No doubt, the reasons are legion and the analysis / finger-pointing will go on for a very, very long time. Was it because she was a woman? Was it because that, as Vice-President, she couldn’t distance herself sufficiently from the Biden administration? Was it because she didn’t push back on the transgender ads?
All of the above played a part, to be sure. But there’s one factor that I have yet to hear about from most of the pundits:
Branding.
The tell is something that seemed to be a constant in a majority of the responses given by working-class Trump voters. When asked why they supported him, just about all of them said “the economy.”
If you’ve been following the issues (and if you’re reading this, I assume you have been), you know that the Biden economy is the best we’ve seen in generations, far outstripping the economy under Trump – even when you take COVID into consideration.
I’m not suggesting that that this was a reasoned decision by these voters; quite the contrary, in fact. I’m suggesting that “the economy” was merely an excuse they gave themselves to do what they instinctually wanted to do: identify with Republican branding, and distance themselves from the Democratic brand.
Now, what exactly is “branding?” It’s a word that gets casually tossed around. There are various interpretations, but my favorite is this:
Branding is how you “feel” about a product. Not how you think about it.
I think that Kamala ran a terrific campaign. But I say that it just wasn’t enough to overcome the brand differential between the Republican and Democratic brands.
If you agree with the definition, that means that branding is an emotional process, not an intellectual one. I’ve had a saying for over 30 years now, and over and over again, it has proven to be true:
Emotion trumps logic. And tribe trumps everything.
(I started saying this long before Trump, by the way.)
Issue-based polling (e.g., abortion, workers’ rights, etc.) will miss this entirely. Try this little thought experiment suggested by Jon Stone, a friend and brilliant political mind:
Imagine a Republican.
You might well imagine someone who’s White, rich, male, Christian, member of a country club, goes to church every Sunday and drives a Mercedes.
Now imagine a Democrat.
If you imagine someone living in a big city, member of a minority (pick one), holder of a degree (but in a relatively low-paying job), community activist on his or her (most likely her) way to a protest demonstration, you probably won’t be far off as to what the average voter thinks.
Trump fit the brand to a tee. So did Kamala.
Who would you rather be?
So as much as we’d like to think that the election was a contest between two candidates, it was just as much (or more so) a contest between two brands.
And one-on-one, face-to-face in the ballot box, the Democratic brand lost.
So when voters use “the economy” as a reason to support Republicans – despite the fact that the economy has performed much better under Democratic presidents – it’s a clear indication they’re voting for the brand, not the candidate. This is the “emotion trumps logic” part of the quote. (The “tribe” part is the border, obviously.)
Republicans have burnished their brand for generations now. It represents rich, Christian, tough on crime, pro-business, strong on defense and White. Oh, and did I mention rich?
With Trump, add “strong” to the branding. Even though Trump’s supposed “strength” was only play-acting (as it was with Bush Jr.), the Republican refusal to never, ever, ever admit a mistake – under any circumstances – plays well enough with a large enough segment of the population (particularly certain men) to get them to ignore stupefying levels of corruption and incompetence. That’s the power of branding.
And don’t forget that when it comes to brand identity, Republicans have their own multi-billion-dollar branding machine with Fox News. Even with the sound off, the brand penetrates with its mix of glamorous (almost entirely White) talent, elaborate sets, hot chicks (who know their place, of course) and stars and stripes everywhere. What’s not to love?
It’s no accident that Trump is attempting to stock his cabinet largely with Fox News hosts, despite – or, more likely, on account of – their total lack of qualification. Whether Trump is doing this out of familiarity, venality or just sheer laziness, Trump understands the visceral power of image and he’s ruthless in exploiting it. Democrats need to start their own makeover process immediately; they underestimate the power of branding at their own – and the nation’s – peril.
Yes, Republican branding is, indeed, formidable. But it’s not insurmountable. With Clinton versus Bush, it was young, regular, self-made guy over out-of-touch aristocrat, and with Obama / McCain, it was “old” versus “young,” as well as trying something new after 12 years of GOP presidents. In each case, though, the winning candidate seemed to be more of “one of us,” and the losing candidate more of the “other.”
Voters were all-too-familiar with Trump, making him less of the “other.” And Republican branding did the rest. I think that this explains the shift towards Trump. Citing “the economy” as a reason to vote for him is the tell. One other indication of what really happened is that after Harris wiped the floor with Trump in their lone debate, the polls barely moved, it at all. This was simply astounding. It means that voter preference was already locked in before the debate and there was likely precious little that the Harris campaign could have done to change it.
As far as the polls predicting a Harris win are concerned, I suggest that responding to a poll is a logical action, but when it really counts – in the voting booth – emotion wins. So, many voters who were on the fence ended up pulling the lever for Trump… or not voting at all.
I think that Kamala ran a terrific campaign. But I say that it just wasn’t enough to overcome the brand differential between the Republican and Democratic brands.
But, you ask, what about the relative success of Democratic down-ballot candidates?
Good question! It’s just conjecture on my part, but my guess is that voters are more tolerant of political disorder on a local level; they expect strong debate on issues specifically relevant to them and will support candidates who are willing to get their hands dirty.
But when it comes to the presidency, keep in mind that about two-thirds of American adults are Christians. Presumably, they’re believers in an all-powerful God. So an all-powerful Trump is not only a familiar concept; many no doubt find it comforting.
Which is very bad news for American democracy.
I’ll say one more thing – and this isn’t easy to say:
Face it: Many people don’t like Democrats very much. Or at least, they may dislike both Republicans and Democrats, but they dislike Republicans less. Democrats are “tax and spend,” “Black Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police.” Democrats are the ones who tell them that global warming is real, vaccines work and other truths that are the political equivalent of telling voters they need to “eat their spinach,” while Republicans tell voters that as long as they believe in Jesus, Trump and the Republican Party (not necessarily in that order), everything’s going to be just fine.
You can’t force people to like someone. You can’t tell people not to feel something they’re feeling. So this is a tough nut to crack; no doubt about it.
Here’s the takeaway: Those of us who support democracy (I don’t necessarily mean just Democrats, BTW) need to think a lot less about issues (“logic”), a lot more about message (“emotion”) and, most importantly, messengers. (“tribe”.)
How to do all that is a whole other thing for another time. But for now, let’s keep our eyes on the ball and start by gauging the scope of what needs to be done. More door-knocking, phone banking and high-dollar campaign events alone won’t cut it. Exactly what will get the job done is still up in the air. But one way or another, there’s a lot of work to do. Let’s get started.
