The 2024 U.S. presidential election provided plenty of fodder for analysis, as early results began streaming in late on Election Day and the following day revealed significant shifts across various demographics and regions. While the bright red for Donald Trump across many states brought cheers to his supporters, the Democrats were left inspecting electoral maps for strategies to connect with distressed voters and minorities.
Watching the national narrative closely from the ground, observers noted Trump's sweeping victory didn’t just occur unintentionally or by sheer luck. Polls leading up to the election indicated the economy remained at the forefront of voters' minds, with many believing Trump had the know-how to bolster economic conditions compared to his opponent, Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris. This sentiment was prevalent not only among diehard Republican voters but even among some independents and disenchanted Democrats.
According to past surveys conducted by the Middle Tennessee State University Jones College of Business, approximately 43 percent of Tennessee business leaders held optimistic views for the following year, attributing their confidence to Trump’s economic policies during his prior presidency. Critics of the administration had consistently painted the Trump approach as reckless, yet the narrative did not stick for many voters who were feeling the pinch of rising costs. They connected their struggles at the grocery store and the gas station to the Biden-Harris economic policies, blaming them for substantial financial strain.
Exit polls offered even more insight, particularly the NBC ones, where around 77% of voters who deemed the economy as “poor” favored Trump. Even among those who identified their economic situation as “not so good,” Trump performed well, winning this demographic decisively. These results suggest voters were not swayed by Harris’s messages of opportunity and progress but rather responded to the acute sense of economic loss.
Democratic strategists now face the hard truth: they may have focused too heavily on social issues and not enough on the kitchen table concerns of Americans as exemplified by former Indiana State Representative John Gregg. He observed, “I think the Democrats truly thought what was going to deliver it this time was women and abortion, and it turned out not to be the case.”
Many local analysts observed the results also reached deep down to Indiana politics. Trump outperformed expectations for the Republican Party, securing Indiana with more than 19% over Harris, which represented not only progression from the last election but also set the tone for local and state politics by reinforcing the national Republican brand.
While Democratic candidates were laying out their bigger visions inspired by social themes, many of the working-class citizens were yearning for relief from inflated prices and teetering economic stability. Negative perceptions of the economy outweighed any feel-good statistics touted by Harris and Biden, shifting ballots toward the candidates promising relief.
Bridging the gap between perception and reality is easier said than done. The U.S. economy, broadly considered, has performed relatively well compared to many global counterparts. Inflation showed signs of recovery, unemployment rates lessened, and GDP growth presented solid figures. Yet, the prevailing feelings among voters told quite another story.
A significant portion of the working class felt disconnected from the successes touted by the Biden-Harris administration. The candidates’ messaging missed the mark for many who struggled with increasing costs on everyday goods, as showcased by professor Steven Webster, who asserted people are more likely to gauge the economy by their grocery bills rather than by printouts measuring gross domestic product.
“Donald Trump was able to appeal to voters’ frustrations over the rise in prices,” said Webster, reflecting on the situation. With more individuals feeling the pinch on their pockets than witnessing any economic gains, perhaps the Republican strategy proved effective, leaving Democrats to lament their approach.
Adding to this were very public splashes of political discord. Democrats including George Whitesides originated from behind the scenes, winning races against incumbents. Analysts noted these occurrences come paired with reminders of how the political discourse has become increasingly polarized, often centered around identity rather than economic conditions.
Harris' campaign made notable decisions, such as her outreach efforts to appeal to Republican voters, but this could have inadvertently watered down her resonance with the Democratic base. Several criticisms pointed to her decision to campaign with individuals like Liz Cheney—intended to build bridges—could have left some Democratic voters craving more connection to their party.
The tightrope along which Harris walked also reflected the broader challenges Democrats face nationally. The party, seen by many as the establishment, ran the risk of alienation among younger and more diverse voter segments just as they did with working-class constituents who felt overlooked on everyday economic issues.
Scrutiny of the economic messaging strategy from the party indicates there’s work to be done. Gregg starkly noted the party’s shift toward social issues may not serve them well if their traditional bases lose sight of economic survival needs, highlighting the evergreen point, “You’re not going to care about LGBTQ issues if you can’t put food on the table.”
Moving forward, there’s more work on the table for Democrats as Trump begins preparation for another term. The lessons captured from this election may serve as just the warning needed for Democrats as they turn the focus back to localized messaging targeted at kitchen-table issues to bridge the widening gap from enthusiastic voters feeling disillusioned.
With shifts like these, it’s no wonder the results also highlighted regional variations across various states—blue suburbs managed to hold their ground against red-dominant rural areas, but overall, Indiana found itself trending redder. More Republican strategies leaned heavily on targeting disillusioned voters willing to redirect their political interests.
Trump remains undeterred post-election, marking his agenda with economic resilience and steadfast improvements for the working classes, creating ripple effects extending beyond just the borders of Indiana as local politicos watch their neighboring districts and states for signs of significant voter feedback.
Although these insights are still tentative and only beginning to be unpacked, political commentators and analysts could alike find golden opportunities to repurpose the messaging strategy, deftly tapping avenues where the Democratic advantage can be seized, or they risk losing touch with increasingly volatile electorates.
The bottom line stands clear: the election didn’t just signal triumph for Trump; it illuminated the necessity for reorientation among opponents moving through fragmented identity issues to returning attention to those simplistic but impactful economic concerns impacting lives.
