Oliver Hall writes that poor messaging was not an obvious cause of Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump (I spent hours trying to persuade US voters to choose Harris not Trump. I know why she lost, 9 November). In fact, Democrat messaging is not bold enough. However, this is to be expected from a party that does not take bold action on the No 1 issue to voters: the economy.
I come from a low-income Mexican American family and community in San Diego. Non-college-educated voters in my community are very unhappy with their economic situation under Joe Biden. Most of them do not follow the news and are not fully aware of things that Trump has said and done in the past. I have also heard voters repeat rightwing talking points that they have watched on YouTube. There is very little to counter this propaganda.
Instead of reactively responding to Project 2025, where is the Democrats’ own Project 2025? Instead of defensively claiming not to be a socialist, why not point out that Trump’s popular Covid stimulus handouts are socialist and that we can offer more than that? It should not be news to Democrats that the phrase “there’s nothing we can do” is used in online mockeries of Democrat campaign slogans.
As a college-educated voter, I did not vote for either candidate, because the left wing has repeatedly told the Democratic government to cancel student debt, support universal healthcare, eliminate the filibuster, expand the court etc. At every turn, Democrats insist on the status quo, which tells me that they will not respond to anything except the rudest of wake-up calls. I hope this is the one.
Vanessa Torres
San Diego, California, US
I appreciated many of Oliver Hall’s points, though I did not agree with his conclusion. I agree that Donald Trump is a unique character, almost counterintuitively effective in garnering Americans’ support. But Hall fails to identify what Michael Tomasky well describes in a recent op-ed in the New Republic. Tomasky writes that billionaire-backed conservative information forces, led by Fox News and X, now command a larger audience than the mainstream media.
It’s well documented that totalitarian states control the delivery of information. In a uniquely American and democratic way, we have voluntarily created such a climate. Business actors fund and establish so-called news sources that tightly censor information. They oppose, belittle and silence opposition, and choose which politicians to support. As long as we have such a fractured “news” environment with little adherence to journalistic principles, and a population that forms its beliefs, opinions and actions from that, we’ll see little change.
David Hausam
Eugene, Oregon, US
The reason Donald Trump won is much more fundamental than anything I have read – much more primitive, in fact. It’s not the economy or the border, or guns or God. It’s all of that but none of that. It is simply this: he reaches people at a pre-rational level and makes them feel good about themselves. He validates their angers and their fears. He calms their anxieties and allays their worries. Truth, lies, facts and “alternative facts” do not matter. They are just the rationalisations that follow the emotions. The Democrats don’t get this.
Joao Resendes
Bristol, Rhode Island, US
Like Oliver Hall, I also made many calls for Kamala Harris to voters in swing states. No one mentioned her gender. I did speak to a lot of people who voted for Donald Trump the first time and Joe Biden the second time, but were too disillusioned with both parties to vote for anyone this time. Those folks often cited inflation and immigration as a reason why they couldn’t vote for Harris. Perhaps that’s why Harris underperformed Biden all over the country.
Stuart Bauchner
New York City, US
Oliver Hall’s article was a detailed and comprehensive description of the reasons to not vote for Kamala Harris. To me, the obvious conclusion is that the ordinary voter (including myself) is simply not informed enough to vote. We ask voters to vote on issues about which we have little or no understanding. In this election, two of the main issues were the economy and abortion. In spite of a keen interest in politics, I confess to knowing little or nothing about either of these issues – certainly not enough to have an informed enough opinion to vote. What do I know about the causes of inflation, the high price of petrol, groceries or medicine?
Currently, the voter is “informed” by the mass media and then offered “bribes” by elected representatives (politicians) appealing to the self-interest of the voter. All a power seeker needs is money and the media in order to manipulate the voter. That is exactly what Trump did. So, it is not a surprise to me that he has been re-elected.
We need to change the system so that the voter is informed by experts on different issues. Surely, on a given issue, a randomly selected “jury” of voters informed by experts for a few days would yield more reliable and representative decisions?
The problem is “infotainment”. The current role of the media is less to inform and much more to entertain in order to get clicks and make money. Hence “the news” has become a toxic diet of crime, conflict, scandal, violence and disasters. The presentation is sensationalist and hyperbolic. The media should stick to what it is good at: entertaining. News and the information for the voter should be provided by experts in the field, free from commercial pressure.
Don Nixon
Aberfoyle Park, South Australia
