Lessons from the most consequential election of our time

How many consultants and pollsters did a billion dollars buy Kamala Harris? Did any of these advisers (boldly, bravely) suggest that the thinking of middle America had shifted? I reckon the answer is not one.

More than a billion dollars was raised by Kamala Harris to fight the US election. Picture: AFP

To the media cognoscenti it’s the greatest show on Earth: an American election. And while we wait for Donald Trump’s inauguration in January, the focus shifts to review and to speculation about what the future may hold. Indeed, what are the lessons from the most consequential election of our time?

We were told by political experts leading up to the election that it was too close to call. Yet in the event it wasn’t even close, it was a landslide. And if it wasn’t possible to foresee this a few days out, then surely there’s even less chance of foretelling what’s in store across the next four years.

Here’s my prediction. The 2028 US presidential election will be tagged the most important election of the 21st Century. I also predict that Australia’s federal election in 2025 will be called “the most important ever” for us, and in the lead-up it will be “too close to call”.

An election in a Western democracy is like a census; it’s a time when every citizen gets the opportunity to have their say. It’s one of the few times when the voice of the people is truly heard. Sure, there are surveys that track specific issues, but a survey is based on a sample. And in my world a census, an election, a referendum always beats a sample.

We now know that polling prior to the US election was skewed. How can poll after poll not pick up on a fundamental shift in the thinking of Middle America? Oddly, the same skew applied to our 2019 federal election.

The answer, I think, is that many voters are now cautious about revealing their intentions – even anonymously. And the reason is that everyday people increasingly believe that non-conforming views attract unwanted judgment.

The problem for the losing side is how to explain a loss. If it’s close, then generally it goes along the lines of “we needed to improve our messaging” or “the other side used unfair tactics”. But if it’s a landslide, it’s tricky; you can’t blame voters. And you can’t say that the election was “stolen” because, well, that’s been used before.

There’s a lesson in this for political parties and for businesses, both here and abroad. More than a billion dollars was raised by Kamala Harris to fight the US election. And yet the Democrats still managed to lose ground in more or less every cohort and demographic, and in all swing states. How many consultants and pollsters does a billion dollars buy? Did any of these advisers (boldly, bravely) suggest that the thinking of middle America had shifted?

I reckon the answer is not one. Or worse, if anyone did suggest they were on the wrong track, “wiser heads” would have prevailed and dismissed this as the befuddled thinking of someone who really needs to get onboard.

And therein lies the problem. Contrarian views are well and good in theory. But when polling and advisory contracts are at stake, contrarian views are mightily inconvenient.

The important lesson in all this? Big-picture thinking by government and business should tolerate, and even celebrate, the idea of building a management team that includes those who (fearlessly) offer diversity of thought. Even if this means inconveniently questioning the veracity of polls that tell you exactly what you want to hear.