The recently concluded 2024 presidential election between candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris left Americans exposed to vastly unequal narratives, a phenomenon detailed in “The Breakthrough,” a comprehensive polling initiative by CNN. This study aimed to gauge how the electorate encountered news and information about the two nominees throughout the campaign, concluding with illuminating insights from the final days of the election.
During the final pre-election survey conducted from November 1 to November 4, the striking choice of words associated with Trump was overwhelmingly negative, with “garbage” standing out prominently. This description linked to various incidents, including a disparaging joke made about Puerto Rico by a comedian at one of Trump’s rallies in Madison Square Garden, as well as Trump’s derogatory remark suggesting that the U.S. acts as “a garbage can for the world.” The culmination of such sentiments was notably represented at a staged press conference where Trump humorously drew parallels with the president by appearing inside a garbage truck, clad in a yellow safety vest. The utilization of this imagery in his campaign significantly overshadowed the narratives associated with Harris, which consisted largely of generic terms such as “campaign,” “rally,” and “ad.”
Conversely, the general momentum and themes outlining Harris’s campaign were perceived as less dynamic when compared to those of Trump. The overshadowing perception painted a picture where Trump’s campaign was considered more compelling, as the phrase “garbage truck” frequently appeared in connection with him, while Harris’s narrative tended to cluster around references to the “middle class.” Despite this contrast, the prevalence of mentions concerning Harris was about half of that for Trump, depicting her campaign as lacking a cohesive storytelling element that could sufficiently resonate with voters during the critical last week leading up to the election.
The data gathered from this initiative did not paint a straightforward portrait of Trump’s electoral pathway either, implying limitations on how a divided information landscape could sway voter preferences. A significant portion of respondents—approximately 80%—indicated in exit polls that their decisions had coalesced long before September. Conducted by SSRS and Verasight on behalf of CNN, Georgetown University, and the University of Michigan, the research encapsulated a microcosm of the electorate’s engagement with both candidates. It was indeed noteworthy that the single presidential debate held in September appeared to be a major focal point that garnered widespread attention.
Interestingly, the absence of a sustained narrative or negative motif surrounding either candidate was a recurring theme in the data. Historical parallels were drawn to the 2016 election, where researchers noted a similar dispersion of negative elements towards Trump that allowed him to maneuver through the media landscape. Yet, elements from 2024 illustrated that while no singular narrative attached itself firmly to Trump, overarching themes of “lie” emerged across most weeks during the election’s crucial final two months.
Harris, on the other hand, didn’t seem to yield any focal point that captivated voters’ attention similarly to how narratives about Hillary Clinton’s emails dominated perceptions in 2016. Over the survey period, approximately 76% of American adults reported having engaged with news surrounding Trump, while a slightly lower percentage reflected on Harris. Despite a closing gap in media attention as the election neared, Trump continued to dominate public discourse slightly more in the lead-up to Election Day.
Tracking sentiment analysis revealed further intriguing dynamics. Initially, responses to Harris were more favorable than Trump’s, but as the race moved toward its conclusion, this positive sentiment began to erode. For independent voters, engagement surrounding Trump remained predominantly negative, and any early edge Harris had in sentiment waned substantially over time. The findings from “The Breakthrough” provide crucial reflections on the communication strategies and electoral battles that defined the political landscape leading up to the 2024 election, all while contributing to an ongoing dialogue about voter perception, media influence, and campaign effectiveness.
