In early January, a friend called me from California to wish me a happy new year and discuss the election.
He’s a lifelong Democrat, but that’s never gotten in the way of our friendship.
He was excited to share the news with me that James Carville had just explained in a New York Times op-ed that the Democrats lost in November because the economy was weaker than he thought it was.
While I disagreed, I bit my tongue, but later that day I came across this on X:
“An extensive post-election survey of swing voters by Blueprint, a Democratic polling firm, revealed that concerns about Democratic policies on crime, immigration, and gender outweighed concerns about the economy in swaying voters toward Trump.”
Wow.
As a Republican candidate for New Hampshire’s Second Congressional District, this was the same exact conclusion that my campaign’s extension polling told me.
So, I sent the link to my friend, and he replied, “nonbeliever.”
(Editor’s note – the link directs readers to an op-ed published by The Liberal Patriot, which cites this post-election analysis by Blueprint, a public opinion research initiative that aims “to take a sober, detailed look at what Democrats need to do to win in 2024.”)
Later, it hit me.
James Carville and my friend seemed committed to a “narrative” rather than facts—a narrative that Democratic policies on social issues like crime, border security, DEI, climate, and men in women’s sports were not the issue, but rather, it was economic woes that caused their losses.
They just got hoodwinked by the poor-performing economy. Furthermore, when confronted by polling suggesting they were wrong, they instead doubled down on their narrative rather than shift course.
This emphasis on “narratives” over “facts” underscores our differences. Liberal progressive voters often express policy preferences in terms of “I feel” rather than evidence, as though emotions validate a position.
Conservative Republicans, however, tend to rely on facts and are more likely to preface their positions with “I think.” This distinction resonates in my career experience as a commodities trader, wherein success depends on seeking the “truth.”
Trading requires rigorous analysis of statistics and decision-making based on hard evidence. Those who traded based on feelings or assumptions usually lost — and, frankly, I enjoyed competing against them!
This pragmatic, fact-based approach is why the conservative mindset often excels in areas requiring disciplined analysis.
Lastly, it’s worth examining a key contradiction. During the pandemic, the Democratic Party presented itself as the “party of science.” Yet, at times, it seems they prioritize narratives over facts.
As evidence of misinformation and inconsistencies at senior levels of the Democratic Party continues to emerge, public trust in their leadership is eroding. This presents an opportunity for Republicans to step into the void by offering policies and messaging rooted in truth and accountability.
By championing integrity and evidence-based solutions, Republicans can rebuild trust and establish themselves as the party of reason and results.
So, as a Republican, what do I take away from this interaction?
I think we must continue to ground our arguments and policies in facts. There is a generation of young Americans heavily influenced by the ideologies of DEI and ESG, often shaped by narratives detached from reality. The only way to reach them is by challenging those narratives with clear, evidence-based reasoning.
At the same time, we must engage the wave of new Republican voters by emphasizing pro-business, common-sense policies that build trust and loyalty.
Here in New Hampshire, Republicans expanded their majorities in Concord in 2024, yet we still sent two Democrats to Congress.
Reflecting on this, I came to the realization that New Hampshire voters use facts to decide which party serves them best locally, but Democrats have successfully controlled the narrative on key federal issues, such as abortion rights.
To flip New Hampshire’s two Congressional and two Senate seats back to the GOP, we need to educate voters and counteract these misleading narratives with hard facts.
Take abortion, for example. New Hampshire’s 24-week abortion limit includes reasonable late-term restrictions — a consensus policy that aligns with the views of most New Hampshire voters and elected Republicans. Yet Democrats frame the issue as a dire threat to women’s rights, distorting the reality of our balanced approach.
If we can reframe the conversation using facts, we can expose these narratives for what they are: political tactics rather than reflections of the truth.
We are fighting an ideological war, and the tide has turned in our favor. We now need to press our advantage by doubling down on fact based policies that will make the lives of the people in New Hampshire better.
As for James Carville and my friend in Los Angeles, I still hope they might one day recognize the limitations of their narrative and consider our movement. But until then, we will focus on building policies grounded in facts and improving the lives of our voters.
