After the election results were still fresh, Democrats began their typical ritual of self-criticism. Despite Kamala Harris having once been a popular candidate, many were quick to argue she was not the right choice for President. Critics pointed out her perceived shortcomings: her coastal background, centrist positions, lack of a primary challenge, over-reliance on identity politics, and being too female.
This dissatisfaction was reminiscent of similar patterns in past elections, where Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and others were either criticized or initially deemed unsuitable for the role, only to eventually lead the party to electoral success. This constant struggle to find the “perfect” candidate seemed misplaced, as the Democrats’ ability to connect with voters did not necessarily depend on idealized candidate qualities.
Policy debates soon followed. As voices within the party scrambled to understand why Harris lost, many blamed her for focusing too heavily on issues like reproductive freedom and neglecting topics such as immigration, the Palestinian cause, and the economy. Her failure to address the concerns of various demographics, especially Black and Latino men, was also scrutinized.
However, these critiques did not align with the facts. Harris had consistently addressed issues such as illegal immigration, the economy, and the working-class struggles, presenting detailed plans and speeches on taxation and economic policies. The narrative that her campaign lacked substance was contradicted by her campaign’s comprehensive platform and clear policy positions.
Kamala Harris
So, why didn’t her detailed speeches resonate? Despite presenting well-researched plans, many voters continued to believe misinformation about her policies, particularly regarding Trump’s economic policies.
Studies from economists contradicted Trump’s promises of tax cuts and economic growth, yet many voters were swayed by the narrative that Trump had succeeded, while Biden’s policies had failed. Similarly, Biden’s presidency, despite passing significant domestic reforms, was dismissed as ineffective, showcasing the persistence of misinformed perceptions, even when facts were readily available.
During the post-election soul-searching, Democrats debated whether the problem lay in their “messaging” or ground game. However, Harris’s campaign had set records in fundraising, volunteer participation, and voter registration. The real issue, it seems, was the changing nature of how information is consumed.
The campaign’s messaging, which appealed to the middle class and tried to connect with voters on their terms, may have faltered because it failed to adapt to the rapidly evolving ways people receive information, especially in an age dominated by social media and digital platforms.
Harris had built much of her political success on micro-targeting—tailoring her message to very specific local communities in her past elections, a strategy that once proved effective in both her district attorney and attorney general campaigns.
However, the political environment had shifted dramatically. In the past, information flowed through local newspapers, TV, and other traditional channels, but now it spreads unpredictably via digital means, often through social networks where users encounter ideas from across the globe, rather than their immediate communities. This shift posed a challenge to Harris’s micro-targeting approach.
Kamala Harris
The advent of digital technology and social media has created a more fragmented and individualized way of receiving information. People are now less likely to receive news from their neighbors or local media and more likely to encounter information through algorithms, social networks, and digital platforms.
This “ambient” information, whether true or false, tends to spread rapidly and influences public perception. The problem with Harris’s campaign was that her detailed, policy-focused messaging had difficulty traveling in this new digital era, where ideas are disseminated less through community engagement and more through viral, often misinformed, networks.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s campaign capitalized on this shift by engaging with national audiences through social media and large rallies. His style was characterized by off-the-cuff remarks, identity-based appeals, and a focus on setting a “vibe” rather than delivering specific policy details.
His messages—often inflammatory or misleading—circulated widely on platforms like Fox News and Twitter, where they reached voters without the need for verification or fact-checking. Trump’s strength lay in his ability to manipulate the “ambience of information,” filling the digital space with messages that resonated with voters’ pre-existing beliefs, regardless of their accuracy.
This approach of planting ideas in the national consciousness contrasts with Harris’s micro-targeting strategy. While Harris focused on detailed, localized messaging, Trump relied on a broader, more scattered approach where ideas could take root simply by being repeated across various platforms.
This style of campaigning capitalized on the fragmented nature of modern information consumption, where ideas, true or not, become ingrained in voters’ minds through constant exposure. Trump’s success, in part, was driven by his ability to manipulate this new information environment, filling it with narratives that bypassed rational argumentation and instead played on emotional resonance and widespread repetition.
