Authenticity and honesty as overarching concepts played a significant role in the outcome of the 2024 Presidential Election. I believe both candidates were willing to bend the truth just as much as any other politician to get a vote, but there is no denying that Trump was the more authentic character and person. Trump's persona has been consistent throughout the entire span of being a well-known public figure, which is a contrast to Kamala Harris, who in 2020 ran a campaign with very similar progressive left ideals to the likes of Bernie Sanders, but in 2024 tried to appeal to moderate voters as all the good parts of Biden they voted for but also at the same time having to distance herself from the latter. The message and story of the American Left were unclear because they had to try and balance these factors without alienating anyone in the process. Trump's consistency and willingness to (literally) speak whatever comes to his mind made him appear to many potential voters as the "honest" candidate. Does being consistent, authentic, and willing to speak your mind actually mean you are honest? No, probably not; he was just better at making a clearer picture of his intentions for the country. An unrelated, interesting appendage is that Trump is often referred to by his last name, while Kamala is often referred to by her first name.
Honesty and authenticity also played a large part ideologically in the two approaches the candidates used to get their messages to potential voters. Traditional media's main underlying goal is to be the arbiter of information by ensuring that everything that they say is deemed factual by their vetted sources. On new media platforms, such as social media and podcasts, many different factors move the needle, but authenticity is something that users of these platforms have always gravitated toward. Internet stardom could merely start with an "apparently I've never been on the news before," or "cash me outside," or I'll even hit you with a deeper pull, wearing a red sweater when asking a question at a Presidential Debate; people consuming new media are drawn to figures that present as authentic. Trump focused heavily on new media, specifically targeting the most popular podcasts and having help from Elon Musk on X. Trump was able to play to his strengths in this medium due to the previously mentioned reasons and his history of being an entertainer. Harris relied heavily on traditional media. The issue with this strategy was not that traditional media doesn't have the reach that it used to (it doesn't, but a candidate using this approach could have still won the Presidential election); it's that America's trust in news organizations is at its lowest point in American history.
I am unsure if the narrative most news outlets reported of Harris being the most capable Presidential candidate was correct or incorrect, but one thing is for sure, given the new way information is disseminated, the voters were more dubious of this claim than they would have been in previous elections. This, compounded with Harris's limited media presence, caused a fractured segmented population of one group that believed their candidate was the only logical choice and the other thinking that the opposing candidate was the one that was settled upon given the circumstances. The issue is not that social media or traditional media is wrong; it's the way that information is accessed that has completely changed how people understand current events and generate their idea of reality. Trump, in 2016, benefited greatly from traditional media time and the mere exposure effect because networks pulled in above-average ratings covering his campaign. However, in 2024, Trump's campaign was essentially a populist movement utilizing modern mediums to attract undecided voters. New information mediums have made the "traditional" politician obsolete, and many citizens have a healthy skepticism of politicians running for office, almost similar to a person selling you a car. Too much information is available today to believe in a person who does not have faults. In 2004, when running for office, Howard Dean gave an impassioned speech and ended it with what would be considered a kind of impassioned scream that did sound odd. This ultimately was seen as the nail in the coffin of his campaign. However, I think if this happened today, the authentic moment would have resonated with voters. The enthusiasm would have played, and the understanding of what is Presidential and what is not has changed. Access to information on everyone at any given time has humanized anyone running for office beyond the point that anyone can be considered what the term "Presidential" used to stand for.