Income levels, race, education, gender, sub-groups, all are being treated by pundits as if they're monolithic. And many people have very short memories. This white educated middle class liberal woman is tired of being lumped with the stupid white middle class women who voted for Trump. From Thompson's link to the Times:

Fair enough: But why turn to a lying, abusive billionaire to help them solve their economic problems? Their explanation is simple. Times were good when Trump was president. Now eggs cost nearly three times what they did four years ago, the rate on a car loan is more than 50 percent higher, and some companies are cutting hours. Mr. Trump, they think, is the candidate to turn things around.

Those lower prices were the result of the Obama administration's work. Until Trump crashed everything with his COVID19 idiotic responses. And Biden has been restoring order even as people remember the better days and lower loan rates from the Obama years and unreasonably credit Trump.

The actual voter results are going to reflect the views of a lot of people who are tired of being lumped in opinion pieces. But that other opinion piece you referred to has some good points:

“The first lesson you learn as a pollster is that people are stupid,” Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling firm, told Politico in 2012, presumably in a moment of frustration, as I wrote in my May newsletter.

Stantcheva does not accuse anyone of being stupid, and neither do I. But I think sensible people can err when pure logic bumps into human nature. It’s normal to compare prices when you go shopping. Up is bad. The fifth mistake, however, is to remain anchored to a price from long ago, when conditions were vastly different. I remember when gasoline was less than a buck a gallon. So what?

We human beings are bad at imagining counterfactuals. What would the world be like today if Congress and the White House and the Federal Reserve had moved early and aggressively to keep inflation under control? Much worse, I’m afraid. Prices would be lower, but we very likely would have gone through a long and deep recession.

Inflation, while by no means a good thing overall, did serve a purpose when Covid disrupted the economy, reducing the supply of some items and increasing demand for others. If the overall price level had remained the same, some prices and wages would have had to fall drastically to offset others that rose. But workers hate taking wage cuts, so employers probably would have cut jobs rather than pay more. Inflation allowed employers to impose stealth pay cuts — raises below the rate of inflation — that were more palatable, saving jobs and keeping the economy from spiraling downward.

“The price shock was necessary,” Richard Portes, an economist at the London Business School, told me. “You need inflation to get reallocations after supply shocks. That was necessary. It was right, economically. And now it’s been completed.”

The sixth mistake is for people to say inflation remains high because prices are high. Wrong. Inflation is the increase in prices, not the level of prices. It’s unrealistic to expect prices to go back down to where they were before the pandemic. That would require a Great Depression-scale economic downturn that dried up demand for goods and services. I realize I’m not the first to make this point, but it bears repeating because the mistake keeps being made.

The price of eggs is often cited. The cost of meat. Food can be expensive, but even more so if you don't prepare it yourself, if you buy ready-to-eat dishes or order takeout. Too many people don't know how to do anything else BUT buy processed foods. I recently started reading Michael Pollan's 2008 treatise In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto and I can already see gaping errors in his logic, but he's right about a number of basic things. For example:

What is driving such relentless change in the American diet? One force is the thirty-two-billion-dollar food-marketing machine that thrives on change for its own sake. . . . Part of what drove my grandparents' food culture from the American table was official scientific opinion, which, beginning in the 1960s, decided that animal fat was a deadly substance. And then there were the food manufacturers, which stood to make very little money from my grandmother's cooking, because she was doing so much of it from scratch—up to and including rendering her own cooking fats.

I've said it before, in addition to returning Civics class to our junior high and high schools, Home Economics needs to take a stand and start teaching basic food science and cooking to students because many of them aren't getting it at home. Part of that cooking is shopping, and we had to think about our shopping lists in class. Understand our ingredients and base our menus on what was available. Prodding the Department of Education to promote these classes should be on the top of Harris' to-do list. It wouldn't take a huge effort and the justification is obvious. Smarter voters and shoppers.