__________
It was certainly an unsuccessful battle by Democrats to convince voters that the economy was actually pretty good over the last couple of years.

Dems got practically NO help from corporate media, determined up until the election to parrot Republican feelings instead of reporting actual economic data.

This is exactly backwards and explains a total divorce by Dems "elite" from economic and other realities of people and everyday life of what they think as "deplorables" if they

I don't know what you've heard or read from "corporate media" (?) but it was ad nauseum all about trying to convince people how the "economy and inflation direction is actually good, based on actual economic data" and only at the end some started talking a little about people not feeling the NUMBERS of the "economy" provided by the Fed, BLS, Treasury etc.

The problem, as I have posted a few times here (not "corporate media" but ignored anyway) is that reducing the "economy" to one compound / average number doesn't take into account the "people" and their "feelings" about their current economic circumstances and future prospect and ability to pay the bills. As it stands, at least 2/3 of the people, mostly in lower economic quintiles, have financial troubles and thought that the country and the economy is "on the wrong track" - IOW, "their economy" was very different from Janet Yellen's economy, the corporate economy etc.

Try this: watch "The Big Short" but this time pay attention to how some/few sharp individuals decided that many triple/double-A mortgage-backed loans portfolios (MBS) were rotten inside and what financial instruments they chose before they bet on their collapse in 2007-2008 - it didn't suddenly blow up with the demise of Lehman Bros. on Sept 15. - that should give you an idea of how something looking so good on the outside, based on single number/letter/rating can be so deceiving.

Trying to convince them that what they are "feeling" (in their "pockets" / bank accounts, credit cards) about the "economy" and telling them that going after "gouging" is going to improve their finances and that raising minimum/"living" wage will set them on a "path to generational wealth" was condescending and ineffective, at best, and offensive and insulting, at worst.

What was needed instead was telling them "I feel your pain and here's what we can do / are doing to improve your economic picture," not "would change nothing."

Re "corporate media," what would you call NYT, WaPo, LAT and bunch of other "celebrated" media outlets? NYT has about 11 million subscriptions, even assuming WP (2.5M) and others are not overlapping - that gives you ~15M "elite," mostly liberal subscribers who can afford and are willing to read the "elite" news. If they wanted to reach a wider, less affluent audience, they would "tear down their paywalls."

As it is, most people get their news from "free" social media where they commiserate with those with similar circumstances, and get their views shaped accordingly - real info or not.

Kamala's digital campaign was abysmal - repeating TikTok-style videos about abortion and name-calling: