Election Day is now just 70 days away. The Republican National Convention is over, with Donald Trump and JD Vance at the top of the GOP ticket. The Democratic National Convention is also behind us, with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz winning their party’s nomination after President Biden abruptly dropped out of the race in July.
If there is one theme that is common to politicians in both parties, it is how they misrepresent information to spin a positive view of themselves — and a negative view of their opponents.
Using data to make a point is common in today’s digital society. Given the plethora of data available, it is often straightforward to find evidence that makes just about any point a politician wishes to make. Even if perception is not reality, voters must wade through all such information to make their own assessments and conclusions.
Consider the economy as an example that impacts almost everyone. Is the economy healthy or struggling? The question sounds simple, but the answer depends on what data you use.
The major indices of the stock market are near all-time highs. Inflation has stabilized at around 3 percent, moderating price increases. The Federal Reserve is talking about an interest rate cut later in the year. All such aggregated metrics can be interpreted to mean that the economy is on solid footing. Yet many such metrics have limited impact on some people.
Though purchasing power (wage increases minus inflation) have been positive over the past year, the perception of higher prices has dampened some people’s view of the economy. The unemployment rate now sitz at around 4.3 percent, with job creation slowing. Much depends on what area a person works in, with some sectors struggling to find skilled workers and other sectors showing a surfeit of people seeking work.
All such data is factually true. What differs is how data is cherry-picked to make a desired point — one that shines a dark shadow on your opponent and a bright light on yourself. This is the nature of politics and campaigning, part of every politician’s campaign playbook since the birth of our nation.
When data and information are misused, fact-checkers quickly jump in to assess what is being stated and its veracity. Often, fact-checking debunks politicians’ misinformation but has little to no effect. In today’s political environment, there is no accountability when a politician makes blatantly wrong statements or (conveniently) fails to provide a complete picture of a situation.
Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of such distortions. And the voters in each party are primed to believe them, and to discount anything offered by the other side.
For example, when Donald Trump stated on Aug. 15 in a news conference that “California law lets you ‘rob a store as long as it’s not more than $950’ and not get charged,” blaming Kamala Harris, Politifact rated the claim as false. Similarly, Politifact rated as mostly false Harris’s July 30 statement in a rally in Atlanta that “Donald Trump intends to cut Medicare.”
Though there is no direct way to stop such misrepresentations, voters should welcome them: they actually serve as valuable pieces of information. When a candidate makes outrageous statements that misrepresent data, it permits voters to access the character and platform of the candidate.
Of course, voters are prone to believe what they want rather than what is true.
What candidates appear to forget in their campaigning strategy is this simple truth. Given the polarized status of the nation and electorate, a small number of voters will ultimately determine who will win the White House. In 2016, it came down to around 110,000 votes in three states (Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania), while in 2020, it was around 50,000 votes, also in three states (Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona). Only these states — and these voters — are critical when it comes to assessing the credibility and electability of a candidate.
Data misrepresentations, including deepfakes, provide valuable information for voters, such as when Trump posted a fake Taylor Swift endorsement, prompting backlash. With social media effectively communicating information at the speed of light, politicians today would be wise to keep their statements about their opponents as close to true as possible. Given that it will likely take just a few thousand votes to move the Electoral College outcome and determine who will win the White House, the risk of being exposed can be a candidate’s undoing.
So when Donald Trump or Kamala Harris make statements about each other, they will certainly get cheers from their respective supporters at rallies. However, the 100,000 people in key battleground states are their real audience and who they should be speaking to. Indeed, the candidates with the most outrageous misrepresentations may find themselves on the losing end come Election Day.
Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
