With Election Day now just 70 days away, both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions have wrapped up, featuring Donald Trump and JD Vance at the helm for the GOP, while Kamala Harris and Tim Walz lead the Democratic ticket after President Biden exited the race in July.
One common thread across both parties is the manipulation of information to cast themselves in a favorable light while casting their opponents in a negative one. In today’s digital age, politicians often utilize data to reinforce their points.
Voters must sift through manipulated data as both parties push narratives that may not align with reality
With a wealth of data available, it’s easy to cherry-pick facts to support whatever narrative a politician wants to push. Although the perception might differ from reality, it is up to voters to sift through the information and draw their own conclusions. Take the economy, for instance. Assessing whether it’s thriving or struggling depends on which data points are highlighted.
Major stock indices are near record highs, inflation has leveled off at around 3%, and the Federal Reserve is considering cutting interest rates. These indicators suggest economic strength, yet they may have minimal effect on certain segments of the population.
While wage growth has outpaced inflation recently, public perception often lags behind, with many still feeling the squeeze of higher prices. Employment sits around 4.3%, though job creation is slowing, and some sectors are struggling with either shortages or surpluses of skilled workers.
In politics, data is routinely manipulated to create favorable narratives, a tactic that’s become standard in campaigns. Misleading claims are often debunked by fact-checkers, but it rarely sways opinions. Both parties are guilty of these distortions, and voters are inclined to accept their own party’s message while dismissing the opposition.
For example, Trump’s August 15 claim that California law allows people to steal up to $950 without facing charges was rated false by Politifact. Similarly, Harris’s assertion that Trump planned to cut Medicare was mostly debunked.
While voters should be skeptical of misrepresentations, they do offer insight into a candidate’s character and campaign. However, voters tend to believe what aligns with their biases, rather than the truth.
Campaigning candidates seem to forget that a small fraction of voters in key states will decide the election. In 2016, about 110,000 votes across three states tipped the scales, while in 2020, it was roughly 50,000 votes in a few battleground states.
Misinformation, including deepfakes, highlights character, such as when Trump circulated a fake Taylor Swift endorsement, sparking backlash. Given the swift nature of modern communication, politicians would be wise to stay truthful in their critiques.
As Election Day nears, the candidates’ focus should shift to the battleground voters, whose influence will at the end decide the winner. Misrepresenting the facts too heavily could lead to defeat for those who push the most extreme narratives.
