It is probably far too early to assess the reasons for the result in this week’s US Presidential and Legislature elections. However, one possible reason for the result from the early analysis stands out for me and is very relevant to the ideas I share with you.

Much of the narrative before the election from Democrats was on the personal shortcomings of Donald Trump and his VP pick JD Vance.

But did electors care about that narrative?

In the early exit polls on Tuesday, 31% of voters cited the economy as one of their biggest concerns as they voted. A lot of the anecdotal evidence leading up to the election seemed to be that people didn’t feel better off under the current leadership, and their perception of critical economic metrics didn’t correlate with the actual figures.

Watching from afar, I didn’t see Kamala Harris’s campaign effectively address this. The thought seemed to be that it would be enough to shine a light on Trump and Vance personally. One of the key criticisms of Harris was that she avoided detailed policy announcements, and it was notable that she refused to countenance any changes to Biden’s approach when pressed.

Meanwhile, at every MAGA rally, Trump asked his supporters, “Do you feel better off than four years ago?” The response each time was a resounding “No!”

If we want to influence people, we need to meet them where they are, not where we want them to be, or think they should be. Listening genuinely to learn and understand and then responding directly to voters’ concerns has to create more cut-through. Yet it seems to be something that politicians are afraid to do.

In simple business terms, Harris’s campaign tried to sell something that her potential customers simply weren’t in the market for. She pitched, rather than engaging, listening and responding accordingly.

As a result, she didn’t make the sale.