The Hidden Influence of Branding in American Politics
I believe most people didn’t vote for Trump the man; they voted for Trump the brand.
Imagine walking into a store and choosing one product over another, not because of its functional benefits, but because of how it makes you feel about yourself. This is the power of branding, and for me, it explains one of the most puzzling aspects of the recent election.
I was genuinely baffled by how more than half the voting population could make the choice they did. They voted for a convicted felon with a history of sexual assault. They preferred the man who pretends he’s tan to the woman who actually is. They ignored his lies, his crude remarks and off-color actions, his obvious decline.
His opponent outlined policies, answered questions, acknowledged challenges. He reported that Haitians were eating our pets, Hitler had some good qualities, and the world’s most wicked problems would take him only one day to solve. Yes, the Democrats’ campaign had flaws, but why would rational, moral people place their bets on a 78 year old man swaying on stage for 40 mins to Ave Maria?
In response to that question many rushed to describe Trump’s supporters as ignorant or evil. But I have friends and family who voted for him and neither of those descriptions fit them. Others blamed cheating by Russia, or China, or billionaires. Plausible, but highly unlikely given the monitoring of voting places and the numerous checks and balances enacted at a county level. While right-wing media undoubtedly spread misinformation contributing to Trump’s victory, it wasn’t convincing enough to influence down ballot selections. Voters in states he won simultaneously supported progressive measures like abortion rights.
I don’t like lingering too long in a “what the fuck” state, so I searched for answers in other places. I explored theories about economic anxiety, studied voter demographics, and read countless post-election analyses. Yes, people are discontent. Yes, misogyny and racism remain potent hurdles. And yes, many young men are rudderless and lacking identity. But these explanations fell short for me, so I turned to my own expertise. Decades of listening and learning from consumers helped me see something familiar at work: the largely invisible but incredibly powerful force of branding.
Most of us dismiss branding as just logos and catchy slogans, but its influence runs far deeper, shaping our choices in ways we rarely notice. Because of this, I believe most people didn’t vote for Trump the man; they voted for Trump the brand.
I have a deep understanding of how brands are created, distributed, and monetized based not only on my education but also 30 years of helping companies build global brands. I could waste the rest of my life preaching the risk inherent in using brand marketing for political purposes, but I could never argue that it’s ineffective. It works very well when done competently, as evidenced by the election outcome.
The Basics
A brand is like a mental shortcut, similar to how you instantly recognize a friend’s face in a crowd. Just as that single glance tells you everything you know about your friend—their humor, their reliability, their quirks—a brand instantly conveys everything we’ve come to believe about a product or company.
Take Nike, for example. Most of us will never know the complex science behind the design, manufacturing, and marketing of their shoes. But we all know that simple Swoosh logo, and when we hear “Just do it,” we instantly connect with a spirit of determination and athletic achievement.
Google—arguably one of the most complex corporations in the world—doesn’t intimidate or confuse us with its technical underpinnings. Instead, it shows up on the web as a mostly blank page, accented with a single visual, a query box, and an option labeled “I’m feeling lucky.” Its brand is friendly and simple, and its experience helps us feel knowledgeable and connected.
And then there’s my current favorite, Liquid Death. This is a can of water designed specifically to attract young, edgy consumers. Its packaging echoes that of beer and its brand attributes (its name, logo, and professed values) pay homage to punk and heavy metal bands. Order it at a concert venue and you won’t feel like a wuss.
That’s the power of effective branding—it transforms something highly complex or something without much real content into something we instinctively desire and trust.
A good brand saves us time and effort, particularly when it’s used in a category that is unfamiliar, confusing, or intimidating—like politics. Those who are well educated and have access to reliable sources might be able to understand policy stances or the influence of PACs and deep-pocketed donors, but do they have the time? What about the majority of Americans (slightly over 50%) who read at a 6th grade level or lower. How do they decide which candidate or measure best suits them? Reducing political complexities to a tagline, a sign, or a red hat helps sway a wide swath of voters.
What Did We Really Choose?
Numerous elements of the Trump brand worked together to present a vision far more compelling than the man himself. It heightened DJT’s few attractive characteristics while recasting his malignancies. If Trump the man is a can of water or worse, Trump the brand is a cleverly designed image of late 20th Century masculinity, boldness, affluence, and traditionalism. The brand’s power flows through an ocean of merchandise, venues, interviews, partnerships, iconography and slogans, all bathed in “patriotic red” – a highly saturated hue designed to communicate strength, confidence, and authority. Against this backdrop, Trump’s personal antics become mere sideshow.
This type of brand identity—shaped over decades in association with cars, cigarettes, and most recently technology—is familiar to Americans. We understand what it means at an instinctual level. To accept that constructed image as the “real Trump” is to become part of an appealing and familiar club populated by “empire builders,” and those who can “cut through the bullshit.” A supporter of Brand Trump feels strong, capable, able to make sense of an increasingly confusing world, and more likely to come out on top.
The Trump brand might have succeeded on its own, but it pushed the identity even further. Late in the process, and possibly just in time, the Trump brand did a “refresh” by aligning itself with the Elon brand.
The Elon brand is as powerful as the Trump brand and shares many values. Both are masculine, bold, affluent and successful builders. But Elon adds a new value that’s highly relevant today—risk-taking innovator. He could be a potent challenger to Trump (and maybe that will eventually happen), but for now they’ve chosen to merge identities. For many people, especially young men and a percentage of Latinos, the Elon brand supercharged the Trump brand with an infusion of massively ambitious goal setting and tech-powered problem solving. The merger also added black and gold to the color palette (see Trump’s hat change) signaling that this is now a premium, exclusive, and high status brand. Break out the Members Only jackets.
In stark contrast to the Trump brand’s well-established appeal, Harris’s campaign had to build a brand that incorporated inclusivity and justice, values that, while appealing, lack the cultural associations that would have given it immediate traction. She is an appealing, intelligent and experienced woman. She is an intriguing mix of warmth and kindness backed by a steely insistence on fairness and a hint of cold-hearted strength. She crafted reasonable policies built on the promise of serving the people and fighting for justice. She raised an enormous budget and attracted top tier celebrities. Her values—empathy, progress, and resilience—remain admirable and could become a potent counter to the Trump brand. But that will take time.
I won’t ignore the obvious and neither should you: Kamala was female and many of her most visible endorsements came from other females. Her brand didn’t emphasize its feminine characteristics, but it couldn’t hide them. DJT could tap into decades of positive male stereotypes, while hurling a barrage of negative female ones at Harris including “lazy,” “dumb,” “weak,” and “low IQ.”
Does the female versus male influence mean that the majority of voters are misogynists? No, I don’t think so. A long-standing phenomenon in marketing has proven repeatedly that to gain the largest audience brands should lean masculine. The math is simple. Females have no problem buying or associating with male oriented brands, but most males shy away from female oriented brands. Sure, it's cultural conditioning, but it’s not necessarily intentional nor even consciously noted. It just is.
In 2008, Obama reached out with brand characteristics similar to Harris (notably minus the female attribute) and they worked well. But in 2024, voters were in a different place. Covid was a disease, but it also was the first experience many had with an abrupt loss of personal freedom. The shutdown, however necessary, trapped them in their homes, cut income, added burdens, wiped out businesses, and left people feeling unstable and vulnerable. For many, this was a repeat blow in a decades’ long economic beating. Post pandemic, when one presidential brand promised “freedom” associated with equality and diversity, and the other promised “protection” backed up by overtly male power, the majority weighed those two options and said “Yea, protect me.”
What’s Next?
Of course there were other factors, including the economy and ongoing wars, but the Trump brand triumphed and it’s foolish to ignore that. I’m hoping, by sharing my knowledge here, others can learn to see through this lens. The lens is not dark because brands are not all powerful—even the most successful. That’s where I find optimism looking forward. A compelling brand is not created with magic fairy dust. It requires skill and, most notably, it has built-in constraints:
It must continually resonate with people. If it doesn’t engage it can’t motivate or influence.
It must deliver on its promises – either by enacting them or by convincing people it has.
It must be predictable. People rarely trust brands that act randomly or out of character.
It must evolve with the culture. If the culture moves ahead and the brand doesn’t keep up, it dies.
It can’t force change. It has to seduce or manipulate without being too obvious.
It can be beaten by a better brand.
My optimism lies in the belief of a better political brand that attracts both men and women. That appeals to all ages. That can be embraced and believed by those who live in the North and those who live in the South. A brand that is neither purely Democrat nor Republican but instead conveys a vision of an American future that a majority can embrace. I will be watching over the next year for that brand to begin taking shape, and I’ll share what I see.
I’m also optimistic because even the most powerful brand must eventually deliver on its promises. You can assure people they can eat anything and still lose weight, but eventually they step on the scale. Will the Trump brand be able to deport 20 million laborers, enact tariffs, and not send grocery prices skyrocketing? Can they enshrine Christian nationalism without alienating 250 million non-Evangelical Americans? Are they willing to further enrage females of all ages by passing a comprehensive abortion ban? Like any brand that over-promises, the Trump brand will either have to deliver acceptable results or convince its followers they have, in fact, lost weight.
Keep Going
I hope this first episode has piqued your interest in seeing what’s hiding in plain sight. I’m not here to change your vote or your values—just to help you recognize subtle influences that affect us all.
To start noticing how brands shape your perceptions, consider:
When you see someone walking down a sidewalk drinking from a Starbucks cup, what instant assumption do you make about his or her politics?
If you trust Tylenol (or any similar brand) over an identical generic painkiller, what does this tell you about brand authority?
How did your preferred news sources earn your trust? How would they lose it?
If given a choice, which vehicle would you expect Trump to arrive in versus Harris? Why does it matter?
If the next person to lead the Trump brand is a gay man, will that change how you feel about the party?
Understanding how brands influence our choices – from morning coffee to presidential candidates – is the first step toward making more conscious decisions. In the weeks ahead, we’ll explore how these same brand dynamics are reshaping American politics.
Issues:
The Constant Pull of Political Brand Experience — policy positions convince the head, emotional experiences capture the heart
The Power of Political Perceptions — we interpret much of what we see and hear through a narrow personal lens.
The Unexpected Logic of Political Messaging — consumer brands generally shun negative messaging and overpromises, political brands have more flexibility
The Friendly Face of Modern Propaganda — modern influence campaigns create environments where new ideas feel like natural conclusions
From Bad Bunny to the Ballot Box — it’s time for Democrats to rethink their relevance and reimagine their future
The Prime Directive of Political Unity — Coalitions can be built around shared values without forcing conformity of action
Power Signals — Real or Political Theater? — in a contentious political landscape, we need to accurately interpret displays of power
Bar Talk and Belief: What a Nashville Honkytonk Taught Me About Trust — what makes one source trustworthy and another not – and why can’t we agree on this?
Flying Blind in a Digital Age — what if the solution isn’t another media overhaul, but rather a reimagined way of accessing news?
Post-Truth Social — why do intelligent people fall for blatant, politically motivated lies, forcing us all to become perpetual fact checkers?
Heroes and Villains — we cling to the outdated promise of heroes defeating villains, when it's unseen networks of quiet collaborators that solve most problems
The Politics of Looking Backward — how nostalgia tricks us into longing for a past that never really existed
If you’d like to learn more, subscribe below to receive posts weekly. The subscription is free. If you know others who might also find this useful, click the Share button.
Hey Christopher, This is an awesome take. I am looking forward to learning more. This seems actionable if only to learn more about what I am seeing and more about what I want to be prepared to say in my conversations.
Curious to hear your thoughts of the effectiveness of GOP decades-long campaign to define Democrats. Counter-branding in a sense. They spent decades labeling Democrats as “takers”, soft on crime, immoral, unpatriotic, not from “real America,” etc., to the point where many Americans just have a visceral reaction to Democrats regardless of actual policies or achievements. [Admittedly this is observation not analysis, but I don’t think it’s off the mark.]