How elite economic messaging cost Democrats the narrative war on tariffs, while Republicans doubled down on voter anxiety and won.
Democrats wagered heavily on a tariff-focused messaging strategy during a cycle marked by economic instability and public distrust of political elites, and they ultimately failed. Their central attack, framing Trump-era tariffs as “erratic” and dangerous to the economy, failed to resonate with the voters it aimed to sway. This messaging misfire wasn't just a tactical error; it was a conceptual one. It highlighted a profound disconnect between the economic narratives favored by the elite and the everyday experiences of the American electorate.
At Campaign Now, we conducted a comprehensive review of EyesOver Weekly Snapshot sentiment data to evaluate how voters actually responded to these contrasting economic frames. Democrats prioritized elite concerns such as stock market instability and 401(k) volatility, while Republicans concentrated on voter anxieties including jobs, factory security, and safety. This strategic difference consistently gave Republicans a sentiment advantage, according to our analysis.
Democrats’ tariff messaging, focusing on stock market volatility and retirement savings, resonated with wealthier voters and media pundits, but not average Americans. From March through May, Democratic leaders repeatedly warned of “turbulence in financial markets” and “shocks to 401(k)s” as the risks of Trump’s tariff policy, hoping to peel off moderate and independent voters who valued economic stability.1
Image generated by DALL-E
The framing of the message did not resonate as intended, instead solidifying the perception that Democrats were catering to the wealthy with market investments and retirement portfolios, rather than addressing the financial concerns of average Americans. The average voter doesn’t measure economic health by the S&P 500; they measure it by the price of eggs, the security of their job, and whether their kids will have better prospects.
Adding to the problem was a deep inconsistency in Democratic rhetoric. Over the span of a few months, the party cycled through at least three conflicting narratives: first, that “all tariffs are bad and will wreck the economy,” then that tariffs should be used “more wisely,” and finally, that a 30% tariff on China represented “capitulation” by Trump.2 This ideological whiplash didn't just confuse voters; it also implied that Democrats lacked any fundamental principles regarding trade policy.
Rather than offering a coherent alternative, the Democratic message came off as reactive and opportunistic. Voters looking for clarity found noise. Even Democrats’ internal pollsters conceded that the tariff attack “generated headlines” but failed to shift sentiment or build durable trust.3
While Democrats obsessed over market indicators, Republicans built their message around jobs, security, and patriotism. In their hands, tariffs transformed into a symbol of economic nationalism, a means to "bring jobs home" and revitalize American industry.4 This message played especially well in Rust Belt regions, where manufacturing job losses over decades have left deep political scars.
The GOP consistently highlighted new factory projects and increased domestic investment as evidence of the tariffs' effectiveness. In states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, this narrative was concrete, rooted in the potential for economic resurgence.5
Republicans also expanded the appeal of tariffs by linking them to national security, particularly in reference to China. Tariffs extended beyond steel and solar panels; they were crucial for stopping fentanyl, protecting American intellectual property, and confronting a geopolitical adversary. This layered messaging resonated deeply with voters who already viewed China with suspicion and were looking for a leader willing to confront external threats.
The Republican tagline “promises made, promises kept” further reinforced the connection between tariffs and tangible accomplishments. Drops in illegal border crossings, visible trade negotiations, and publicized wins with partners like the UK and China were held up as evidence that Trump’s policies were delivering results.7
Throughout spring 2025, real-world developments undermined the Democrats’ arguments in real time. Instead of fueling inflation, tariffs coincided with lower-than-expected Consumer Price Index (CPI) numbers. Analysts described these reports as having “thrown cold water on tariff skeptics who promised sky-high inflation.”8 Voters saw the opposite of the price surges Democrats had warned about.
Image generated by DALL-E
Meanwhile, a series of successful trade deals with the UK, China, and anticipated agreements with India began shifting public opinion in favor of Trump’s aggressive economic stance.9 These outcomes contradicted the Democratic narrative that Trump’s trade policy was globally isolating or diplomatically reckless.
Another self-inflicted wound came from the Democrats’ fixation on immigration legalism. The political party chose to prioritize "due process" for deportees, even in contentious situations, rather than focusing their economic message on a strong anti-China and pro-worker platform. In multiple weekly snapshots, Democrats were criticized for appearing in El Salvador defending an MS-13 illegal’s due process, while Republicans talked about factories, fentanyl, and border control.10
Image generated by DALL-E
This contributed to a broader perception that Democrats had erratic priorities, which diluted their economic message and left them without a clear counterweight to the GOP's “America First” agenda.11 By contrast, Republican immigration rhetoric focused on safety and sovereignty. Messaging centered on “removing violent criminals from the border” consistently tested well and resonated with voters across demographics.12
Recent events continue to erode the foundation of Democrats’ anti-tariff narrative. Canada officially scrapped its controversial digital services tax on July 9, a move widely interpreted as a direct response to mounting pressure from Trump’s trade team. The tax, which would have targeted U.S. tech giants, had been a key sticking point in U.S.-Canada relations. Its removal is now being hailed by conservatives as a “clear win” for Trump’s hardline tariff posture, reinforcing the image of a president who uses leverage to get results.
At the same time, Scott Bessent, a top economic adviser to the Trump campaign, doubled down on the July 9 deadline as a symbolic turning point in U.S. trade policy. Foreign governments "blinked" when faced with tariff pressure, a warning that only reinforces the Republican narrative that Trump's firm approach is leading to international concessions, not disorder.
These developments reinforce what EyesOver sentiment data had already shown: that voters are responding to results, not forecasts. As world powers make concessions and inflation remains tame, Democrats’ warnings about erratic tariff policy continue to look increasingly out of touch.
Despite internal GOP divisions on tariff strategy, Republicans maintained a consistent edge in public sentiment throughout spring 2025. Democrats, meanwhile, fractured their own coalition with incoherent messaging and failed to win over swing voters. The Democratic Party's digital messaging, centered on market concerns and procedural objections, was ineffective because its elite focus did not connect with the public.
Tariffs succeeded not due to their popularity as policy, but because they resonated emotionally. To many voters, tariffs meant strength, jobs, and national pride. Democrats, by contrast, offered a muddled narrative wrapped in financial jargon and legal nuance. Until the party learns to speak to voters’ anxieties instead of investors’ portfolios, “erratic messaging” will continue to lose to “erratic tariffs.”
Sources
All sources: EyesOver Weekly Snapshot