Analyzing the loss experienced by Kamala Harris and the Democrats in this year’s elections reveals several overlooked factors, despite various commentators attributing the defeat to multiple causes.
Observers have pointed to issues such as the economy, immigration, threats to democracy, frustrations with elites, and President Biden’s delayed decision to enter the race. While these aspects are relevant, they provide only a partial understanding of the situation.
With over three decades of research in psychiatric studies focused on public attitudes, I have identified critical flaws in these analyses. Many commentators fail to recognize the unique and powerful impacts of AI and social media on voter behavior, as well as the limitations of traditional survey methods in capturing these influences.
AI reshaping the political narrative through misinformation and emotion
The emotional manipulation facilitated by social media and AI alters political dynamics. These technologies are adept at inciting emotions, particularly through the use of misinformation and deceit, which has dramatically changed the narrative of American politics.
AI enhances the ability to create convincing fake images, videos, and audio. Each algorithm continuously adapts and learns which messages resonate most with specific audiences, adjusting content based on what draws clicks and engagement. The advancements in AI-driven emotional recognition and communication are rapidly progressing.
Consequently, these innovations turn politics into a more aggressive battleground, igniting intense emotions of fear, hatred, and violence, particularly among candidates who utilize AI’s capabilities for distortion.
Social media has begun to supplant traditional news outlets, which historically adhered to principles of balanced reporting. It acts as a conduit for foreign interference, allowing nations like Russia and China to undermine democratic processes.
Harris enjoyed her strongest polling numbers immediately after her debate with Trump, where she effectively challenged his falsehoods. However, following his refusal to engage in further debates, he was able to construct his narrative, resulting in improved polling for him, while objective reality became increasingly irrelevant.
A 51 percent of Trump supporters believed democracy was under threat, fueled by unfounded claims regarding illegal immigrants infiltrating the electoral system. Despite the absence of evidence supporting such voting, Russian-manufactured videos purportedly provided validation, spreading virally on social media platforms.
With over 200 million followers, Elon Musk, the owner of X, actively promotes MAGA narratives while suppressing Democratic content, overshadowing the voices of the 160 million individuals who participated in the election.
Harris’s comprehensive policies and democratic concepts appealed to reason, yet they fell short against the potency of fake news. The emotions stoked by Republicans proved far more influential.
Recent neuroscience studies illuminate why emotional responses dominate decision-making in voters. For instance, research involving thought experiments about moral dilemmas highlights how different brain regions activate for utilitarian versus emotionally charged decisions.
In these studies, participants faced a scenario where they could either pull a lever to divert a trolley car, killing one person instead of five, or physically push an overweight man off a bridge to stop the trolley, sacrificing him to save others. While the majority found the lever pull morally acceptable, far fewer agreed with the act of pushing the man, reflecting the differing cognitive processes involved.
The utilitarian choice of pulling the lever engages the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, associated with reasoning and abstract thought, while the emotional implications of pushing the man are processed in the more instinctual “reptilian” brain, responsible for emotional arousal and personal connections. The frontal cortex, which governs utilitarian reasoning, evolved later in human history.
Russian videos fueling false claims that reshape election perceptions
Pollsters have not adequately accounted for these emotional drivers in voter decision-making, necessitating a reevaluation of their methodologies. Traditional surveys often use forced-choice questions that may not address deeper biases, such as gender or racial prejudices, which voters might be reluctant to acknowledge directly.
To uncover hidden biases, pollsters could implement questions designed to reveal social desirability bias, such as gauging concern about others’ opinions. Surveys have often failed to explore the broader contexts of voters’ concerns, limiting understanding of the underlying emotions that shape their priorities.
Voter priorities are increasingly influenced by algorithm-driven misinformation and emotional responses. It is not merely what voters know but what they believe they know based on the disinformation they encounter. Consequently, these priorities often do not reflect fact-based knowledge but rather distortions propagated by AI technologies.
While historical voter comprehension of key issues has often been lacking, the current technological landscape intensifies these challenges. Although Democrats have engaged with AI, they have not effectively utilized its potential to evoke emotional responses.
These developments hold huge implications for the future. Although Trump may struggle to fulfill all his promises—many of which are vague and contradictory—his supporters may remain undeterred by such failures.
To respond effectively, Democrats must deepen their understanding of how to engage the brain’s emotional centers, crafting strategies that combat misinformation and leverage new technologies. This includes developing targeted images and algorithms that continuously refine outreach efforts.
While honesty must remain paramount, Democrats must adapt to the evolving communication landscape, especially as Elon Musk continues to wield X’s influence to promote Trump’s agenda. To keep pace with these emotionally-driven trends, pollsters need to innovate their assessment methods. Otherwise, the advantages of AI may once again tilt the scales in favor of its users.
Robert Klitzman, M.D., serves as a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Joseph Mailman School of Public Health. He also directs the Master of Science in Bioethics program and is the author of “Doctor, Will You Pray for Me?: Medicine, Chaplains and Healing the Whole Person.”
