The Top 5 Keys to Beating Donald Trump
In my political science research since 2006, I have gained an understanding about how left-wingers and right-wingers think and how they can be persuaded. My concerns about the Clinton campaign of 2016 and the early Biden campaign (some of which are noted below) lead me off the sidelines now to offer some insight.
Much of this post relies upon the premise that voters tend not to be well-informed about political issues, as Althaus, Caplan, and the Pew Research Center have each demonstrated.
The average voter is, therefore, reliant on heuristics — relatively unsophisticated indicators that suggest which candidate is strong on which issues.
Elections hinge on voters who are probably even less informed than the average. People who sometimes do not vote and voters who do not always vote for one party both tend to be less educated than the average. Less educated people are less likely to be politically informed and, therefore, more reliant upon heuristics.
These heuristics commonly come in the form of:
a) perceptions about whether a candidate is smart, honest, and capable;
b) reports of past performance under a candidate or party;
c) authority (for example, whether a preponderance of economists prefer one candidate on the economy or another); and
d) the mere perception that one candidate is talking more about an issue and driving discussion to that issue, which indicates that candidate is prioritizing the issue.
What follows are five keys. I recommend an all-of-the-above strategy that hits all of them. But the most important are listed at the top and should be targeted for the most visible and memorable moments.
1) Attack Trump’s credibility by challenging the perception that he is honest, reliable, and successful.
To many voters, Trump is honest; reliable; and a successful, self-made businessman. These perceptions give him credibility when he, respectively, responds to criticisms; makes promises; and talks about economic plans.
The reputation for honesty and candor comes from his willingness to make off-color remarks, which differentiates him from the stereotypical obsequious politician (see key #3). A good way to attack this image is by at least one paid TV advertisement.
Here is an idea for an ad. Run audio clips of Trump’s promises and overlay media coverage of how those promises were broken. I have produced a minute-long example here and a longer example here.
This ad should target all voters but probably more Republican voters and swing voters. Pew found in March 2020 that a stunning 71% of Republicans consider Trump honest, compared to only 7% for Democrats. Furthermore, another reason the ad should target swing voters and right-wingers is because liberals will probably be more likely to view the ad anyway on social media, as it is shared more by liberals.
Exposing Trump as not credible sets the table for every other line of attack against him — whether it be in debates or in campaign advertisements — because whenever Trump is accused of something or looks bad due to accurate or legitimate reporting, he alleges “fake news.” And in debates against Hillary Clinton, when she made a point that was critical of him, he would say, flatly, “wrong,” and that would take some of the sting out of the point.
Trump’s economic authority largely comes from the perception that he is a “genius” businessman. That perception is largely a mirage and that should be made clear to voters. The Clinton campaign did not do this and erred by focusing more on Trump’s rhetoric (see key #3). Exposing Trump as unreliable and unsuccessful means that voters are less likely to believe in Trump’s economic plans. And the economy is typically the issue of most importance to voters (see key #2).
According to a New York Times investigation, Donald Trump’s father Fred Trump paid him $413 million (in 2018 dollars) during his lifetime. Despite that, Trump has taken businesses into bankruptcy six times.
Joe Biden, the presumed Democratic nominee, can take this up with Trump: “His father gave him $413 million, and he still had to file for bankruptcy six times. One time, he took a company public and used money from investors to buy his casinos, which freed him from personal responsibility for the casinos’ debt. And then he took the company into bankruptcy. After that, U.S. banks were no longer interested in financing him, so he had to get Vladimir Putin and the Russian mafia to finance him. Now, he’s running up huge deficits for the United States. When we (Barack and I) took over, the budget deficit was over $1.4 trillion. When we left, it was under $700 billion. Trump has ballooned the budget deficit back up over a trillion dollars. And the United States does not have a rich father to bail us out.”
This would, in several sentences, call out Trump’s lack of economic bona fides; a failure of his administration; and a contrast with the more successful Obama and Biden administration.
Trump may respond by attempting to discredit the “failing New York Times.” An obvious rejoinder is that there are many newspapers in America that are truly failing, yet Trump never mentions them.
Since Trump likes pinning nicknames on his political opponents, it may be appropriate to put one on him that reinforces his lack of credibility and reliability: Don the Con.
2) Emphasize the economy and stock market repeatedly and memorably.
According to Hillary Clinton’s memoir, more than half of all voters considered the economy to be the most important issue in the 2016 election.
Unfortunately for her (and, well, the rest of the world), voters preferred Trump to Clinton on economic issues, despite preferring Clinton to Trump on most other issues.
This occurred even though Clinton had numerous potential heuristics in her favor:
This pieces of information could have been emphasized to voters that would have used them as heuristics allowing them to conclude that Clinton would have presided over a stronger economy. Instead, these potential heuristics went unexploited.
And Clinton did not say anything particularly memorable about the economy during her campaign.
In her memoir, Clinton defended herself against critics who said she didn’t have an economic message. She alluded to speeches she gave at campaign events. But these messages were not well-publicized or memorable. They did not occur before a national audience. And they were points about policy. They did not give voters heuristics suggesting that Clinton was better on the economy. One Clinton TV ad showed Donald Trump on the David Letterman Show being forced to admit that his company produced ties in China. If anything, the ad reinforced Trump’s reputation as a global businessman.
One remark that Trump made about the economy — “I will be the best jobs president that God has ever created” — was more memorable than anything Clinton said about the economy put together. The force of the remark was amplified by Trump’s reputation for candor (see key #3).
In 2020, voters must be informed memorably that Democrats have historically been stronger on the economy — not just for the poor but overall — and that more economists endorse the Democrat’s plan.
Tie it to effects of Democratic policies. Perhaps something like:
“When I am president, the economy will grow faster because poor and middle-class Americans will have more money, greater economic security, and consumer confidence, and the budget deficit will drop, as it usually does under Democrats. That’s why a comprehensive study by Princeton professors reported that GDP growth, stock market growth and numerous other economic metrics have been higher when a Democrat has been president. That’s why X% of economists have endorsed my economic plan compared to Y% for Trump. The economy does better when poor and middle-class people have more money, economic security, and consumer confidence and when the budget deficit is lower.”
Trump may reply with, “The stock market and GDP were both at record highs before the coronavirus.”
The appropriate response would be, “That’s because the GDP and stock market were already high after the Obama administration and you were riding on his coattails. The Dow made 118 record highs during the Obama administration, and that was after it was low following the Bush administration. Even before the coronavirus, in Trump’s first three years, the stock market underperformed that of the first three years of Obama by all the leading stock market indexes.”
Subsequently, it would be appropriate to make sure Trump doesn’t pass the buck on the coronavirus, which is a national security issue.
It is quite remarkable that despite these potential heuristics in Clinton’s favor, Trump was perceived as stronger on the economy.
It is also quite remarkable that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million votes, even though Trump was perceived as stronger on the economy.
If she had stood toe-to-toe with Trump on the economy and offered these heuristics to voters as demonstrations that she was stronger, I believe she would have won the electoral vote as well.
There is no reason why the Democratic Party shouldn’t be considered stronger on the economy.
3) Reduce the criticisms of Trump’s rhetoric.
Donald Trump has made a series of widely-publicized, off-color remarks. For example, he made fun of a handicapped reporter, criticized John McCain for being captured in Vietnam, and referenced reporter Megyn Kelly’s period.
One of the biggest failings of the Clinton campaign was that the following remark was one of the most memorable of her campaign: “The stakes in this election just keep getting higher and higher, and the rhetoric on the other side keeps getting lower and lower.” She used antithesis and amplification. But this is not what the Clinton campaign should have wanted voters to be thinking about on their way to the voting booths.
What people don’t realize, especially people who keep emphasizing Trump’s rhetoric, is that Trump’s off-color remarks actually benefit him in at least five ways.
First, when Trump makes these remarks, they’re entertaining to some people, so the media show his speeches in order to obtain viewers and advertising money. And people will also be more likely to follow Trump on social media for entertainment. That way, when Trump says things in his favor, more people will view them.
Second, they differentiate him from the stereotypical politician who exchanges promises for votes. They him seem more honest. Consequently, he has more credibility when he is talking about things people actually care about, like the economy and jobs and national security.
Third, they make him look like he has the power to do whatever he wants (and that normal political gridlock won’t apply), which confers credibility to him when he makes promises.
Fourth, the more Trump’s adversaries talk about his rhetoric, the more it gives the heuristic to voters that his critics can’t criticize him on the issues that voters care more about.
Fifth, some people make the assumption that Trump’s off-color remarks hurt him in the polls. Consequently, they weigh Trump’s poll numbers against these remarks, which gives them the impression that Trump’s persistent standing in the polls occurs because he is strong on the issues. They are more likely to then support him, which further increases his standing in the polls.
The more you mention Trump’s rhetoric, the more you benefit him in these five ways.
And when you mention Trump’s rhetoric, you are doing no harm to Trump because:
a) The mainstream media have played Trump’s off-color remarks on loop, so few voters don’t already know;
b) Few voters care much about rhetoric compared to other issues that directly affect them, like jobs and national security.
Instead, focus on things voters:
a) don’t already know and
b) actually care about.
4) Reduce usage of the terms “racist” or “sexist.”
“Racist” and “sexist” are vague allegations. Many allegations have been made about Trump along these lines, with a big variation in how serious they are. Liberal media are, of course, more likely than conservative media to promote more serious allegations against Trump.
Therefore, if Trump is called a racist, a conservative might think of white supremacists who endorsed Trump.
A liberal might think of how:
he allegedly said after being sued, “You don’t want to live with them either”;
he allegedly called black people lazy;
he harassed Barack Obama over his birth certificate; and
he banned travelers from Muslim-majority countries.
Likewise, if Trump is called a sexist, a conservative might think of Trump’s position on abortion.
A liberal might think of:
the dozens of allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump;
objectifying and insulting remarks he has made about women, including his own daughters;
and the remark that he could “grab (women) by the pussy.”
Furthermore, the terms “racist” and “sexist” are going to get media coverage, and the remarks on issues that are more important to voters, such as jobs (see key #2) and national security won’t.
Biden would, therefore, be preventing himself from taking advantage of the effect mentioned above: The more you mention an issue (e.g., the economy), the more you’re perceived as strong on that issue.
There is also an effect mentioned in key #3: The more Trump is criticized as “racist” or “sexist,” the more the voter gets the impression that he cannot be criticized on the economy and national security.
5) Point to global warming as a national security issue.
A lot of what I have discussed are appeals to swing voters. However, the campaign also must appeal to people who are at risk of sitting out from the left. The global warming issue is now the most important issue for liberal Democrats nationally. Furthermore, a majority of Americans believe it should be a top priority for the president and Congress.
I have written an expanded discussion about convincing conservatives regarding global warming here. This is also done by feeding voters potential heuristics.
For decades, the fossil fuel industry has used its money to influence the public discourse about global warming.
It has paid millions of dollars to Donald Trump.
Trump has, in turn, withdrawn from the Paris Climate Change Accord; ended the Obama administration’s Clean Power rules to reduce coal-fired power plant emissions; and rolled back the Obama administration’s regulation that reduced methane emissions.
One analyst has said of the fossil fuel industry under Trump, “It’s hard to identify any industrial sector that has ever had this much success with any administration in modern history.”
Many conservatives and moderates and some liberals are unaware of the pressure the fossil fuel industry has applied for decades upon the global warming discourse. This should be pointed out to voters.
Voters who may not understand the science of global warming can use the heuristic that the global warming discussion is biased because one side has essentially been bribed.
It is, therefore, not a scientific issue but a political one. This is an important point to make before Joe Biden ever says a word about global warming because Joe Biden is not a scientist and does not have particular credibility when discussing a scientific issue. He gains credibility when discussing global warming by pointing out that it is no longer a scientific issue — rather, it is a political one.
Pointing to this aspect of the global warming issue will also help appeal to moderates and conservatives.
It illustrates that another campaign promise of Trump’s — to “drain the swamp” — has been broken and not due to an honest mistake but to deceit.
Draw a parallel between global warming and other issues.
Like he is with the budget deficit, Trump is creating problems in our future with global warming. The budget deficit dropped under Obama/Biden; now it is ballooning under Trump.
Like he did with the coronavirus problem, Trump is not listening to the scientists on global warming. And like the coronavirus, he has called it a “hoax.”
The coronavirus is the canary in the coal mine for global warming.
One of the talking points promoted by the fossil fuel industry is that the effects of global warming are overestimated.
It is, therefore, important to make the point that some effects are occurring twice as rapidly as scientists had anticipated.
And that millions of people in the United States alone are at risk.
In sum:
Most voters, especially swing voters, are unsophisticated politically.
Remind voters about Trump’s many unkept promises, thereby reducing his credibility.
Offer voters heuristics that allow them to conclude that you’re better on the economy.
Continuously emphasize the economy as an issue because this emphasis, itself, serves as another heuristic that you’re better on the issue due to focusing more on it.
Focus on reminding voters about the economy and other issues important to them within the month prior to the election because swing voters and people who might not vote are capable of being swayed back by Trump.
Do not focus on Trump’s rhetoric.
Do not call Trump a racist or sexist.
And talk about how Trump is being bribed by the fossil fuel industry and does not listen to scientists.
If you found this compelling, please share and clap.
And if you know someone in the Biden campaign, please send this along for their review.
