Here’s what really matters in political campaigns.
In the weeks leading up to the November election, many articles were written about the seeming strength of the Harris campaign compared to Trump’s.
Reuters reported that Harris spent $270 million in September alone, compared to Trump’s $78 million. The New York Times reported that Harris had the biggest fundraising quarter in history, while Trump was raising significantly less than during his 2020 run. Numerous headlines also touted Harris’ ground game advantage, ad buy edge, and her many celebrity endorsements.
Many Democrats were shocked by Kamala Harris’ loss. She was, as far as they could tell, doing all the things needed to win. Yet it turns out they were looking at the wrong signals. Donald Trump’s victory has a lot to teach us about his remarkable coalition, the country itself, and what really matters in political campaigns.
First, Trump’s win is a reminder that campaigns are about the issues voters care about — and in the case of the 2024 election, those were the economy, inflation, and immigration. A candidate cannot seek to avoid taking positions or flip-flopping on the issues that matter to Americans, as Harris seemed to be doing in the eyes of many voters. In contrast, while a lot of Americans didn’t agree with everything Trump said or did, they knew where he stood, viewed him as someone who had the courage of his convictions, and perceived him as someone who would deliver results on the concerns that mattered most to them.
Second, campaigns are about the candidates. The best “ground game” on earth is simply a candidate people want to vote for. Kamala Harris failed to convince enough Americans that she would make their lives better, and no amount of door-knocking or phone-banking was going to change that.
To be fair, Donald Trump’s victory doesn’t make everything he did brilliant, nor does Kamala Harris’ loss make everything she did a mistake. But the outcome of this race should absolutely impact our perceptions about what works and doesn’t in modern American politics.
Take the candidates’ two different media approaches. Harris began her campaign by largely avoiding unscripted interviews. While she opened up later in the campaign, she focused primarily on mainstream programs like 60 Minutes and The View, with a few notable exceptions like the Call Her Daddy podcast.
Trump, on the other hand, acted from day one to reach voters wherever they were. He appealed constantly to his existing base of support with interviews with Fox News, AM radio hosts like Hugh Hewitt, and conservative websites like Breitbart. He also sought to grow support among certain groups, such as young men, by appearing on the platforms they follow, including podcasts like Barstool Sports, comedian Theo Von and, most infamously, Joe Rogan. Consider that Harris’ 60 Minutes interview averaged 5.7 million viewers, whereas Trump’s Rogan interview racked up 50 million views on YouTube alone.
Trump’s knack for reaching voters is also evident in his earned-media approach, which contrasts powerfully with Harris’ paid media efforts. While Harris was outspending him on ads by hundreds of millions of dollars, Trump was earning hundreds of millions of views in free coverage by scooping French fries at McDonalds, driving a garbage truck in Wisconsin, and holding rallies in traditionally blue states where previous Republican nominees for president would never campaign.
I wrote a column during the election that highlighted Trump’s purported polling gains among key demographics, most notably among Black, Hispanic, and young voters. It turns out, the polls understated how effectively he was winning over these traditionally Democratic groups, particularly with men.
Exit polls show that Trump won Latino men by 12 points, a staggering 35-point swing from his performance with the group in 2020. In majority-Black counties, Trump gained almost three points, and in counties with younger populations, he gained 5.3 points. Trump gained with “seemingly every possible grouping of Americans,” according to The New York Times.
While Trump’s media approach and his advantage on the issues explains some of this, it can’t fully account for such a remarkable swing. Something bigger is happening in America when a convicted felon can significantly grow his support from previous years.
Here, I would again point back to my column during the campaign: Trump has a unique bond with voters. It’s owed to what they see as his authenticity, his relentlessness, and to their overwhelming distrust in virtually every established institution in society. In the eyes of many, Trump is hated by all the right people. The more his critics hem and haw about him, the more his supporters think he must be doing something right.
Harris, I believe, misread the trend in our culture. Her celebrity endorsements, for example, likely did more to harm than help her. While many Americans think Hollywood is great for entertainment, they do not like celebrities telling them who to vote for or how to think. Placing such an emphasis on celebrity appeal comes off as out of touch and elitist — two things you don’t want to be when trying to win midwestern states, or most other places.
Going forward, it is impossible to say how this race will continue to change politics. Will Democrats rebuild their working-class coalition? Will Republicans maintain their appeal when Trump is out of the picture? Will future campaigns adopt the earned-media, podcast-heavy approach that Trump used to his advantage?
All we can say for certain is that this election — and the two starkly different approaches of these campaigns — will be studied and discussed for generations to come.
Matt Terrill is the managing partner of Firehouse Strategies and served as the chief of staff on Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign.
