In a landmark election year, with global attention on the U.S. Presidential election, Signify pioneered a novel approach to understand what truly matters to voters - by moving beyond traditional candidate-focused polling.

The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election was a nail-biter and results remained too close to call for days. This year, there was a significant shift: Trump won and increased his support from 74 to 76 million votes nationwide, while Kamala Harris saw a collapse in support, receiving 7 million fewer votes than Joe Biden did in 2020. In less than 12 hours, it was all over — Donald Trump had won.

Pollsters and analysts, anticipating a race as close as 2020, underestimated the extent of dissatisfaction with the incumbent administration. Although Biden’s decision not to run should have given Harris a fresh start, Trump successfully ran on change, while Harris struggled to strike the right balance. Her efforts to distance herself from the Biden administration subtly—without directly addressing the topic—resulted in a strategy focused on changing the subject.

Our data clearly shows that, while Biden was still in the race, the economy was voters' top concern. However, once Harris became the candidate, the national conversation shifted to reproductive rights and democracy. Once perceived as a strength in messaging, this shift ultimately became Harris’s biggest miscalculation. She moved the media conversation while voters remained fixated on their economic woes.

Leveraging Signify’s advanced machine learning technology, we analysed the most widely engaged news stories on key policy issues published by local media and shared across social platforms. We also tracked the attention surrounding each candidate—not favourability, but the overall level of attention they have received. Beginning with data from the run-up to July and following trends each month since, our analysts identified policy issues that resonated with undecided or swing voters in four key battleground states.

Pennsylvania

Leading up to October, Pennsylvania’s primary concerns centred on inflation, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the protection of reproductive rights. The Democrats made a notable effort change narratives on the economy but one name soon overshadowed these efforts: Elon Musk.

Musk dominated media engagement in the weeks before the vote. Coverage was mixed, but the $1 million lottery generated strong local interest, alongside legal action.

Musk and his team were remarkably disciplined in responding to questions about their work, and the chaos surrounding their team by asserting the importance of electing Trump to save democracy and protect the constitution.

Arizona

Arizona remains one of the pivotal swing states directly affected by the central policy issues of this election. Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Arizona joined 15 other states in banning abortion and briefly reinstated an 1864 law, which was subsequently repealed by the state Senate. On November 5th, Arizona voters had the chance to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution—a key issue alongside ten other ballot measures. Our data consistently highlights abortion as one of the most significant concerns for Arizona voters.

Until August, the economy and inflation were top issues for Arizona residents. In September, we observed widespread coverage of Phoenix’s rapid economic growth, which contrasted with inflation concerns that might otherwise reflect poorly on the incumbent administration. Similarly, anti-immigration narratives gained traction leading up to July, though these were quickly overshadowed by Trump’s false claims about immigrants harming pets in Ohio.

Our data suggests that Democrats worked strategically to reshape the narrative around the economy and frame this election as critical for reproductive rights. This shift likely boosted Senator Ruben Gallego (D) in winning the state against Kari Lake and contributed to the passage of the abortion measure on the ballot. Despite these efforts, CNN’s exit polls indicate that over 80% of voters had chosen their presidential candidate before August, meaning the final weeks of the campaign were not sufficient to secure a win for the Harris-Walz ticket in Arizona. This election also saw record levels of ‘ticket-splitting’ with millions of Arizona voters opting for a harshly anti-immigrant Presidential candidate, at the same time as enshrining abortion rights, reflecting the ability of voters to think tactically about their personal priorities.

Georgia

In Georgia, inflation, minimum wage concerns, and interest in Trump’s "Agenda 47" initially dominated the conversation. However, with Vice President Harris’s announcement of her candidacy, the focus shifted abruptly to reproductive rights. The tragic death of Amber Thurman, who was denied medical care after a failed abortion due to restrictive state laws, profoundly impacted public opinion. Democrats campaigned vigorously on protecting abortion rights, with Harris asserting that different laws could have saved Thurman’s life. Although Democrats appeared to successfully shift the narrative in Georgia, issues like the cost-of-living crisis remained underreported in local media.

Immigration also remained a focal point, particularly following the Laken Riley case, in which a 22-year-old nursing student was killed by an individual who had crossed the U.S. border illegally. JD Vance’s visit to South Georgia, where he highlighted border security and drug trafficking concerns, garnered significant attention.

Additionally, Georgia stood out due to extensive media coverage of the fake electors case. Former Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade made headlines, particularly after news of his affair with District Attorney Fani Willis—who is prosecuting Trump for allegedly interfering in the 2020 election—surfaced. This development drew widespread attention and potentially impacted public perception of the prosecution’s case.

North Carolina

In North Carolina, misinformation has been notably prevalent, with viral fake news stories frequently making mainstream headlines. Many of these stories have a Republican slant, highlighting the influence of the MAGA sphere in the local media landscape.

However, a scandal involving Mark Robinson, the Lieutenant Governor (R) who was found to have posted misogynistic and racist comments on a porn site, has overshadowed many policy discussions and instances of disinformation. 

Media coverage of recent hurricanes also gained significant traction, with widespread reporting on FEMA’s efforts and the government’s push to curb misinformation to facilitate effective aid distribution. Robinson’s absence from a critical vote that would have declared North Carolina in a state of emergency and expedited aid drew major public disapproval, becoming one of the most viral stories. We accurately anticipated that Robinson would lose the Governor's race; however, the spread of Republican misinformation breaking out of echo chambers and into mainstream discourse remained a significant concern.

Conclusion

This election has been a wake-up call for pollsters: voters are less swayed by last-minute campaign blunders, and fewer are making decisions at the last moment. Our technology tracks issue trends over time, identifies viral moments, and pinpoints messaging that may need reinforcement.

Coverage of key policy issues goes beyond candidate personas to reveal the strategic efforts behind each campaign and assess the impact of any missteps. Rather than merely predicting outcomes, we focus on identifying the issues most likely to shape voter behaviour, offering campaigns insights on which topics resonate, where to apply pressure, and how to mitigate risks.

This election has also highlighted a revival of ticket-splitting. In 2020, split ticket voting in House races hit historic lows, marking an unusually unified election cycle. In 2016, no state chose a Senator from a different party than their presidential preference, and in 2020, Maine’s Republican Senator Susan Collins was the sole exception, winning despite her state’s support for the opposite presidential candidate. The return to ticket-splitting in 2024 with four Democrat Senate wins in states carried by Trump shows that voters are informed and discerning, making choices based on policies and candidate qualities rather than party loyalty. It underscores the need for highly targeted campaigns. Our technology now enables comprehensive, state-specific analysis of these factors, offering customized insights for specialized projects.

For more insights into the policy and news stories that resonate with voters in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina, please don’t hesitate to reach out. We’d love to discuss our findings with you.