The USelection campaign is in the home stretch. Currently, both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are tied at the national level ahead of the election on 5 November. At this stage, it is important for presidential candidates to win over undecided voters. In the 2024 elections, the key swing states or battleground states are Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
They play a key role in the outcome of the presidential race, and Democratic and Republican candidates currently have the same levels of support. The group of ‘swing states’ tends to be the same in every presidential cycle, although certain demographic changes and turnout can turn a traditionally red or blue state purple.
Some context from the 90-minute performance in September that the whole world watched
It is worth recalling how, in the heat of the September debate, Trump and Harris accused each other of lying and engaged in a dispute over foreign policy, the state of the economy, migration, employment, the abortion ban, and their presidential plans.
Among other things, Kamala accused Trump of leaving the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression, a broken healthcare system after the worst epidemic in a century, and the worst attack on American democracy since the Civil War. And the Democrats cleaned up the mess that Trump created.
Trump, for his part, accused his opponent of launching a full-scale invasion three days after her failed mediation between Zelenskyy and Putin. He believes that the war in Ukraine would never have started if he had been the mediator. Incidentally, this reasoning is a typical attribution error, where certain reasoners incorrectly explain the causes of events or behaviour. They may attribute successes or failures to external factors that do not actually have a significant impact. In Trump’s case, he blamed his opponent for starting the war on her failed mediation, when in fact many other factors contributed to the outcome.
At the end of the debate, Democratic supporters began to believe that Trump was a convicted criminal who evaded direct answers to questions and talked down to his opponent, while Kamala was sincere, consistent and competent. Republican supporters, of course, hold the opposite view, believing that Trump speaks honestly, from the heart, and has a good grasp of the context. At the same time, they criticise Harris’s policies, considering them destructive for the country, saying that the Democratic candidate contributes to inflation, uncontrolled immigration and crime. Harris has also been criticised for her positions on taxes and economic issues.
‘And the first will be the last’
Experience shows that presidential debates in the US rarely change voters’ preferences. Both Harris and Trump have made swing states a priority of their campaigns, targeting them with visits and rallies in the run-up to the election.
It is interesting to observe the evolution of the Republican candidate’s PR techniques. For example, 8 years ago, during the previous election campaign, Trump demanded from a high podium that his audience swear allegiance to him here and now, used provocative statements and an active presence on social media; his campaign was distinguished by loud statements and controversial opinions, which helped him to remain in the spotlight of the media and voters.
Now his collection of techniques to influence the electorate has been enriched. What can move voters more than the willingness of a former and possibly future president to stand at a fast food counter, thus minimising the distance between himself and mere mortals, while exchanging remarks with customers that levelled down his opponent in the presidential race?
So, Trump decided to enrich the race by using his charm in a very original way. As an experienced TV host, Trump knows how to use his media skills to create the right image and memorable messages. While Putin earns popular sympathy by kissing little boys on their tummies, his running mate Trump decided to stage a performance in a fast food restaurant. During his campaign tour, Trump made a stop at a McDonald’s in Pennsylvania, where he briefly worked at a fryer and took orders.
Although this is not a new technique: some celebrities have used such PR stunts before to emphasise their connection with the people and draw attention to their initiatives. For example, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg worked in their regular workplaces to show their commitment and understanding of routine duties.
There is a scientific basis for this PR ploy, when celebrities work in ordinary jobs for the sake of PR. According to the social comparison theory, people often compare themselves to others to determine their own social position. When public figures come down from their Olympus and get involved in simple work, it evokes a sense of closeness and understanding among the audience, as they see that even celebrities face the same difficulties and do not shy away from them.
Self-esteem theory states that people seek self-respect and self-esteem. When celebrities show that they are willing to do ordinary things, it reinforces their image as honest and hardworking individuals, which has a positive impact on their self-esteem and public opinion.
People tend to imitate the behaviour of others, especially those they perceive as authority figures, according to the theory of social influence. When celebrities engage in unskilled labour, it can inspire their fans to be more hardworking and responsible in their own work.
Putting on the red: how Musk came to support Trump
Elon Musk, a billionaire entrepreneur, engineer, and inventor known for his innovative companies, who used to sympathise with the Democrats, decided to support Trump this time for several reasons. First, he is said to be disappointed in Biden’s policies and believes that Harris’ victory will lead the US to a bleak future. Second, Musk allegedly sees Trump as a leader who supports his views on freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. And, of course, Musk has mercantile interests related to space contracts and business, which he believes will surely gain a lobby under the Trump administration.
Known political solo campaigns and tandems of wealthy individuals and presidential candidates
It is quite logical to involve reputable and resourceful associates in the election campaign to increase the chances of your success in the elections. For example, Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire and former mayor of New York City, used his resources to finance his 2020 presidential campaign by engaging several influential associates: former mayors of Miami, Philadelphia and Stockton. They helped him promote his campaign and attract voters.
Donald Trump, a billionaire himself, received significant support from other wealthy Americans during his campaign. In addition to Elon Musk, he was backed by such influential individuals as Sheldon Adelson, David Sachs, Steven Schwartzman, and others. Adelson, a well-known billionaire and casino owner, was one of Trump’s largest donors. David Sachs, a venture capitalist, also actively supported Trump by organising fundraisers and expressing his support on social media.
Here is another interesting case. In 1992 and 1996, Ross Perot, a billionaire businessman, ran for the US presidency as an independent candidate. In 1992, he received about 19% of the vote, the best result for an independent candidate since Theodore Roosevelt. Perot financed his campaign with his own money, using television ads and direct appeals to voters to convey his ideas of a balanced budget, economic nationalism and e-democracy. In 1996, Pero ran again, this time as a candidate for the Reform Party, which he founded. Although he received fewer votes than in 1992, his campaign was still one of the most successful for a third party in US history. Perot actively opposed NAFTA and other trade agreements that he believed were harmful to American workers.
Perot’s campaigns demonstrated that an independent candidate can have a significant impact on the US political landscape by using his own financial resources and innovative methods of communicating with voters.
How Musk relies on social roles, social proof and social influence
It seems that Trump and Musk have decided to synergistically maximise their campaign efforts by diversifying their methods of approaching voters, mainly undecided ones. While Trump took a job in fast food, Musk, known for his willingness to actively invest in the projects he is implementing, announced a $1 million reward for Pennsylvania voters who support a petition for free speech and the right to bear arms. He stressed the difficulty of spreading the word due to limited media coverage.
A member of the audience was chosen as the first prize winner on the condition that he or she would become a representative of the petition promoted by Musk. Senator John Fetterman acknowledged the entrepreneur’s popularity and appeal to the demographics Democrats are trying to reach. Since July, Musk has contributed at least $75 million to support Trump’s re-election through a PAC, a political action committee that raises funds to support or oppose candidates, bills, or policy initiatives.
In addition, people outside of Pennsylvania were paid $47 to sign a petition and another $47 to make a recommendation.
It is obvious that by using financial incentives to draw attention to his petition and support certain political positions, Elon creates the image of a ‘benefactor’ and ‘supporting candidate’ to evoke positive emotions and support among voters. Public actions such as giving away money can convince people that a candidate is serious and sincere. Of course, Musk uses his popularity and influence on social media to draw attention to the campaign and increase its visibility.
The above-mentioned unconventional PR campaigns by Trump and Musk demonstrate that there are no limits to creativity in politics when it comes to winning the hearts of voters. I wonder if the originality and generosity demonstrated by the odious political leader will tip the scales in his favour?
Tetyana Morarash
