How the Media and Democrats Missed the Mark on the U. S. Election, Again…

By Suzanne Kianpour

As the dust settles after the U.S. election, Kamala Harris’s loss serves as a stark reminder that the media remains disconnected from the issues shaping American voters’ choices. Much like in 2016, this election exposed a profound gap between media narratives and the real concerns that drove Americans to the polls.

Reporters focused on poll numbers and personalities but overlooked the underlying anxieties and priorities of an electorate divided over safety, economic survival, and an overstretched foreign policy.

In recent months, as I engaged with voters across battleground states, I heard recurring frustrations from business owners and families grappling with rising crime, inflation, and escalating international conflicts that felt increasingly distant from their own lives. This isn’t an electorate easily boxed into political stereotypes. One psychologist in Arizona, a lifelong Democrat, said she voted for Trump after an assassination attempt against him, citing how his immediate, composed response conveyed a strength she didn’t see from Harris’s platform. For her, it was a defining moment that underscored Trump’s ability to respond to crises with confidence.

This coalition of Trump voters extended beyond the expected rural or Republican strongholds. New York provided a striking example. Data from precincts across the city showed Trump’s appeal reached beyond “Red America,” drawing in a varied coalition traditionally associated with Democratic voting patterns. Trump captured nearly 45% of the Jewish vote in New York, marking a 50% increase from 2020. In traditionally Democratic areas like the Bronx and Queens, his support surged by 35% and 16.5%, respectively. These numbers reflected a dissatisfaction with the current political climate that cut across party lines. Trump’s “America First” message, paired with a strong national security posture, resonated with voters who felt increasingly vulnerable in a world marked by instability and economic strain.

One of the most significant shifts came from Arab American voters, particularly in Dearborn, Michigan, which has one of the largest Arab American populations in the country. Dearborn, which overwhelmingly voted for Biden in 2020, saw Trump win 46.8% of the vote this time around, while Harris garnered only 27.8%, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein took 22%—a stark departure from 2020’s Democratic dominance in the area. Arab Americans in Dearborn, frustrated by Harris’s stance on foreign policy, especially the U.S. response to the Israel-Gaza conflict, expressed feelings of alienation. This sentiment mirrored a broader trend: a recent poll by the Arab American Institute found Arab Americans almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, a shift from their historical Democratic alignment. This divide has been fueled in part by dissatisfaction with Democratic foreign policy.

Just how significant a role U.S. foreign policy played in voters’ decisions in this election cannot be underestimated. I recently spoke with a Muslim American woman, a doctor who wore a hijab, who had voted early for Trump from her home in Michigan. She said she hadn’t wanted to vote at all, feeling both candidates “hate us,” but as a swing-state voter, she felt she had to make a choice. Her reasoning? She worried Russia or North Korea would attack under what she perceived would be a “weak” President Harris. So even though she believed Trump might reinstate a Muslim ban, she voted for what she saw as the candidate best positioned to keep America safe.

Meanwhile, individuals inside Iran have sent me messages celebrating Trump’s win, hoping he will take action against the oppressive Islamic Republic regime. Iran’s leadership feared a Trump return so much that they attempted to influence and infiltrate his campaign, as reported by The Telegraph. 
A significant factor driving these shifts was social media’s role in shaping perceptions and directing voter attention. While pundits focused on celebrity endorsements, Trump’s digital team deployed hyper-targeted marketing strategies designed to reach niche communities across platforms. Social media platforms like Facebook and X have honed algorithms to deliver content tailored to individuals’ concerns, creating echo chambers where fears are amplified. Research from the University of North Carolina found that these micro-targeted campaigns on platforms like Instagram and YouTube had a strong impact on younger and minority voters, groups often overlooked by traditional media.

In parts of the country, inflation is so high it feels like you breathe, and you’ve spent $100. As voter anger simmers, many Americans pointed out that their tax dollars are going to foreign wars and supporting undocumented immigrants instead of addressing domestic issues. For many, this is what it ultimately comes down to—a sense that their economic struggles are overlooked in favor of foreign policy agendas they feel detached from. Trump’s message tapped directly into this sentiment, contrasting sharply with Harris’s approach, which some saw as overly focused on inclusivity without addressing their immediate economic pain.

Hollywood endorsements, once influential, now rarely sway voters. Endorsements by celebrities have been replaced by podcasters and independent digital creators, whose relatability strikes a chord with the modern voter. This shift underscores a move away from celebrity authority toward voices that reflect the lived experiences of everyday Americans. Today, people tune in not to see which celebrity supports a candidate, but to hear podcasters and creators who engage directly with topics like inflation, foreign policy, and economic insecurity.

Meanwhile, the role of newspaper endorsements is increasingly questioned. Why, on every other day of the year, are newspapers supposed to maintain non-partisanship and objectivity—only to set those principles aside to endorse a candidate on Election Day? This contradiction has not gone unnoticed by voters who view it as a subtle form of bias within media institutions. In an age when trust in media is already under scrutiny, newspaper endorsements can feel outdated and out of touch, further alienating a public that is already skeptical of the media’s priorities.

Reflecting on 2016, I remember traveling with Hillary Clinton as part of her press corps. All of the polls had her winning, but when I got to Pennsylvania and did some original reporting, everyone I spoke to was voting for Trump. I came back and told my team I wasn’t so sure she had it in the bag. They scoffed at me and pointed to the polls, confident in their predictions. Yet on election night at the Javits Center, the mood quickly shifted from a celebratory atmosphere to a somber one, almost like a morgue, as we scrambled to change all the coverage we had planned for the first female president of the United States.

The American electorate is evolving, and it’s time for the media to pay attention. Understanding Trump voters goes beyond perpetuating outdated stereotypes; it requires exploring a coalition driven by economic insecurity, personal safety concerns, and America’s role on the world stage. As we look to the future, journalists must reconsider their approach or risk alienating an audience that’s already made itself heard, loud and clear, in 2024.