Out of Touch: How the Media and Democrats Missed the Mark on the U.S. Election, Again
Why Ignoring Voter Concerns on Safety, Economy, and Foreign Policy Cost Democrats the Election
As the dust settles post-election, Kamala Harris’s loss underscores a troubling disconnect between media narratives and the real concerns driving Americans to the polls. Much like 2016, this election has once again exposed a gap between what the media focuses on and the priorities of voters grappling with issues around economic survival, personal safety, and an overstretched foreign policy. Instead of connecting to these anxieties, reporters were preoccupied with poll numbers and personalities—missing the motivations behind the electorate’s choice. News with Suz went live on Instagram and connected directly with voters and our international audience as the results came in
In recent months, as I talked to voters in battleground states, I heard recurring frustrations: concerns over rising crime, inflation, and international conflicts that felt increasingly distant. These are voters who don’t fit political stereotypes. A psychologist in Arizona, a lifelong Democrat, said she voted for Trump after an assassination attempt against him, finding his response a rare display of strength she didn’t feel from Harris’s platform. For her, this moment revealed Trump’s ability to respond to crises with confidence—a quality she felt was essential in uncertain times.
Trump’s coalition extended beyond rural or Republican areas, reaching traditionally Democratic strongholds like New York. His support surged in precincts across the city, including the Bronx and Queens, where dissatisfaction cut across party lines. His "America First" message resonated with voters feeling left out by a Democratic platform they saw as unresponsive to their economic and safety concerns. This trend wasn’t isolated; in Dearborn, Michigan—a city with one of the largest Arab American populations in the U.S.—Trump won 46.8% of the vote. Many cited frustration over Harris’s foreign policy stance, especially regarding the U.S. response to the Israel-Gaza conflict. A recent poll from the Arab American Institute showed a significant shift: a group once aligned with the Democrats now nearly split between the parties.
Foreign policy took center stage in a way many hadn’t anticipated. One Muslim American woman from Michigan, a doctor who wears a hijab, told me she reluctantly voted for Trump despite believing he might reinstate a Muslim ban. Her reasoning? She feared Harris’s administration would leave America vulnerable to foreign threats, opting for the candidate she saw as tougher on national security.
Social media magnified these sentiments, providing a platform for Trump’s hyper-targeted digital strategy to reach niche audiences. Unlike celebrity endorsements, which have lost their pull, independent creators and podcasters now sway modern voters by discussing the issues that matter to them: inflation, foreign policy, and economic instability. Research from the University of North Carolina found that micro-targeted campaigns on platforms like Instagram and YouTube strongly influenced younger and minority voters—groups often overlooked by traditional media.
With inflation and economic pain intensifying across the country, many Americans feel their tax dollars are wasted on foreign interventions rather than domestic issues. Voters feel abandoned by a government seemingly more focused on inclusivity abroad than on economic relief at home, a sentiment Trump’s message tapped into directly. As voters become increasingly disillusioned with mainstream media, they’re turning to podcasters and creators for news they can trust, seeking voices that reflect their experiences rather than celebrity endorsements or newspaper editorial boards.
This shift raises a fundamental question: why do newspapers strive for objectivity year-round, only to endorse a candidate on Election Day? In an age when trust in the media is already shaky, endorsements from traditional news sources feel outdated and out of touch. The American electorate is evolving, and if the media doesn’t adapt, they risk alienating an audience that is already speaking out—loud and clear. Reflecting back on my time with Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, I remember how the polls assured us of her victory, but on the ground, a different story was emerging—one that the press corps largely ignored. That night at the Javits Center, as celebrations turned somber, the gap between media expectations and reality couldn’t have been clearer.
Understanding Trump voters goes beyond outdated stereotypes; it requires engaging with a coalition driven by economic insecurity, personal safety concerns, and America’s role on the world stage. The media must adjust or risk missing the story yet again.