Paths Magazine

January 10, 2025

By Sam Baker

Long before sunrise on the morning of November 6th, 2024, it was announced that Donald Trump had beaten Kamala Harris for the presidency. The race, which many anticipated would be decided in five days, was decided in five hours. How could a former president, with two impeachments, one major assassination attempt, over ninety indictments, and Jan 6th on his record manage to return to the Oval Office with the popular vote? The answer, as exit polls tell us, is perhaps in part all of those things. What should be even more surprising for Democrats than Trump’s win is CNN’s exit poll findings. The poll found that more Trump voters than Harris voters described the state of democracy as, “very threatened.” But after all, it was the Harris campaign that routinely emphasized threats to democracy, the Jan 6th riots, and Trump’s promises to be a dictator.

Reactance Theory asserts that if a person is told they aren’t allowed to do something, that option becomes more appealing to them.  Researchers attribute this to a desire to resist those we feel are trying to control us. In a study, researchers put two signs in a bathroom on a college campus. One of the signs plainly told students not to write on the walls, no matter what. The other sign added the word “please” and omitted the ‘no matter what’ component. Later the researchers found that the second sign more successfully prevented graffiti. Likewise, Trump’s indictments, his attempted assassination, and the lack of a Democratic primary made voters want to vote for Trump because it felt like the Democratic party was trying to limit their options. 

Another psychological explanation for why targeting Trump backfired on Democrats is the peripheral route to persuasion. The peripheral route to persuasion is when a person is convinced by superficial cues rather than logic, a phenomenon more common when we’re unmotivated, distracted, or confused. In a study, researchers showed mock jurors reenacted footage from a trial determining whether or not a plaintiff had been made sick by a product. There was one witness who was an expert biologist of varied levels of qualification (publication and education history manipulated by the researchers) hired to convince the jury that the product was in fact the culprit. When his testimony was simple to interpret, participants focused on his argument (the central route of persuasion), but when his argument was complicated, they paid more attention to his credentials (the peripheral route of persuasion). 

Likewise, deciding who to vote for on a logical level requires an ability to understand the facts. Unfortunately, many voters are uninformed, so their decisions are guided by more emotional, superficial factors like authenticity or trustworthiness. Instead of reckoning with policy, many voters cling to emotional issues like how the indictments made them feel due to Reactance Theory. It was a matter of trustworthiness. Why should they vote for Harris, the candidate they associate with lawfare against Trump, the assassination attempt, and lack a democratic primary? Or maybe they were just caught up in their belief that Harris forced laughter or faked accents.

As the Democratic Party performs an autopsy on the Harris campaign, one big finding of theirs, with any luck, will be that the Democrats would likely have been better off letting Trump’s undemocratic actions linger after his first presidency. Instead, Democrats made themselves look undemocratic. If you’re ever campaigning for a political candidate, focus on their agenda, or maybe even their opponent’s laugh. Regardless of whether an opposing candidate might genuinely be a bad option, remember not to come across as interfering with democracy. 

Sam Baker can be reached at baker7@kenyon.edu

---

---