What would it take to win this presidential election?
By Renae Cowley & Frank Pignanelli
Presidential politics is increasingly dominating discussions among political insiders. Although our deadline was before the historic debate, we reviewed topics in those conversations.
Despite being the oldest Republican nominee in our nation’s history, a recent Deseret News/Harris X poll shows 60% of Utahns are not concerned with former President Donald Trump’s age (78). Why are voters not troubled by the possibility of a geriatric president?
Cowley: This survey is less about age and more about how one ages. Trump’s voice is raspier and he rambles more, but compared to the cognitive decline America witnessed from President Joe Biden, Trump is far more mentally fit.
In his interview with Theo Von, Trump shared his personal testimony for sobriety. He’s an avid golfer and stays active for someone his age. These things contribute to the physical and mental fitness required for holding the highest office.
Voters seem to believe that when it comes to Trump, “age ain’t nothin’ but a number.”
Pignanelli: “You can’t help getting older, but you don’t have to get old.”— George Burns
Born in the Eisenhower administration, I was initially warmed by the survey results. However, those respondents also supported a maximum age limit of 65 years for officeholders. (Ouch!)
Such contradictions in public opinion are prevalent in politics. Utahns are surrounded by political, religious and community leaders of advanced age who exhibit energy, judgment and relevancy. Voters will simultaneously detail hypothetical concerns but support older leaders not succumbing to natural declination. They see Trump — regardless of opinions — exuding strength and bearing daily.
Thus, we oldsters can avoid critiques by maintaining vitality. Otherwise, Renae and her generation will send me out to pasture.
Polling methodology is one of the most hotly debated campaign roles in our industry, and like meteorology, it can only be proven correct after it is too late. Some pollsters are showing a change in the presidential political tides while also adjusting their methodology. Should Utahns believe these early political prognostications?
Cowley: My pollster pals insist their craft is more accurate than ever before. It remains an ever-evolving science.
Recently The New York Times/Siena poll adjusted its methodology. If a respondent said they supported Trump and then hung up (often accompanied with an expletive), it wouldn’t be counted, since they didn’t complete the full interview. That led to skewed results against Trump, even if only by a point or two. They have since adjusted their methodology.
Nate Silver, a prominent pollster, is a canary in the coal mine. He was the first to signal a slowing and even decline in Harris’ election forecast. “Forecast” is just pollster mumbo-jumbo for how they apply statistical nerdiness to predict the election outcome, not just how people feel this week. I trust Silver because his commitment is to mathematical accuracy, not to party bosses. More polls, including The New York Times, are starting to show similar findings — they are onto something.
Pignanelli: Manufacturers and retailers possess a pulse on their success, as reflected in consumer purchases. Political operatives attempt to retrieve the same information through polling. But 21st century lifestyles reject the traditional sampling, thereby explaining incorrect predictions of presidential elections since 2016. Cellphones, internet interactions and weighting of demographic groups help garner trends. But caution is urged because in today’s world of social media and 15-minute news cycles, voters’ reactions can change while completing a ballot.
If we were consulting either presidential campaign, what advice would we impart?
Cowley: Team Harris should fire the “Hamilton” (the musical) version of Aaron Burr as their consultant. “Talk less, smile more” is a short-sighted strategy that may have earned her an early lead but is not a long-term winning strategy. Playing the generic candidate only gets you so far. Voters deserve to hear from Harris directly about her policies — to use my favorite idiom, straight from the horse’s mouth.
Team Trump should heed the wisdom of one of my most valued political advisers: “It’s politics, it’s not personal.” Trump should stop talking about Harris as a person: her laugh, her family and, for the love of all that is holy, her heritage. He should focus on the failures of the Biden/Harris administration, especially the border crisis under her direct leadership, as well as the significant ambiguity of her policy positions.
Pignanelli: The winner of this election will be the campaign committing the fewest errors.
Everyone in Trumpland is screaming the same advice. Do not use 2016 campaign tactics in 2024. Harris is not Hillary Clinton. Play to your strengths as the nervousness about Harris’ prior progressive stances lingers. Talk about only those (especially immigration, Medicare expansion, etc.) in comparison to the strong economy under your administration. Avoid personal insults. Discipline will equal positive outcomes.
Harris deftly pivoted from Biden with a joyous aura, yet crucial slices of persuadable voters want to learn more about her. But they have no affection for the hard-left-wing progressive dogma that has infected the party, and she must distant herself from these fringe purists. Americans do not want a president fostering ideological police scrutinizing their words for unintentional mistakes. They are suspicious of expansive government programs and prefer effective governance. Again, discipline matters.