When the dust settles after an election, we can usually see a difference between the breathless narratives that circulated beforehand and what really happened — sometimes a big difference. 

Throughout the 2024 presidential campaign, in many cases, the media clung to assumptions instead of letting facts define their conclusions. And in the end, those narratives simply did not pan out, as the results and exit polls show. 

The misread began with the “joy” narrative: that Vice President Kamala Harris’ debut at the Democratic National Convention had reinvigorated the Democratic base, which was much more likely to vote than Republicans or independents. After the convention, some told us to expect a huge Democratic turnout that would assure victory in the fall. 

Pundits also argued that because the country was so polarized, there were no neutral voters; everyone leaned toward one party or the other. There was no true political center, independents weren’t really independent, and anyone following the election should use that lens if they wanted to understand it. Their conclusion: The key to this election wasn’t appealing to the middle; it was going to be turnout operations. 

But if that were true, what happened to the vaunted Democratic Party get-out-the-vote effort? In this election, Democrats’ share of the electorate fell to a historic low, and they are now a smaller portion of the electorate than both Republicans and independents, according to the Edison exit polls. 

The last time independents were larger than one of the two major parties was during the Watergate era. Now, Democrats are at 31 percent, while independents are at 34 percent.

But as independents were becoming an even bigger factor in the electorate, Harris proved unable to sustain Biden’s 2020 performance, when he won independents by 13 points. Harris won them by only 3 points, a difference of -10. 

This was especially important in the seven competitive states where Trump improved with independents, in four of them with double-digit margins: Georgia +20, Arizona +18, Pennsylvania +15, and Wisconsin +11.

The narrative of an energized Democratic turnout combined with minimal impact from independents was clearly wrong. To see how wrong, search news articles and cable commentary in October for mentions of independents as factors in the elections. For the most part, they were ignored. 

A second narrative that proved to be false was the idea that Harris and Democrats could overwhelm the economic issue, which by their account was improving, by focusing instead on democracy and abortion as winning issues. In a choice between five issues in the exit polls, the “state of democracy” edged out the economy for the top issue, 34 percent to 32 percent. Abortion was a distant third at 14 percent, followed closely by immigration at 12 percent. 

However, the democracy issue did not benefit Harris as her campaign and the pundits expected. When voters were asked whether democracy was secure or threatened, nearly three-quarters of Democrats, Republicans and independents said “threatened,” albeit for significantly different reasons. Those who said “threatened” voted for Trump by a 50-48 margin, and those who said “secure” also voted for Trump, 49-48. 

Equally surprising to Democrats and the media, abortion — Harris’ signature issue — didn’t pan out either. According to the exit polls, Harris was trusted over Trump to handle the abortion issue by a slim margin, 49-46. Democrats believed voters were on their side on this contentious issue, but the country was split into thirds. 

Thirty-one percent said abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. They voted for Trump by a 91-8 margin. Thirty-three percent said it should be legal in all cases; they voted for Harris by an 88-9 margin. The last third, 33 percent, said it should be legal in most cases, and that group split their vote evenly between Harris and Trump, 49-49. By contrast, in 2020, among those voters who said it should be legal in most cases, Biden won them 68-30. 

The economy was a very different story. An overwhelming 75 percent of the electorate said inflation had posed some level of hardship for them and their families. As a result, 31 percent saw the nation’s economy as excellent/good, while 68 percent saw it as not so good/poor, the cumulative effect of the inflation policies during the Biden-Harris administration. 

Harris could not or would not separate herself from the Biden economic record, and voters said they trusted Trump to handle the economy by a 53-46 margin. 

Another flawed narrative that dominated the media was the role women were going to play in the election of Harris. Pundits believed that because Harris was a woman and a strong advocate for abortion rights, women would vote for her at an unprecedented scale.

Wrong again. Harris did win women by 8 points, but this margin was much smaller than Biden’s 2020 margin of 15 points or Hillary Clinton’s 13 points. While Harris improved slightly over Biden with white women, Hispanic women moved toward Trump. In 2020, they voted for Biden by a 69-30 percent margin, but they voted for Harris by a smaller margin of 58-39. 

Contrary to the media narrative, overall, the top issue for women was democracy at 33 percent, followed closely by the economy at 29 percent, and then abortion at 19 percent.

Finally, many pushed the narrative that Harris was the more likable candidate in the race. 

Harris had the opportunity and more than a billion dollars to define herself to the American electorate. Instead, she chose messaging about her values and a harsh attack strategy rather than talking to voters about what she wanted to do as president to make their lives better. 

As the Democratic and media narrative went, Trump was a convicted felon and a “fascist” and could not win. But voters simply didn’t buy it. In the Edison exit polls, there was no difference in the two candidates’ images. Harris’ favorable-unfavorable was 46-52; Trump’s was 46-53. 

Ultimately, this election was mostly about one thing: the economy and the inflation that had battered American families over the four years of the Biden presidency. The electorate, particularly independents, had had enough and wanted someone who could fix it. 

David Winston is the president of The Winston Group and a longtime adviser to congressional Republicans. He previously served as the director of planning for Speaker Newt Gingrich. He advises Fortune 100 companies, foundations and nonprofit organizations on strategic planning and public policy issues, as well as serving as an election analyst for CBS News.