Who else but you?: Communication, a Dominant Factor in the United States Elections

Communication emerged as the most important and unifying factor in the U.S. presidential race, surpassing electoral platforms and specific policies. The Democrats struggled to establish a consistent tone and lacked the momentum that their opponent was able to generate. Much like in other Western democracies, American voters have come to identify their political views with just a few overarching issues—vaguely defined and increasingly personal. In this “Bowling Alone” era, as aptly described by Putnam, narratives, slogans, and imagery have become the most potent electoral tools, forging seemingly personal connections with voters. Those who master this approach have claimed victory in the Electoral College.

On November 9, 2016, analysts pointed to social media, particularly Facebook, as a critical element in Donald J. Trump’s election as the 45th president of the United States. That same morning, The New York Times rhetorically asked, “Why did Trump win?” Yet, even Nate Cohn at The Upshot couldn’t craft a comprehensive answer, concluding simply, “Uncertainty triumphed over policy.” Eight years later, that question is no longer rhetorical, and the answer is far less uncertain: nearly 75 million Americans found the certainty they craved in the slogan “Make America Great Again.”

Some analysts have linked the changes in campaign strategies to an oversimplified understanding of voters’ political reasoning and the influence of neuropolitics. However, attributing the shift in how campaigns are conducted solely to political marketing is overly simplistic. This perspective neglects the broader social and demographic factors that influence every election. Voter circumstances, including factors like their generation, information access, and frustration levels, offer important clues. Additionally, it’s essential to consider each campaign’s specific context.

The (Biden) Harris vs. Trump race was unusually prolonged (or short, depending on how you view it). While presidential campaigns, especially in fundraising, rarely take a break and effectively create a constant perma-campaign, historically, they don’t typically escalate until the party nomination races. Even midterm elections are often treated more as procedural events than political ones. However, the midterm climate from two years ago and Trump’s re-election announcement just ten days later defied that pattern. It transformed what was once a low-frequency campaign into a full-blown, polarized rally from the start, marking a significant shift in campaign strategy.

Two years of constant campaign noise can be exhausting for both voters and candidates, even for the one in the Oval Office, which has its own unique challenges. This fatigue partly explains the intensity of the political debates we have witnessed. The other factor is Trump’s narrative strategy: a simplified focus on a few key issues, tied to three core messages, adapted depending on the location. Democrats, recognizing both the campaign dynamics and voter context, either struggled to break away from this narrative or chose to go along with it.

Social media, more than any other platform, captures this high-stakes framework. This was evident during the only debate between the candidates (and that’s likely why there weren’t more): in more measured environments, narratives built around a handful of messages falter. Meanwhile, digital platforms have their own rules regarding message length and format, which inevitably shape the narrative. According to Pew Research Center and the Marshall German Fund data, nearly half of U.S. adults get their news primarily from social media. That explains why both parties went all-in on these platforms for this election, marking a significant shift from past races (including 2016).

From a communication (and electoral) perspective, one of social media’s greatest assets is its nearly infinite audience segmentation—essentially, voter segmentation, especially targeting the coveted undecideds and key Republican victory groups: middle-aged, working-class white Americans, as well as Latino and Black men in so-called “swing states.” Both Harris and Trump knew that in addition to their “analog campaigns” in the now-famous seven states, they needed to focus heavily on platforms like TikTok and Instagram to reach their most likely supporters, followed by specific strategies for X and YouTube.

Setting aside algorithm theories, it is clear that the digital campaign significantly favored Trump. Perhaps the discrepancies in Democratic polling arose from an overly traditional approach. While Harris surrounded herself with prominent figures like Taylor Swift, Oprah, Los Tigres del Norte, Bruce Springsteen, and Beyoncé, Trump’s campaign created a powerful “phygital” community across the country. This illustrates a key advantage of digital communication: the ability to amplify messages more quickly, loudly, and effectively through a network of third-party voices. A focused strategy that highlighted a few major issues tied to no more than three core messages proved to be a successful formula.

Trump’s campaign team displayed a simple but effective strategy. According to Gallup’s first 2024 poll, the top concerns for Americans (especially “Real America”) were immigration, federal management, and the economy—in other words, insecurity, distrust, and pessimism. In times of fragility, there’s nothing more human than the need for comfort. Who else but you? “Make America Great Again” was seen by voters as a remedy to these issues, more of a solution than a promise. It’s a slogan that combines narrative and symbolism. Just as Sorkin captured in The West Wing, where candidate Santos resisted being defined by his race, the Harris campaign—or the Democratic Party itself—focused more on polling numbers than crafting a story around her. After all, wasn’t Harris, a prosecutor (security) with more state than federal experience (proximity) and a self-made career (optimism), ripe for the American electoral mythology?

If communication was the “dominant” factor in this presidential race, its role post-election is just as critical. Effective communication, essential for organizational growth, will be even more important in a “Trump 2.0” scenario. The private sector needs to align itself with the new administration before January 20. Especially if, with all branches of power under Republican control, we witness a full MAGA program rollout. Just as communication has already blurred almost every boundary, the interests of U.S. organizations (and anyone operating in that market) now follow a global logic.