The US is finally nearing the climax of what many have repeatedly called the most important election in American history. Highlights include two assassination attempts, one bloody ear, an unutterable story about a couch, rumors of Russian interference, Iranian hackers snooping on Trump’s campaign, communistic slights dished by the left, and a tall tale involving a coconut tree, a middle-class family, and lawns. Trump learned Harris is black. Harris apparently discovered a new word (fascism). Trump worked a fryolator at a McDonald’s and wore a bright neon vest a week later while riding in an eponymously branded garbage truck to amplify Mr. Biden’s recent remark when calling the former president’s supporters “garbage.” Phew. That sounds like a lot and barely covers a day. It would be impossible to list every notable event and meme-worthy phrase all in one article. Luckily, that’s not necessary. Instead, let’s look at some pivotal aspects that have likely altered how future presidential candidates and their campaigns might strategize. The playbook, for sure, is about to be upturned, revised, studied, and copied, maybe even misread.

The Podcast Election

Technology has always been a vital tool in presidential elections, but a new device or medium occasionally comes along and transforms how campaigns are run and where they put their focus and energy. The rise of television no doubt benefitted John F. Kennedy. Donald Trump took advantage of Twitter during his 2016 run and won. This year, podcast interviews became the dominant medium.

“[T]raditional television . . . is getting a little bit older and maybe less significant,” Trump said on Lex Fridman’s podcast in September. He’s not wrong. Traditional interviews at cable news networks can appear rigid and are often dulled by the same talking points and ready-made answers that voters have already heard. Viewers probably don’t learn much about candidates in these situations other than how well presidential hopefuls can deflect unwanted questions. Also, American’s trust in mainstream media remains at an all-time low, which probably wasn’t helped by CBS’ editorial decision to change one of Harris’ answers during an interview with Bill Whitaker on 60 Minutes, an act that could further deter people from watching future interviews on legacy media outlets.

Not only do podcasts appeal to a wider demographic, but they give candidates a more casual environment, enabling them to relax more. Unlike interviews on CNN or NBC, where the interviewer is limited to editorial guidelines and must stick to a strict schedule and time limit, genuine discussions happen between a pod-host and a candidate. A sort of stream-of-consciousness takes place. Trump appeared on multiple podcasts and discussed a variety of topics, including UFOs, professional fighting, golf, lakes, forestry management, electric cars, and whale psychiatry. Halfway through his interview with Joe Rogan on October 25, the two sounded like pals from high school. Conversations like these break away from the usual political façade and humanize candidates.

Of course, whenever questions are asked on podcasts, they’re often not challenging, just softballs lobbed with smiles, but maybe voters get more from seeing candidates talk like real people than they do watching them respond to challenging questions. Maybe what presidential nominees say means less than how they say it. People probably prefer to vote for humans rather than political automatons, a theory that might partly explain Trump’s continued popularity despite the cacophony of negative stories that surround him. The more voters can relate to candidates, the more likely they are to vote for them.

Then again, perhaps the next presidential candidates will spend less time in front of cameras, keeping away from the spotlight to avoid any mishaps. For nearly two months after Kamala Harris was tagged the Democrats’ presidential nominee, she avoided interviews, and not once during her campaign did she engage in a press conference. Even when she did take questions, they were mostly from friendly outlets and lacked depth and meaning. If she were to win the presidency, would future campaigns perceive how she handled the media as a winning strategy and keep their candidates safe from scrutiny, leaving fewer chances to see them make a mistake? Maybe, but the rise of podcasts being used in campaigns suggests ignoring media outlets might not be a smart move.

The Potential Extinction of Endorsements

Two major newspapers sparked controversy a couple of weeks ago when their billionaire owners blocked them from publishing their endorsements, both of which were supposedly going to Harris. One lost 10% of its subscribers, about 250,000 outraged people. Opinion writers used their columns to air their grievances and started a petition. Staff from both publications took to social media and expressed their disapproval. Infuriated, some said they felt “betrayed.” But these two publications weren’t the only ones. October saw several other newspapers ditch their endorsements. Even USA Today, which endorsed Biden in 2020 after not endorsing a candidate for 38 years, chose not to announce support for a candidate this year. Is a trend beginning?

Several regional papers also stepped away from their traditional endorsements. The Minnesota Star Tribune stated it “endorses voters, not candidates.” In an editorial explaining its decision, it said, “We are confident in the ability of informed citizens to decide whom they wish to vote for based on what they see, hear and research.” This seems to be a popular argument among several editorials explaining their reasons for skipping endorsements this election. Another theory is that “political endorsements muddy the waters of a newspaper’s independence,” said Jerry Moore in The Hill. “A candidate favored by editorial board members becomes ‘their’ candidate moving forward.”

What’s funny, though, is that “[t]he most effective endorsements,” according to Semafor’s findings, “are those that go against the perceived political leanings of the publication, [as] multiple studies have found. Some experts suspect that as political partisanship increases and publications continue supporting the same party every election, endorsements have become less meaningful.”

Non-endorsements are already standard for some publications. The Wall Street Journal hasn’t endorsed a presidential candidate since backing Herbert Hoover in 1928. If endorsements become rarer, they could either become less significant or, because of their rarity, hold more weight. Will future candidates see these endorsements as worthwhile and chase them? Or are we witnessing the demise of publications officially supporting presidential candidates?

Money Talks

During the final few weeks leading to Election Day, tech billionaire Elon Musk gave away one million dollars daily through his political action committee, America PAC. All participants had to do was “sign the @America petition in support of the Constitutional rights to free speech & bear arms to have a daily chance of winning $1,000,000!” said Musk on X, the social media platform he owns, on Oct. 20. “You can be from any or no political party and you don’t even have to vote.” But to win, participants had to be registered voters in key battleground states.

Last week, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner filed a suit against Musk’s America PAC, claiming the lottery violates consumer protection laws in Pennsylvania. Musk requested the case be moved to federal court. The case was put on hold, but not for long. Since the petition and giveaway end today and the final two winners had already been chosen (neither of whom live in Pennsylvania), a judge during a hearing on Monday saw no reason to block the contest.

“During the hearing,” CNN noted, “Krasner testified that as part of future proceedings, his office will eventually try to seek money from Musk or his super PAC for the ‘victims’ of what he called an unlawful lottery that duped Philadelphians.”

What few people have seemed to acknowledge is that the petition obtains a lot of basic information about voters, information that the Trump campaign could have used to help target voters in various ways. Experts can build models with the data and predict how voters might stand on certain issues or which candidates they lean toward. All this can help campaigns decide where to direct their attention. Voters who support free speech and the right to bear arms – so the apparent plan goes – are more likely to be registered Republicans or could perhaps be swayed to vote for a GOP candidate.

If this giveaway is later deemed legal, other PACs in the future might try something similar. Even if it’s ruled illegal, how long before a different super PAC discerns a similar method based on Musk’s idea? This could be a valuable practice for candidates – something to keep an eye on, for sure.

Let’s not forget that much of how the campaign playbook changes will likely depend on who wins the election. Some aspects are outside the grip of campaigns: out of their control. But if Trump wins, future Republican candidates might look back on his campaign and see little reason to engage with traditional media. Maybe they might ignore endorsements and focus more on how they can engage with voters. If Harris wins, future Democratic candidates might think dragging Barack Obama out on the campaign trail still works. They could analyze Harris’ media appearances and believe – if entering the public’s view can’t be avoided – obfuscation is better than substance. Or perhaps they won’t change a thing and continue using the same techniques and game pieces. Regardless of who wins, the next elections will likely be anything but typical, and the same may hold true for the following four years. Hold on to your hats.