Lessons from Two Decades in Politics

After spending more than two decades in the political arena, participating in around 50 campaigns—ranging from local elections to presidential races—there’s a key lesson I’ve picked up: don’t dismiss what voters perceive as real.

With the midterm elections looming just eight weeks away, many campaigns seem to be ignoring this advice. Politicians in Washington often focus on foreign policy, economic indicators, and political tactics. However, voters are looking at more immediate issues, like the rising costs they see reflected in their everyday spending.

Interestingly, voters can often overlook tough situations. However, if you tell them these issues don’t exist, they won’t take it kindly.

Take the recent spike in diesel prices, for instance. In the week ending September 7, the national average price hit an all-time high of $5.97 per gallon. This isn’t just a concern for truckers—it extends to farmers, contractors, and delivery services who rely on diesel.

As diesel prices rise, they send ripples through the entire supply chain. That increased fuel cost eventually finds its way to your grocery bill, your restaurant tab, and just about everything else purchasers encounter in stores. In the end, it’s the consumer who ends up paying the price.

The link between foreign disruption and local affordability isn’t always straightforward. Global conflicts and sanctions can bump up oil prices, affecting transportation expenses at home. But what voters really notice are the changes in their home economics: how much they’re paying at the gas pump, the total on their supermarket receipts, or their bank account balances.

Politicians tend to obsess over macroeconomic concepts, while the average voter is much more focused on their own microeconomic realities.

A campaign may highlight GDP growth, job creation, or stock market ups and downs, yet those figures don’t change the realities of a family’s grocery bills, rent, insurance premiums, and utility costs. When it comes down to it, what matters most is what’s left in the voter’s checking account.

I have to acknowledge that Democratic strategist James Carville hit the nail on the head at least once. Back during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, his mantra was “It’s the economy, stupid.” Now, more than thirty years later, Republicans could do well to keep that in mind.

Often, campaigns become overly fixated on issues they think voters ought to care about, rather than what actually resonates with them. These two things don’t always align.

This year’s evidence is unmistakable. A July Pew Research Center survey revealed that voters wanted to hear about economic issues most, especially concerning prices and affordability. In a companion survey, findings showed that 66% of respondents were extremely concerned about food prices, 64% about housing expenses, and 56% about gas prices.

Foreign policy and national security are still crucial topics. Issues involving China, Russia, Iran, and America’s global standing cannot just be swept aside. No single issue will dictate every election. However, elections are personal, and voters generally understand national policies through how they impact their daily lives.

For a parent pushing a cart down a grocery aisle, geopolitical analysis is likely the last thing on their mind as they check out prices. Similarly, a driver at a gas station is fixated on the numbers they see on the pump. The shared question is, “What is this going to cost me?”

Concerns about mortgages, utility costs, car loans, insurance, groceries, gas, child care expenses, and credit card bills weigh heavily on their minds. People wonder why a once-comfortable income feels so stretched now. It’s about affordability, and this will drive choices come November.

Economic distress played a role in bringing Donald Trump to power. Yet, Republicans shouldn’t take for granted that the economic issue will automatically play to their advantage. Families managing tight budgets for groceries and gas are unlikely to buy into the idea that everything is fine or that far-off events are more crucial than their home finances.

This reality doesn’t mean Republicans need to give up their foreign policy focus or the current administration’s agenda. Candidates merely need to validate what voters are feeling and present clear plans to address those challenges. There is a substantial political difference between stating, “The economy is thriving,” and acknowledging, “We’ve made gains, but prices are still too high, and here’s what we plan to do.”

Democrats shouldn’t jump for joy, either. Economic woes don’t automatically translate into support for their policies either. Voters will assess which candidates genuinely grasp their financial realities and can propose credible solutions. This situation offers opportunities for both sides, but it certainly doesn’t guarantee any victories.

Campaign success comes when candidates recognize what voters are experiencing. They risk failure when consultants sway candidates into believing voters should be concerned about something entirely different. From my extensive experience in numerous campaigns, I’ve learned that voters can forgive tough situations. But they won’t overlook being told those situations don’t really exist.

The crucial question in November won’t simply be whether Washington can provide stats indicating certain parts of the economy are doing well. It will boil down to whether Americans feel they can afford their lives. When voters step into the polling booth, they won’t bring along economic charts—they’ll have their grocery receipts.