Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How harnessing the power of bad helped Trump win the debate

Donald Trump on stage at the debate

Donald Trump's emphasis on the power of negative information gave him an advantage at Thursday's debate.

Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images

Assari is an associate professor of public health and Internal Medicine at Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science. He is a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

On Thursday, we witnessed a debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. What captured most of the audience's attention were Biden's occasional stumbles and Trump's numerous statements inaccuracies. Biden appeared humble and policy-focused, while Trump was loud, assertive and well-spoken.

However, another significant aspect was Trump's rhetoric, which was often filled with threats, fear and loss, especially on topics like immigration and crime. In contrast, Biden's points were primarily centered around policies and statistics aimed at benefiting Americans overall, with a particular focus on the vulnerable.


Despite Biden's stumbles and Trump's lower factual accuracy, Trump's emphasis on the power of negative information gave him an advantage. His strategy tapped into the human mind's bias towards negative information.

When comparing the influence of good and bad, there is an undeniable truth: Bad is stronger than good. This phenomenon, deeply rooted in the human psyche, has significant implications in various domains, including politics. Understanding this principle helps explain why Trump had the upper hand in the debate.

A basic and powerful fact about the human mind is its preferential attention devoted to threats. Our memories are also inherently biased towards negative experiences. This is not just a superficial observation; it's a well-documented phenomenon in social psychology and economics literature. It is also rooted in human evolution and the wiring of our brain. Roy F. Baumeister and his colleagues famously highlighted this in their paper, "Bad Is Stronger than Good," which has been cited over 10,000 times by other scientists.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Baumeister's review paper, published in 2001, showed us that negative events have a more significant impact on our emotions, thoughts and behaviors than positive ones.

For instance, people react more strongly to threats and failures than to opportunities and successes. This is evident in experiments where negative experiences consistently overshadow positive ones in terms of emotional impact.

In various domains, from romance to everyday interactions, negative experiences tend to have a more profound and lasting effect than positive ones. This is because the human brain is wired to prioritize and remember negative stimuli as a survival mechanism.

Baumeister's review provided us with many real-world examples that illustrate why negative information is more compelling.

Journalists know that stories about negative news often receive more attention and are more widely shared than positive ones. This is because we are naturally drawn to bad news, which we perceive as more urgent and important. On social media, posts that evoke anger, fear, or outrage tend to go viral more quickly than those that promote happiness or positivity. This is a direct consequence of the mind's bias towards bad information.

Economists have also shown us asymmetry between our sensitivity to loss and reward/gain. The pain of losing $10 may be more than the reward from winning $20. Neuroscientists, meanwhile, have shown how more primitive parts of our brain are responsible for our loss aversion.

It's essential for the audience to be aware of the power of Trump’s messaging about threats and negativity. Such messaging continues to give him an edge, regardless of the actual probabilities of these fears. This continuous advantage is not just a matter of political tactics but is deeply rooted in the psychological makeup of the audience.

At the same time, Biden did not sufficiently focus on the threats posed to our democracy by a second Trump term and MAGA Republicans. This was a missed opportunity during the debate. By highlighting the potential risks of another Jan. 6 and the negative consequences associated with a second Trump administration, Biden could have better leveraged the power of bad, which could persuade undecided voters who are wary of the MAGA agenda.

As we reflect on the impact of the debate, Americans should be mindful that some of Trump's advantage in Thursday's debate was not solely due to Biden's occasional stumbles but also to Trump's excellence in harnessing the "power of bad." This proficiency could influence election results. Understanding these psychological principles can help us mitigate the unparalleled influence of such tactics.

Read More

Portrait of three young adults
MoMo Productions/Getty Images

Youth are the change we need now

Wright is a youth leader at NM CAFe.

Politicians often proclaim that “youth are the future,” but they don’t listen to our voices or consider our opinions when making policies that will shape the future. The reality, however, is we don’t need to wait for young people to become changemakers — we already are changemakers. We are actively shaping the world through activism, raising our voices and organizing — and it’s time for politicians to take us seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
Sen. John Ossof and Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer

Sen. John Ossof and Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer rank as 'builders' for their ability to work on significant issues that resonate beyond their districts.

A new kind of political scoreboard: The Builders Power Rankings​

Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and executive director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Fantasy football coaches take in their weekly scoreboard every Tuesday and analyze what went right and wrong over the weekend. They determine where the weaknesses are on their team and plan to adjust the lineup so that next week the scoreboard is more favorable. This Tuesday, while focusing on one of the country's most divisive presidential elections in history, Americans are also electing representatives from Congress down to village board. We have studied the facts, made our choices, and set our lineups. The decisions may have been easier if we'd had a scoreboard that ranked our lawmakers in a way that gave us insight into what adjustments to make.
Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump speaking

Former President Donald Trump speaks at a rally Oct. 27 at Madison Square Garden in New York.

Peter W. Stevenson /The Washington Post via Getty Images

Donald Trump's violent legacy

Monti is a professor of sociology at Saint Louis University.

Donald Trump presents himself as the greatest defender of American democracy since Abraham Lincoln. His monumental conceit might be dismissed out of hand, except for this: There is some merit to his boast. Surely not in the edifying way he intends but still deserving more serious attention than many Americans would be inclined to give it.

At the heart of the violent legacies left by Lincoln and Trump is the problem of order: imagining the kind of people Americans should become and harnessing the energy of a restive population whose own views on that question could not be ignored.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Rep. Derek Kilmer

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Rep. Derek Kilmer, two congressional workhorses, are retiring at the end of the year.

Congress is losing some of its best players this year

Fitch is a former CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former Capitol Hill staffer.

The college basketball world got a jolt to its system this month when beloved University of Virginia coach Tony Bennett announced his retirement. A big loss for the Cavaliers, and even a loss for the sport. When great leaders or players leave an industry, it can cause significant harm for their organization and the people they serve.

Similarly, at the end of the 118th Congress, the House and Senate will lose a greater number of “superstar players” than at almost any other time in recent memory. Most of these public servants are not household names, yet that is the definition of a “workhorse” in Congress (in contrast to a “show horse”). They show up, put their heads together and hammer out bill after bill to benefit the American people.

Keep ReadingShow less