What the 2020 Election Revealed About the Differences Between Republican and Democratic Campaigns

7 min readNov 28, 2020

On November 7th, Joe Biden was projected to be the winner of the 2020 presidential election and on November 23rd, President Trump’s General Services Administration gave the go ahead to begin the official transition process. While Trump is currently unleashing an onslaught of lawsuits against various swing states for what he claims are irregularities in the voting system, none of them are likely going to have an impact on the final results of the election.

While many people on the left felt relief with the end of the Trump presidency, others were left astounded after the Democratic Party’s significant losses in the House of Representatives and throughout down-ballot races. These losses help to reveal that the “Trumpian” era of politics is far from over and that the Democratic Party is going to need to overhaul its campaign and political strategy in order to stay on top in future elections.

Biden, a largely well-respected candidate, barely beat one of the most unpopular incumbents in history, Trump. Obviously, there is something wrong with how the Democratic Party approaches campaigns if the margins were this close. More accurately, there is a drastic difference in how the Democratic and Republican parties vie for local support.

First off, and this is something that has become more and more prevalent in discussions between Democratic leadership following 2020 losses, the party as a whole campaigns very poorly. While some moderates may believe the issue is that candidates in swing districts are becoming too tied to controversial progressive issues like Defund the Police and Medicare for All, this has less to do with the policies themselves and more with how the candidates approach their districts.

As a whole, down-ballot Democratic candidates are treated very similarly to top-ballot races like Governor, Senate, and President by the party. However, Republican candidates approach every type of campaign differently. This causes a problem as Democratic candidates do not appear to tackle issues specific to their districts within their campaigns; instead they appear out-of-touch and only focused on national politics. As a result, Republicans win a lot more swing districts as it’s much easier to attach moderate or swing district Democrats to progressive ideas when the Democrats are failing to target their vision to their districts.

Democrats who are able to take this more populist approach and campaign directly towards their future constituents, rather than as a national candidate, see much more success. Two examples of these sorts of campaign strategies can be found in candidates with almost opposite political beliefs within the Democratic Party.

First is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. AOC, as she is more commonly known, gained national acclaim after unseating a long-time Democratic incumbent in the primary of her 2018 congressional election. However, her campaign strategies were what got her to that success and gave her the upset win. Rather than campaigning as a Democrat, even if that was her party label on the ticket, she campaigned as a representative of her district. She published ads featuring her talking to constituents, made sure to point out her connection to everyday people through highlighting her past as a bartender, and volunteered throughout the district. These tactics that were more targeted towards her specific district are what gave her success.

Similar success(albeit not a win but a drastic change in results) can be seen in Colonel Moe Davis’s campaign in North Carolina’s District 11. The Democratic candidate in 2018 lost the general election by 20 points. However, Davis cut that loss to 12 points and was regularly polling close behind the Republican candidate, Madison Cawthorn.

Davis’s policies were vastly different from Cortez’s; he opposed many forms of gun control, opposed many progressive movements like Medicare-for-All, and was largely a centrist Democrat. However, like Cortez, Davis used a populist campaign strategy that focused on highlighting his connection to the region, appealing to everyday constituents, and consistently meeting with district communities to learn what they desired in a representative. His candidacy focused on being a representative for his district, rather than being a representative for the Democratic Party, and this is what helped him tighten the gap in this traditionally conservative area.

Another 2020 race from North Carolina can reveal the drastic consequences if the Democratic candidate fails to target their vision to their office. Jenna Wadsworth was the 2020 Democratic nominee for Commissioner of Agriculture. She was a very progressive candidate who supported policies like Medicare-for-All, strong police reform, and marijuana legalization. Many of these policies were popular in North Carolina. However, because Wadsworth campaigned on these policies rather than ideas specific to her potential office, she was seen as “dark horse” for the Democratic Party.

Because of her failure to target her campaign to her audience, Wadsworth lost the support of many independents and swing voters who may have otherwise decided to vote against a relatively unknown incumbent. By focusing on national issues rather than issues specific to North Carolina agriculture, Wadsworth lost the election by 7 points while all other Democratic losses in the North Carolina Council of State averaged around 3.5 points. Her loss is a stark warning for what happens if the Democratic Party continues with its past campaign strategies.

Along with the failure of the Democratic Party to campaign well in down-ballot races, this election has shown that the political tactics of fear popularized by President Trump can bring candidates success; the “Trumpian” era of fear-mongering politics is here to stay.

Most psychologists agree that fear is a much better motivator than policy when discussing political campaigns. The success of fear-mongering tactics can be seen throughout the contrasting advertisements of the Republican and Democratic parties, especially in the Trump era.

Before Trump, most political ads were focused on policy and the idea of a better future for the candidate’s constituents. Mudslinging, while sometimes used, was rarely the primary motivation for getting people out to vote. However, Trump’s success has shown that attacking one’s opponent and sparking fear can be just as successful.

In Republican ads throughout this election cycle, Democratic candidates have been painted as socialists, anarchists, terrorists and more. While these accusations are largely baseless, they do a great job in firing up the Republican base and getting them out to the polls.

These fear-mongering tactics can be seen on the Democratic side as well. Viral ads from groups like Meidas Touch have made an impact by portraying a horrific future under Trump or Republican rule. Similarly, some down-ballot Democratic candidates have taken the approach of advertising through fear by connecting Republicans to the more controversial parts of their party.

On both sides, policy driven debates and campaigns have been replaced by campaigns driven on fear and ad hominem attacks. However, the Republicans have done a much better job at stoking the fires of their base.

The combination of this campaign environment that favors Republican fear-mongering tactics and Democratic failures at running populist, local campaigns proves a stark warning for likely Democratic failures in the 2022 midterms and beyond. Barring a drastic change in Democratic or Republican campaign strategies, this Trump-style environment and Republican success seems here to stay.

What the 2020 Election Revealed About the Differences Between Republican and Democratic Campaigns

Written by cili kon