The Unexpected Logic of Political Messaging

While consumer brands generally shun negative messaging and overpromises, political brands have more flexibility.

Picture a young marketer at Apple pitching a new campaign idea: “First, we’ll terrify our customers about the state of their lives. Then we’ll make them feel like victims of a broken system. Finally, we’ll position the new iPhone as their only salvation.”

The room would fall silent. Consumer brands rarely go negative because they know people instinctively avoid unpleasant associations. We don’t want our soft drink reminding us of our problems. Our shoes should contribute to our accomplishments, not our anxiety. Even insurance companies, which literally sell us protection against disaster, wisely wrap their messaging in humor or warmth. 

Photo by Anthony Rosset on Unsplash

Yet in 2024, this exact fear-based messaging strategy helped elect Donald Trump. 

Instead of detailing the positive features and potential benefits of his administration, he painted America as a dystopian nightmare of crime-ridden cities, overrun by invasive migrants preying on law-abiding citizens. After stoking these fears, he positioned himself with remarkable simplicity: “Only I can fix it.” And once again, nearly half of American voters bought what he was selling.

Several readers noted this paradox in a previous post. “How can a successful brand breed fear while promising safety?” one asked. Another observed, “American brands typically don’t dwell on the negative. Also, we tend to be leery of brands claiming to solve all our problems, yet both approaches worked for Trump.”

These readers highlight an important insight about political messaging. While consumer brands generally shun negative messaging and overpromises, political brands have more flexibility. A campaign can go dark or hopeful, modest or grandiose. Almost all options are viable, as long as the message aligns with voters’ current emotional state and needs. That’s the key: the message needs to match what the audience is ready to hear.

The Power of Alignment

Consider how this plays out in practice. 

Barack Obama’s 2008 “Yes We Can” campaign worked brilliantly because it hit a trifecta of alignment: the right moment, an authentic messenger, and a primed audience. Americans were exhausted by post-9/11 grief and a looming financial crisis. Obama’s personal story embodied hope and change, and voters were desperately ready for optimism and unity. The message resonated across genders, age groups, and ethnicities.

When the Harris campaign attempted a similarly uplifting approach in 2024, it fell short—not because positive messaging had lost its power, but because the alignment wasn’t there for enough Americans. A large percentage of voters felt trapped by inflation, global conflicts, and deep cultural divisions. Celebrations of freedom and slogans of resistance didn’t resonate with them. The moment called for something different. 

Trump’s negative messaging succeeded precisely because it aligned with his supporters’ concerns. His vivid descriptions of threats resonated with his voters’ fears (illegal invasion, corrupt system). His identification of victims validated their grievances (hard-working Americans, patriots). And his starring role as the sole solution offered the certainty many craved (only I can fix it, I am your retribution).

This three-part construction wasn’t accidental. It’s what George Lakoff, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at UC Berkeley, calls the “relief frame” — a powerful sequence of elements that transforms anxiety into allegiance: name the affliction, identify the victims, present the hero. When this framework reflects voters’ perceived reality, it’s a perfect fit for their head and their heart.

I could detail more examples from the past 50 years, but the lesson would remain the same. In politics, either negative or positive messaging can be appealing, as can over promises. As long as the messaging mirrors voters’ current emotional state and perceived needs, few rules apply. Conversely, you can hire top talent, work ceaselessly on the narrative, and launch your campaign with extensive support, but unless it hits the intended audience at the right time and in the right way, the message will fizzle. 

The election winners in 2026 will be those who read the national mood and meet voters where they are emotionally.

Looking Forward

The mood of voters is already shifting, and effective messaging must follow suit. Trump supporters are jubilant and relieved, making his message of salvation less relevant. He’ll need to pivot, likely to a message of dominance or winning – a new alignment for a new moment.

Meanwhile, Harris supporters feel nervous and angry, searching for messages of hope and validation. But so far, they mostly hear promises of resistance shouted into the darkness – messages that may not align with their deeper needs.

By 2026, these contrasting emotional states will evolve further. If Trump’s administration fails to deliver on his promises, voters might seek the comfort of unity, and collaborative solutions rather than solo rescue missions. If economic challenges persist, they may respond to leaders who feel their pain while offering more practical paths forward. And if younger voters flex their growing influence, they might demand messengers who speak their language and see their vision for the future.

I'll be listening for these new messages and messengers. But more importantly, I'll be watching how people change over the next couple of years and what that reveals about their deepest needs and wants.

Your Turn

When you find yourself drawn to (or repelled by) political messages over the next two years, consider:

1. What makes certain messages resonate with you on an emotional level? What specific concerns do they address?

2. For messages that fall flat with you – is it the content that fails, the timing, or the messenger?

3. How might changing circumstances (economic, social, global) shift what you want to hear?

I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments. Your insights might help others better understand how political messaging evolves with voter needs.

---

If you’d like to learn more, subscribe below to receive posts regularly. If you know others who might also find this useful, click the Share button. You can find my previous posts on the influence of branding in politics at Hidden in Plain Sight.