POLITICO's 5 Campaign Reporters Share Insights on What Truly Mattered
This cycle was filled with numerous developments. Ultimately, what does it leave us with?
TroibNews 
Covering a presidential campaign can often obscure the pivotal moments that shape its outcome. This election cycle featured numerous unexpected events, such as the Democratic Party’s change of ticket, two apparent assassination attempts, union non-endorsements, and bomb threats on Election Day.
With the election now concluded, our politics editor Kay Steiger consulted five campaign reporters to reflect on the factors that truly influenced the results. As a hint, it wasn't the controversy surrounding a comedian's remarks about Puerto Rico or endorsements from celebrities that made the difference. The ground game may not have been the decisive factor either.
Steiger: Let’s start with the obvious: This was such a messy election cycle. The immediate analysis seems to be that this was primarily about the economy. Is that accurate, or are there other nuances?
Holly Otterbein: Democrats are just beginning to analyze the results and ponder these crucial questions. In Pennsylvania, where I’m based, inflation deeply concerned the voters I spoke to. We’ve experienced some of the worst food inflation in the country here, and working-class voters represent a significant part of the state's electorate.
Something that stands out to me: the Friday before the election, I attended a barbershop event in West Philadelphia with former Attorney General Eric Holder, who was a surrogate for Kamala Harris. Holder argued that the Biden administration had benefited Black workers, but one voter firmly disagreed. He called it “wishful thinking” against “reality.” Many voters seemed to share that sentiment.
Meridith McGraw: Indeed, the economy and immigration were pivotal. I encountered numerous voters who, despite reservations about Donald Trump's personality, felt the pressure of financial insecurity—struggling to afford essentials or purchase homes—and believed their immigration concerns were dismissed by the left. Trump's team consistently claimed that if the election revolved around policy rather than personality, they would have the advantage. Their assessment appears to have been accurate.
Adam Wren: It varies depending on which part of the ticket we're examining. Many Democratic Senate candidates, even in defeat, outperformed Harris. I’ve spent a significant amount of time in Michigan since Labor Day, and candidates like Elissa Slotkin managed to win open Senate seats in states Trump previously flipped. Voters seemed to assign more blame to the Biden-Harris administration—Harris in particular—than to down-ballot Democrats.
Myah Ward: I agree with Holly and Meridith. While it felt like various factors were shifting momentum toward Harris in the final weeks—whether through the Madison Square Garden rally or discussions about democracy—it ultimately reverberated back to what plagued Joe Biden a year earlier: high living costs. Affording basic needs, raising children, and homeownership had all become more expensive. Voters reminisce about their financial situations before COVID during Trump's first term when they had more disposable income. As Democrats analyze their missteps, some criticism directed at Harris suggests she could have distanced herself from Biden more effectively.
Natalie Allison: Voter feedback throughout the year overwhelmingly highlighted dissatisfaction with the cost of living as their primary concern. However, Holly makes a valid point: Democrats now face the reality that their broader message to voters fell flat.
Otterbein: Adding to Meridith's comments, immigration—and the perception that global issues like wars or the Afghanistan withdrawal are spiraling out of control—was also a significant factor.
Ward: On immigration, it’s worth noting that Democrats took until this year to develop a cohesive argument, drawing from Rep. Tom Suozzi’s approach. Republicans have long been dominant in immigration messaging, and Democrats appeared to be playing catch-up.
Steiger: Let’s address a difficult topic: Harris performed worse than Hillary Clinton and significantly worse than Biden. Did race or gender play a role in her losses?
Otterbein: It's interesting that there's no consensus among Democratic women politicians and strategists on this issue. Some believe that gender—specifically sexism—contributed to her loss, while others argue that economic and immigration issues were more critical. Harris herself didn't emphasize her gender, yet she faced critiques regarding her rise to vice presidency being rooted in her identity.
Allison: It’s challenging for polls to capture this nuance accurately, and not everyone would openly discuss it. However, as the polls shifted to indicate a closer race once Harris was at the helm, it’s hard to dismiss the idea that sexism was a factor—many voters showed a preference for her over Biden. Yet, I’ve also spoken with voters who expressed discomfort with the idea of a female president.
McGraw: Many other factors were undoubtedly at play, such as her struggle to distance herself from Biden and articulate how her administration would differ.
Wren: As a white man from the Midwest, I’m aware that my perspective may not resonate with everyone. But, during my conversations with voters—especially white and older working-class women—I did hear gender-based criticisms of Harris, ranging from her voice to her laugh. While these issues likely had some impact, the broad losses for Democrats suggest that they were not the primary concern.
Ward: Building on Holly’s point, many female politicians and strategists indicate that sexism and racism pervade American politics, regardless of their views on the specific dynamics at play in Harris’ campaign against Trump. Pollsters and strategists have repeatedly highlighted Trump’s ability to leverage masculinity to bolster his appeal among male voters.
Steiger: Let’s revisit the assassination attempt, as it was such a striking moment for the campaign. Did it resonate with voters?
Otterbein: Absolutely. It incited outrage and galvanized Trump's base to mobilize.
Wren: One hundred percent. Holly is correct. The event reached beyond just his supporters. Even Jeff Bezos commented on X about Trump's "tremendous grace and courage under literal fire." It conferred a type of gravitas he had previously lacked. The rally's charged atmosphere contributed to a desire to return to Butler, Pennsylvania, to recapture that energy.
Otterbein: One of Trump's final ads prominently featured imagery of him with a raised fist—it was aimed at driving voter turnout.
McGraw: Reflecting on the RNC, that moment helped unify the party like never before. However, I was taken aback by how quickly it fell out of the conversation during the campaign.
Ward: That iconic image of him raising his fist was omnipresent right up until the end. Assessing the impact of that moment is challenging due to how swiftly events unfolded in the following days—a major assassination attempt that happened, the RNC in Milwaukee, and the subsequent withdrawal of Biden from the race to elevate Harris.
McGraw: That week will be remembered for its sheer chaos!
Allison: Indeed. For instance, when covering young Black voters in Georgia who were contemplating supporting Trump for the first time, I learned that discussions around his perceived victimization were prevalent at places like their gym. Young individuals who had never backed Trump before viewed the incident as evidence of a conspiracy against him, prompting a reconsideration of their support. Moreover, the assassination attempt led to endorsements for Trump from prominent independents like Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Steiger: Natalie, your point about RFK Jr. is intriguing. Did his candidacy ultimately matter?
Allison: Definitely. His candidacy served as an asset to Trump, as some Democrats feared from the beginning. Kennedy's support in the final stretch helped Trump appeal to independent voters, including suburban mothers concerned about childhood health. I spoke to voters who shifted to backing Trump due to RFK Jr.'s influence.
Steiger: Harris framed her closing argument against Trump around the theme of democracy. Was that a miscalculation?
Wren: In hindsight, it certainly appears so. She went from mocking him to labeling him as dangerous. I would have liked to see a scenario where she distanced herself from Biden earlier on economic issues to gauge its impact on voters. With only 107 days to present her case, it’s uncertain if it would have mattered.
Allison: Biden's messaging didn't resonate with the broader populace, and it evidently failed to sway enough moderates and Trump-skeptical Republicans she required.
McGraw: Some Democrats might argue that Harris needed to focus more on appealing to her base, but their data suggested that emphasizing democracy could draw some moderate Republicans and independents to their side. I’m curious how many voters ultimately held their nose and voted for Trump or abstained altogether.
Ward: The Democrats appeared divided on this in the campaign's final days. However, it’s important to note that democracy wasn’t the sole focus of her closing argument, particularly in battleground states during the last week. The mid-October campaign response also seemed reactive to the John Kelly report and Trump’s rhetoric about “enemies from within.” I can only speculate that Democrats would have voiced criticism if Harris hadn't responded to these events.
Steiger: To wrap up, what do you think was overrated? Perhaps something that received extensive news coverage but ultimately didn’t impact the outcome?
Ward: I've been reflecting on what this race reveals about future campaigns. Harris's campaign garnered substantial fundraising, showcased a strong ground game, and attracted significant endorsements—yet, in the end, how much did that matter? Social media has transformed political dynamics, and since 2015, Republicans have been ahead in this realm, establishing a formidable online presence across various platforms. I spoke with an immigration advocate recently who confirmed that Republicans are winning the online messaging battle.
Allison: When considering voter sentiment, the narratives surrounding Trump's rhetoric didn't sway many people. Journalists analyzed his language and noted his increased use of violent imagery, but ultimately, it made little difference. Most persuadable voters weren't taken aback by it.
Wren: I share Myah's concerns about fundraising and ground strategy. Harris collected a billion dollars; she ended up $20 million in debt. The Trump campaign maintained confidence that they had the resources for an effective race, while skeptics dismissed them. The questions surrounding Trump’s improvised campaign strategy existed, but Harris' campaign misjudged the landscape.
Moreover, I frequently think about the tumult of daily narratives—specific examples like Springfield, Ohio, and Trump’s unfounded claims about Haitian immigrants, alongside the Madison Square Garden rally. Both gained traction through memes and discussions, even among casual political followers. However, the perceptions they reinforced about Trump were already deeply ingrained in the electorate.
Otterbein: One question that lingers for me is whether the "garbage" comments somehow motivated some Latino voters to support Harris—though the overall impact evidently wasn’t substantial. Still, was highlighting that just a desperate last resort?
It struck me that on the eve before the election, Harris campaigned in two majority-Latino cities with AOC. Throughout the campaign, it was evident that Latino men were a vulnerable demographic for Harris, and her last 24 hours on the trail revealed just how aware they were of their precarious position.
Building on what Adam and Myah said about ground game, it raises the question of whether Harris genuinely had a superior ground effort. That was the assumption among political insiders, yet the decisive factor may have been Trump and the conservative social media/podcast ecosystem that energized Republican turnout. The data shows Republicans were particularly effective in boosting early voting this cycle. Doesn’t that imply a solid ground operation?
Emily Johnson contributed to this report for TROIB News
With the election now concluded, our politics editor Kay Steiger consulted five campaign reporters to reflect on the factors that truly influenced the results. As a hint, it wasn't the controversy surrounding a comedian's remarks about Puerto Rico or endorsements from celebrities that made the difference. The ground game may not have been the decisive factor either.
Steiger: Let’s start with the obvious: This was such a messy election cycle. The immediate analysis seems to be that this was primarily about the economy. Is that accurate, or are there other nuances?
Holly Otterbein: Democrats are just beginning to analyze the results and ponder these crucial questions. In Pennsylvania, where I’m based, inflation deeply concerned the voters I spoke to. We’ve experienced some of the worst food inflation in the country here, and working-class voters represent a significant part of the state's electorate.
Something that stands out to me: the Friday before the election, I attended a barbershop event in West Philadelphia with former Attorney General Eric Holder, who was a surrogate for Kamala Harris. Holder argued that the Biden administration had benefited Black workers, but one voter firmly disagreed. He called it “wishful thinking” against “reality.” Many voters seemed to share that sentiment.
Meridith McGraw: Indeed, the economy and immigration were pivotal. I encountered numerous voters who, despite reservations about Donald Trump's personality, felt the pressure of financial insecurity—struggling to afford essentials or purchase homes—and believed their immigration concerns were dismissed by the left. Trump's team consistently claimed that if the election revolved around policy rather than personality, they would have the advantage. Their assessment appears to have been accurate.
Adam Wren: It varies depending on which part of the ticket we're examining. Many Democratic Senate candidates, even in defeat, outperformed Harris. I’ve spent a significant amount of time in Michigan since Labor Day, and candidates like Elissa Slotkin managed to win open Senate seats in states Trump previously flipped. Voters seemed to assign more blame to the Biden-Harris administration—Harris in particular—than to down-ballot Democrats.
Myah Ward: I agree with Holly and Meridith. While it felt like various factors were shifting momentum toward Harris in the final weeks—whether through the Madison Square Garden rally or discussions about democracy—it ultimately reverberated back to what plagued Joe Biden a year earlier: high living costs. Affording basic needs, raising children, and homeownership had all become more expensive. Voters reminisce about their financial situations before COVID during Trump's first term when they had more disposable income. As Democrats analyze their missteps, some criticism directed at Harris suggests she could have distanced herself from Biden more effectively.
Natalie Allison: Voter feedback throughout the year overwhelmingly highlighted dissatisfaction with the cost of living as their primary concern. However, Holly makes a valid point: Democrats now face the reality that their broader message to voters fell flat.
Otterbein: Adding to Meridith's comments, immigration—and the perception that global issues like wars or the Afghanistan withdrawal are spiraling out of control—was also a significant factor.
Ward: On immigration, it’s worth noting that Democrats took until this year to develop a cohesive argument, drawing from Rep. Tom Suozzi’s approach. Republicans have long been dominant in immigration messaging, and Democrats appeared to be playing catch-up.
Steiger: Let’s address a difficult topic: Harris performed worse than Hillary Clinton and significantly worse than Biden. Did race or gender play a role in her losses?
Otterbein: It's interesting that there's no consensus among Democratic women politicians and strategists on this issue. Some believe that gender—specifically sexism—contributed to her loss, while others argue that economic and immigration issues were more critical. Harris herself didn't emphasize her gender, yet she faced critiques regarding her rise to vice presidency being rooted in her identity.
Allison: It’s challenging for polls to capture this nuance accurately, and not everyone would openly discuss it. However, as the polls shifted to indicate a closer race once Harris was at the helm, it’s hard to dismiss the idea that sexism was a factor—many voters showed a preference for her over Biden. Yet, I’ve also spoken with voters who expressed discomfort with the idea of a female president.
McGraw: Many other factors were undoubtedly at play, such as her struggle to distance herself from Biden and articulate how her administration would differ.
Wren: As a white man from the Midwest, I’m aware that my perspective may not resonate with everyone. But, during my conversations with voters—especially white and older working-class women—I did hear gender-based criticisms of Harris, ranging from her voice to her laugh. While these issues likely had some impact, the broad losses for Democrats suggest that they were not the primary concern.
Ward: Building on Holly’s point, many female politicians and strategists indicate that sexism and racism pervade American politics, regardless of their views on the specific dynamics at play in Harris’ campaign against Trump. Pollsters and strategists have repeatedly highlighted Trump’s ability to leverage masculinity to bolster his appeal among male voters.
Steiger: Let’s revisit the assassination attempt, as it was such a striking moment for the campaign. Did it resonate with voters?
Otterbein: Absolutely. It incited outrage and galvanized Trump's base to mobilize.
Wren: One hundred percent. Holly is correct. The event reached beyond just his supporters. Even Jeff Bezos commented on X about Trump's "tremendous grace and courage under literal fire." It conferred a type of gravitas he had previously lacked. The rally's charged atmosphere contributed to a desire to return to Butler, Pennsylvania, to recapture that energy.
Otterbein: One of Trump's final ads prominently featured imagery of him with a raised fist—it was aimed at driving voter turnout.
McGraw: Reflecting on the RNC, that moment helped unify the party like never before. However, I was taken aback by how quickly it fell out of the conversation during the campaign.
Ward: That iconic image of him raising his fist was omnipresent right up until the end. Assessing the impact of that moment is challenging due to how swiftly events unfolded in the following days—a major assassination attempt that happened, the RNC in Milwaukee, and the subsequent withdrawal of Biden from the race to elevate Harris.
McGraw: That week will be remembered for its sheer chaos!
Allison: Indeed. For instance, when covering young Black voters in Georgia who were contemplating supporting Trump for the first time, I learned that discussions around his perceived victimization were prevalent at places like their gym. Young individuals who had never backed Trump before viewed the incident as evidence of a conspiracy against him, prompting a reconsideration of their support. Moreover, the assassination attempt led to endorsements for Trump from prominent independents like Elon Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Steiger: Natalie, your point about RFK Jr. is intriguing. Did his candidacy ultimately matter?
Allison: Definitely. His candidacy served as an asset to Trump, as some Democrats feared from the beginning. Kennedy's support in the final stretch helped Trump appeal to independent voters, including suburban mothers concerned about childhood health. I spoke to voters who shifted to backing Trump due to RFK Jr.'s influence.
Steiger: Harris framed her closing argument against Trump around the theme of democracy. Was that a miscalculation?
Wren: In hindsight, it certainly appears so. She went from mocking him to labeling him as dangerous. I would have liked to see a scenario where she distanced herself from Biden earlier on economic issues to gauge its impact on voters. With only 107 days to present her case, it’s uncertain if it would have mattered.
Allison: Biden's messaging didn't resonate with the broader populace, and it evidently failed to sway enough moderates and Trump-skeptical Republicans she required.
McGraw: Some Democrats might argue that Harris needed to focus more on appealing to her base, but their data suggested that emphasizing democracy could draw some moderate Republicans and independents to their side. I’m curious how many voters ultimately held their nose and voted for Trump or abstained altogether.
Ward: The Democrats appeared divided on this in the campaign's final days. However, it’s important to note that democracy wasn’t the sole focus of her closing argument, particularly in battleground states during the last week. The mid-October campaign response also seemed reactive to the John Kelly report and Trump’s rhetoric about “enemies from within.” I can only speculate that Democrats would have voiced criticism if Harris hadn't responded to these events.
Steiger: To wrap up, what do you think was overrated? Perhaps something that received extensive news coverage but ultimately didn’t impact the outcome?
Ward: I've been reflecting on what this race reveals about future campaigns. Harris's campaign garnered substantial fundraising, showcased a strong ground game, and attracted significant endorsements—yet, in the end, how much did that matter? Social media has transformed political dynamics, and since 2015, Republicans have been ahead in this realm, establishing a formidable online presence across various platforms. I spoke with an immigration advocate recently who confirmed that Republicans are winning the online messaging battle.
Allison: When considering voter sentiment, the narratives surrounding Trump's rhetoric didn't sway many people. Journalists analyzed his language and noted his increased use of violent imagery, but ultimately, it made little difference. Most persuadable voters weren't taken aback by it.
Wren: I share Myah's concerns about fundraising and ground strategy. Harris collected a billion dollars; she ended up $20 million in debt. The Trump campaign maintained confidence that they had the resources for an effective race, while skeptics dismissed them. The questions surrounding Trump’s improvised campaign strategy existed, but Harris' campaign misjudged the landscape.
Moreover, I frequently think about the tumult of daily narratives—specific examples like Springfield, Ohio, and Trump’s unfounded claims about Haitian immigrants, alongside the Madison Square Garden rally. Both gained traction through memes and discussions, even among casual political followers. However, the perceptions they reinforced about Trump were already deeply ingrained in the electorate.
Otterbein: One question that lingers for me is whether the "garbage" comments somehow motivated some Latino voters to support Harris—though the overall impact evidently wasn’t substantial. Still, was highlighting that just a desperate last resort?
It struck me that on the eve before the election, Harris campaigned in two majority-Latino cities with AOC. Throughout the campaign, it was evident that Latino men were a vulnerable demographic for Harris, and her last 24 hours on the trail revealed just how aware they were of their precarious position.
Building on what Adam and Myah said about ground game, it raises the question of whether Harris genuinely had a superior ground effort. That was the assumption among political insiders, yet the decisive factor may have been Trump and the conservative social media/podcast ecosystem that energized Republican turnout. The data shows Republicans were particularly effective in boosting early voting this cycle. Doesn’t that imply a solid ground operation?
Emily Johnson contributed to this report for TROIB News
