One of the main talking-point takeaways from the election is that Democrats lost the working class. David Brooks, author and New York Times columnist, adds that Harris did worse among African Americans, women, young voters and Latino voters than President Biden in the last election.  

The South, middle America and the blue-wall states went for Trump. The Republican drumbeat continues to pound out one reason: Democrats’ focus on identity politics. In the echo chamber of politics, some on the left seem to be buying into this. This is the wrong lesson from the election.       

By taking a big dispassionate step back – of the sort that communicators should be doing for every project – nuanced conclusions that reflect complexity rather than simplify it are more likely to come into view.

Although these points aren’t easily reducible to headline stories, in the analysis of results three fundamental truths are being crowded out.  

The Results Were Close 

Although Trump won by a clear majority, it would be a mistake to look at this as a fundamental repudiation of the Democrats or endorsement of President-elect Trump. In each swing state the election was decided from no more than a few percentage points to tens of thousands of votes. 

Modest swings among independents, voters who leaned away from Harris to Trump, and those who did not show up, decided the election. Tempting as it may be, no one should be throwing the baby out with the bath water.                             

Trump Defined the Narrative  

It is a false narrative that the Democrats lost by leading with identity politics. The reality is that the Trump campaign applied this label, made it stick, and won partly as a result. Putting transgender and identity issues in the crosshairs of the campaign was a choice of the right not the left.   

Helio Fred Garcia provides powerful perspective on the targeting marginalized communities in his book “Words on Fire.” A clear failure of both Biden and Harris was not offering a compelling rejoinder and vision that brought more independents into their tent.  

The Battle Was Lost Before It Was Fought

Most battles are won or lost before they are fought. Better equipment, territory, more soldiers, a clear sense of purpose and strong morale are all keys to winning. 

In my recent CommPRO article on the importance of kitchen-table economics to the outcome of the election, I argued (along with many others) that inflation, high interest rates and the cost of living were major hurdles to Harris winning the election. And, that these issues went relatively un-addressed by Democrats – in part because despite messages to the contrary - objectively, the U.S. economy has remained strong.  

Beyond this, there are other ways the battlefield was tilted away from the incumbent party. Disinformation and polarization over the last decade have meant the ability to persuade based on facts and truth now seems like a quaint notion from another time. Given the power of Trump’s narrative in the economic and geopolitical context of the election, there’s an argument to be made that the fight, as it was fought, was lost before it even started.  

If we accept the basic premises that there was not a wholesale disavowing of Harris or Democrats, that President-elect Trump was successful in defining the Democrats with his audiences, and that the end-of-days messaging around the economy found fertile territory around kitchen tables, Harris’ loss, and the success of Trump, look largely like a failure of communications.

As professionals we know, and the election results underscore, the challenge of getting more people to vote for one candidate or another or choose a client’s products or services is complex and multidimensional. Recognizing the fundamental role of communications and storytelling to driving voting behavior during the election should be the starting point lessons learned and moving forward.