The Debate Wasn’t Really for Swing Voters

Julia Azari: “After Trump was elected, there was a lot of talk about the psychological and identity factors that drove his support – he made his supporters feel good about their social identities, and he made them feel like winners. I suspect something similar has been going on with Democrats and Harris, and she used the debate context to draw those comparisons and make her supporters feel like part of a winning team. An important element of this tactic is that it’s not for swing or undecided voters. It’s not even really for the news media. It’s for the hardcore partisans and fans who are watching, and it gives them the energy boost that was, well, the opposite of the Biden debate back in June. Supporters who feel like part of a fun, successful, high-status team seem much more likely to volunteer, canvass, and publicly signal their support.”

“Facing Trump on the debate stage also allowed Harris to highlight her opponent’s biggest weaknesses on democracy and temperament. This is for anti-Trump conservatives – people such as the Cheneys, former George W. Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and the writers at the Bulwark. Reminding traditional and disaffected Republicans of their fundamental differences with Trump and the threat he poses to democracy and national security is what speaks to this group.”

“Again, this is not really for swing voters, who may not be especially attuned to these issues. But they might be swayed by either group – the signals from anti-Trump Republicans, or from enthusiastic, partisan Democrats.”