexism and racism are inherent in our political landscape, regardless of their views on how these factors played into Harris's race against Trump. Time and again, pollsters and strategists noted Trump’s adeptness at reinforcing masculinity to bolster his support among men.
Steiger: Reflecting on the assassination attempt, it was such an unpredictable moment for the campaign. Watching that rally, it was genuinely shocking. Do you believe this incident resonated with voters?
Otterbein: Absolutely. It enraged and galvanized Trump's base, leading to increased turnout.
Wren: One hundred percent. Holly is correct. But it wasn’t just with his core supporters. Even Jeff Bezos commented on X that Trump demonstrated “tremendous grace and courage under literal fire.” This incident conferred a certain gravitas on him that he previously lacked. The powerful imagery of his raised fist, along with his rallying cry "fight, fight, fight," contributed to this. That’s part of why the campaign revisited Butler, Pennsylvania: to recapture that momentum.
Otterbein: Furthermore, one of Trump's final ads showcased him with his raised fist as a means to drive voter turnout.
McGraw: Reflecting on the RNC, that moment indeed helped unify the party in unprecedented ways. Yet, I was surprised by how quickly it faded from the campaign narrative.
Ward: Right, and that iconic photo of him raising his fist was ubiquitous until the campaign’s close. It’s challenging to evaluate its impact since events unfolded rapidly afterwards: Trump was shot, the RNC occurred in Milwaukee, and then Biden exited the race, elevating Harris.
McGraw: What a whirlwind that week was!
Allison: Absolutely. For instance, while covering young Black voters in Georgia who were contemplating voting for Trump for the first time, I learned that discussions about Trump being targeted were quite common at his gym. Young men who had never previously supported Trump were speaking about conspiracies against him, which they believed justified backing him. The shooting also prompted endorsements from some of Trump's high-profile independent supporters, including Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Steiger: Natalie, that's an intriguing observation regarding RFK Jr. Did his candidacy end up affecting the outcome?
Allison: Definitely. His candidacy, as some Democrats anticipated from the outset, proved to be a significant boon for Trump. Kennedy helped Trump secure support among independent voters, including suburban moms concerned about childhood health issues, swaying many to back Trump.
Steiger: Harris emphasized championing democracy as her closing argument against Trump. Was this a misjudgment?
Wren: In hindsight, it certainly appears that way. She oscillated between deriding him and expressing alarm about his danger. I would be interested to see how a more vigorous separation from Biden on economic issues from the beginning might have influenced voters. However, with only 107 days to make that case, it’s uncertain if it would have changed anything.
Allison: The message from Biden never truly resonated with the wider electorate, clearly failing to influence the necessary moderate and Trump-skeptical Republican voters.
McGraw: Some Democrats might argue that Harris should have concentrated more on connecting with her base, but data suggested that focusing on democracy could attract moderate Republicans and independents. It's worth questioning how many of those voters ultimately held their noses to vote for Trump or chose not to vote at all.
Ward: Democrats were definitely divided on this approach during the closing weeks. Still, democracy wasn’t her sole closing argument. If you review her speeches at the Ellipse and during the last week in battleground states, it’s apparent that her campaign’s mid-October response was largely reactive to the John Kelly report and Trump’s “enemy from within” rhetoric. I speculate that many Democrats would have criticized her had she not addressed these issues as well.
Steiger: Lastly, what aspect seems overrated—the factor that dominated the headlines but didn’t ultimately matter?
Ward: I’ve been reflecting on what this election reveals about the future of campaigning. The Harris campaign raised substantial funds, showed signs of a strong ground game, and secured major endorsements—yet I wonder how much these elements still hold weight. Social media has transformed the landscape of politics, and Republicans have excelled in this arena, building a robust online presence since 2015 across platforms like YouTube, podcasts, and traditional media. An immigration advocate noted that this dynamic is even visible in their work.
Allison: In terms of what voters prioritized, it seems that the narratives surrounding Trump’s rhetoric were ineffective in shaping opinions about him. Coverage dissected his language, highlighting violent terminology and comparisons to previous years, but these discussions failed to resonate with many persuadable voters.
Wren: I share Myah's skepticism regarding fundraising and ground game. Harris amassed a billion dollars yet ended up $20 million in debt. The Trump campaign confidently conveyed that they had the resources for their preferred campaign strategy, which was met with skepticism. Concerns surrounding Trump's less-organized, makeshift ground operations were raised, yet Harris's team appeared to be misguided; Trump’s strategy proved successful.
However, I also reflect on the chaotic daily narratives—especially instances like Springfield, Ohio, and Trump’s unfounded claims about Haitian immigrants consuming pets, along with the Madison Square Garden rally. These messages broke through in memes, jokes, and conversations that I had with casual political observers. The perceptions they reinforced about Trump were already deeply rooted in the electorate.
Otterbein: One question I ponder is whether the "garbage" comments had any impact on swaying Latino voters to support Harris—though it clearly wasn’t enough! Did Harris’s last-minute focus on Latino areas just indicate an awareness of their campaign's deficit?
It was significant that on the eve of the election, Harris campaigned in two majority-Latino cities alongside AOC. Throughout the campaign, it was evident that Latino men represented a vulnerable demographic for Harris, suggesting an urgent need to address their concerns.
Building on the earlier points regarding ground game, it's worth examining whether Harris truly had an advantage. That sentiment was the consensus among political experts, yet it may have actually been Trump's energy and the conservative social media ecosystem that catalyzed Republican voter turnout. We know that Republicans were notably effective in encouraging early voting this cycle, which suggests a strong ground game.
Aarav Patel contributed to this report for TROIB News
