Political messaging is an attempt to impose order on madness — with so many facts and circumstances swirling around, how does a party pick out what works best and fashion a story that speaks for them, and against their opponent?
I think we’re not very far off from automating these strategies. But for now, you’re stuck taking speculations from people like me, as to what the essence of these stories actually are, and more importantly, what they aren’t. And I’m stuck writing these because I’m nervous about the election.
Today: the Dem narrative, in <5 minutes.
What has been the essence of the Democratic pitch this fall? I would say it goes something like this:
Donald Trump only cares about one person: himself. This is his character, and this is why his policies are divisive, exclusionary, and regressive. He’ll attack your personal freedoms becasue the only freedoms that matter to him are his own. Kamala Harris cares about you, even if you might not care much for her. She’ll unite instead of divide — enabling us to reach forward and achieve the promise of our American ideals.
You could cut this into a quick TV ad, or you could expand the idea into a full speech. Recently, this has manifested as the catchphrase “Donald Trump will enter office with an enemies list, but I’ll enter office with a to-do list.”
I should note this is probably more similar to Biden’s pitch than we tend to think (she delivers it with more moral force). Take this ad, released by the Biden camp after their debate in June. The home run hitter line: “Donald Trump only cares about himself.”
There are three main reasons the overall pitch should theoretically resonate:
It connects character to policy — if Trump only cares about himself, he’ll only advance policies in his interest (regressions to abortion, cuts to the millionaire class, etc.). It’s quite a broad statement that holds up well. So whether you’re a voter that particularly cares about policy or character or both, your bases are covered.
It connects Kamala to the right side of democracy — the “I’ll be for you even if you don’t vote for me” that makes representation functional. It’s almost too easy to place Trump on the other side of this (read: from today)
It centers on very “American” ideas that have historically been captured by conservatives, most notably freedom (Kamala walks out to “Freedom” by Beyoncé at her rallies).
In devising a pitch so pithy, just as important as what’s included is what isn’t. So what isn’t part of the core message?
First — Trump as a historic, existential threat to democracy, or for that matter, Trump as a weird clown. Some would argue that focusing on the latter minimizes the former — how can a clown take down an institution as steadfast as democracy? But the focus on the latter saw Tim Walz’s vice presidential candidacy emerge from what seemed like nowhere, in interview appearances like these:
“You know there's something wrong with people when they talk about freedom: freedom to be in your bedroom, freedom to be in your exam room, freedom to tell your kids what they can read. That stuff is weird.” — Tim Walz
“The opposite of normalizing authoritarianism is to make it weird, to call it out and to sort of mock it,” Jennifer Mercieca, a historian at Texas A&M University, who wrote a book on Trump’s rhetoric, said.” — AP News
Yet, the “weird” rhetorical framing has largely disappeared recently, with a return to more of the Biden-esque “threat to democracy.” Cue Kamala’s recent press, where she followed John Kelly’s lead in calling Trump a fascist. (Funnily enough, when Tim Walz visited Duke, I heard him say, “Trump is a f . . . he has totalitarian tendencies”). It’s unclear to me whether this is a move based on polling data comparing these two strategies, or whether it was more important to highlight the words of Trump’s former Chief of Staff. Either way, I would argue the most “extreme” message on either end is not the story on election eve.
Second — Forward mention of Kamala’s current position as Vice President. Both candidates are jockeying to take up the “candidate of change” position, which would free themselves from defending the status quo. Kamala’s motto “We Will Not Go Back” speaks to this, and as an anti-institutionalist, Trump the challenger was always stronger than Trump the incumbent. This is why I think despite the resounding success of the Inflation Reduction Act, whose passage was shepherded by Kamala’s tie-breaking Senate vote, the campaign isn’t making her VP record central to her core message. Why? It reminds voters that she’s had 3.5 years to do . . . . what exactly?
Trump’s rhetoric is strongest in such a position, and JD Vance is all to happy to sane-wash it. Either can talk about the wars that erupted in Ukraine/Russia and the Middle East during the Biden/Harris admin, or Kamala’s role in immigration:
“President Joe Biden, watching tens of thousands of migrants from Central America reach the U.S.-Mexico border just a few months into his administration, tapped his second-in-command to help address the influx — a decision that has exposed Vice President Kamala Harris to one of her biggest political liabilities — PBS
Third — pretty much anything outwardly progressive. When Kamala became the nominee over the summer, March for Our Lives immediately moved to endorse her — its first endorsement ever. While bold, the decision sapped the advocacy group of leverage to push for commitments in reducing gun violence. This, I believe, is in part why campaign mentions of gun policy have just as much around Kamala as a gun owner than Kamala as a gun control advocate. Similar consequences are playing out with immigration and climate advocacy groups.
All these groups realize that big tents win general elections, which is why Kamala is moving toward the middle. They realize that Trump would be far worse for their interests, regardless of how the two candidates rhetoric has moved closer together.
The potential trade-off, as my friend pointed out to me, is volunteering. Progressives drive volunteering and organizing in a way that moderates theoretically cannot — they, after all, have “more to lose.”
Kamala always had an uphill climb when nominated — with the job of introducing herself first, and then framing Trump on her terms. Trump just had to frame her on his terms.
Is this framework, like much of the campaign strategy, any more than Beltway chatter? Who really knows. We’ll find out tomorrow.