Strategy and showmanship in Trump’s 2024 bid

In elections, especially presidential elections, much attention centres on a candidate’s personality and charisma, often making it seem like these traits alone determine a win or loss. However, a major deciding factor is the people behind the curtains: the mercenaries for hire, also known as consultants.

 

In the earlier Trump campaigns, there was a certain disorganised charm, epitomised by the inclusion of people like Steve Bannon, a disruptor more than a strategist, leading to victories that baffled political analysts. Fast forward to 2024, the Trump campaign had undergone a metamorphosis. It emerged as a streamlined entity, where the tactical nous of operatives like Susan Wiles and Chris LaCivita fused with the unconventional perspectives brought by Trump’s youngest son Barron and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs (Musk, naturally, the most visible). It was Trump’s oldest son Donald Jr., who was the glue that held them together. The shift was also with respect to family, where Ivanka and Jared were invisible throughout the campaign, as Jr. took command.

 

This campaign cycle has seen Trump’s image undergo a reinvention, not as a mere politician but as a brand with layers. The team deployed tactics traditionally seen in product launches, such as celebrity endorsements, cross-demographic targeting, and viral content. Each strategy, from appearances on popular podcasts to carefully staged stunts, positioned Trump as a “product” that appealed across social lines, ensuring Trump’s campaign was both nostalgic for his base and innovative enough to capture new demographics or at least engage them in conversation.

 

ALSO READ: Indian American support for Trump hits historic high with 30% voting, including 45% of men

 

With experienced managers like Wiles and CaVita at the helm, it ensured that there was a clear strategy in mind while holding a steady ship. The strategy allegedly coined by Wiles was to gain some “Enriques” and “Jamals” at the cost of losing some “Karens”. Euphemisms for Hispanic and black men, and white women. They indeed did gain “Enriques” and “Jamals”, and first-time male voters too, energised by Trump’s “bro-wall” campaign. But as the votes came in, it was clear that the “Karens” had not been abandoned as the campaign had hinted. In fact, likely, they never were—the leak to Tim Alberta of The Atlantic was probably a calculated move, a ploy to keep the opposition distracted, feeding them false information while the Trump base stayed galvanised.

 

Including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard was perhaps the most significant coup of this campaign cycle. RFK Jr., with his family history, and Gabbard, with her outsider Democrat credentials, brought a cross-party appeal that Trump’s campaign sorely needed. Their presence signalled to voters that Trump’s tent was expanding, potentially pulling in those disenchanted with the political mainstream. These endorsements didn’t just come with political capital but also ushered in a wave of celebrity supporters, including MIA, Russell Brand, and Zachary Levi. By securing the support of pop-culture icons, the campaign signalled to younger, often apathetic voters that Trump was not just a political figure but a cultural movement—a “brand with buzz.” The campaign leveraged these celebrity endorsements to reinforce Trump’s “anti-establishment” appeal, positioning him as an icon who resonated with influencers across cultural and political lines. This strategy exemplified the campaign’s understanding of social proof—leveraging endorsements to make Trump appear desirable and trustworthy by association.

 

Trump’s campaign was so effective initially that it beat Biden even before the polling. A significant part was, of course, the 27th June debate. Prior to the debate, Trump led marginally nationally. A certain victory for a Republican due to how the Electoral College works, but it was also not too glaring for Democrats to react in panic. After the debate, Trump’s numbers quickly rose, causing concern among both the Democrats and Trump’s campaign managers. However, it wasn’t the debate but the assassination attempt that sealed Biden’s fate. Victory became inevitable, and many fence-sitters enthusiastically threw their hats in the ring for Trump, most famously Elon Musk. When Biden stepped down, he was trailing Trump by 3 points. Then Kamala Harris stepped in, and the campaign managers had to reconfigure their strategy. Their major point about Biden not being “fit enough” became moot, as it was Trump who was the older candidate by quite a margin.

 

ALSO READ: Trump demands resignations from military leaders over Afghanistan disaster

 

In some polls, Trump hypothetically led Kamala with an even greater margin than Biden, and even within the Democratic Party, there was not a lot of enthusiasm for her replacing Biden. Kamala was not charismatic and, having been the vice president, carried all the baggage of the Biden presidency. The polls also showed her trailing, but to her credit, she managed to unite the party behind her and brought a new wave of enthusiasm amongst Democrats who had given up all hope of winning. Within a couple of weeks, Kamala covered her deficit and led Trump.

 

Kamala kept steadily gaining on Trump, with liberal commentators speculating that Trump might as well fire his campaign managers. Kamala achieved two massive bumps: one was the DNC convention, and the next was after the debate. She peaked after the debate. The debate was certainly a missed opportunity for Kamala; despite her technical “win,” it left an impression that she hadn’t quite managed to appear “presidential” enough to seal the deal. That missed note lingered, and it meant that the race, unexpectedly, was still up in the air.

 

The Trump campaign here made a wise decision not to debate again. This was a calculated move to control brand positioning. By avoiding further debates, the Trump campaign minimised risk, avoiding any potential fumbles that could overshadow Trump’s established persona. Instead, they leaned into a strategy of audience engagement through rallies and media appearances where Trump could showcase his strengths—his humour and relatability—without the high stakes of a debate.

 

ALSO READ: Trump wins key battleground state of Pennsylvania, strengthening path to White House

 

Both Trump and his campaign were confused about how to handle Kamala. For example, Trump went after her race, saying she was not black, but that did not work. This, along with JD Vance’s controversial remarks that went viral, had women rallying around Kamala. Flooded with celebrity endorsements, including that of Taylor Swift, who took a shot at one of Vance’s remarks, Kamala seemed to have peaked around mid-September but carried on the numbers up to October.

 

Vance was reported to be a controversial pick. Apparently, Thiel’s non-actionary lackey was chosen only because Trump’s team thought that elections were in the bag. Hence, they did not need a moderate and could choose another “Trump” or someone more right to him. Once Biden withdrew, Vance became a headache, who, due to his radical positions and lack of charisma, was losing moderates and women for Trump. This was in contrast to Tim Walz, who, despite being a progressive, came off as an everyday guy with his dad’s humour and just called the opposition “weird.” But things were about to change.

 

Then came the first VP debate on October 1, preceded by murmurings that Vance would say something controversial, be a complete bore, or both. While Walz would be quirky, get some potshots on Vance and further enhance the Kamala campaign. People really underestimated how eloquent the Yale law graduate is, who was a TV regular after his book’s success and unanimously praised for his, yes, eloquence. Instead, audiences found themselves watching something unusual: a genuinely civil debate. Vance won the debate, but even Walz came out as good because of how they behaved.

 

The debate, we believe, was a turning point because it finally made the campaign realise what the apt strategy was. The timing couldn’t have been better. Harris’s campaign had shown signs of plateauing, her numbers hovering after a week-long peak. The Trump team, sensing an opportunity, recalibrated the narrative.

 

ALSO READ: Trump demands resignations from military leaders over Afghanistan disaster

 

Vance, seen as potentially problematic, was now reframed as the “intellectual” of the ticket, allowing Trump to return to his role as the charismatic populist. Two contrasting elements of the ticket served to expand the ticket’s overall appeal without compromising either’s core message. However, the bottom line was that the least likeable Vance was the smartest guy on the ticket out of the four. The most likeable Walz was the simpleton or the dumbest guy. For Democrats, it snatched away an important narrative point that Vance would replace Trump, and things would go worse as Vance was a neo-reactionary. Now, with Vance emerging as the more “presidential” of the two—sober, eloquent, albeit not exactly likeable—moderates started looking twice. By simply allowing Vance to be Vance, Trump’s campaign had finally struck gold.

 

The strategy worked great. Vance possibly crushed every interview he participated in; the more combative the interview, the more he seemed to enjoy it. In fact, he was most out of his element in the Joe Rogan Podcast, but that likely ended his “weird” image once and for all. Vance simply focused on policy and issues. Vance’s evolution in the campaign was emblematic of a deeper cultural shift. The Republican Party was grappling with the challenge of moving from a populist base to a party that could appeal to both the “heartland” and urban intellectuals. Vance bridges the gap between these two worlds. He might or might not be the future of the GOP; he is a sign of its attempt at intellectual reinvention.

 

Trump, meanwhile, embraced a surprising restraint. This was a toned-down Trump, shedding the bombast for something almost wholesome. His appearance on the Flagrant podcast had him joking about his one black guest’s dreadlocks, managing to sound endearingly clued-in rather than out-of-touch. On Undertaker’s podcast, he was like a fanboy who basically ended up interviewing Undertaker. On Joe Rogan, there was his history nerd side and tact of mind to go on for three hours straight. This was not your crazy, outspoken grandpa but your funny grandpa who is actually a smart guy. The rallies, of course, were just stand-up shows; he just made some jokes, and everyone laughed. The approach was genius: Trump was still Trump, but this time, he’d rediscovered a way to charm.

 

ALSO READ: Trump wins key battleground state of Pennsylvania, strengthening path to White House

 

Not that this strategy didn’t have its setbacks. During his Madison Square Garden speech, a comedian made an unsavoury joke about Puerto Rico. However, the campaign was built around Trump’s “everyday guy” image and led to what we consider his biggest wins.

 

Firstly, his McDonald’s moment. It was, one must concede, a masterstroke of political theatre. Whether orchestrated or spontaneous hardly matters; in the grand circus of electioneering, all is performance. Not only did it troll Kamala for lying about working at McDonald’s, but it also showed him as an average Joe who was sincere about menial jobs. This resonated with the working class, especially the young men who felt that the system had betrayed them. Here comes Trump serving fries, joking about Kamala, and telling his customers they’re special. Billionaire Trump, who fought against the system, got convicted and continued to fight for you. That was one inspiring image.

 

Secondly, the garbage truck gambit. One could argue it’s less a stroke of genius than an obvious play, yet the execution was impeccable. The campaign’s logistical prowess turned a simple jest into a visual metaphor. By rolling into Wisconsin in a vehicle emblazoned with his name, following Biden’s ill-advised epithet, Trump transformed what could have been a mere slogan into a moving billboard of defiance. His address was also brilliant, wherein he calls his driver a “beautiful man” who looks like a “young Carey Grant.” So, in effect, Trump not only trolls Democrats, he continues with his “I am just like you” guy, but also praises the driver, and not for how hard he works or is a real American political rhetoric, but just for his looks.

 

In both these instances, Trump does not patronise them despite being an ex-president billionaire businessman and affirms their aesthetics by being a part of them. He is making people feel seen. Most importantly, however, these stunts put Trump in the news cycle, overshadowing Kamala, something Trump thrives on.

 

ALSO READ: US Election: Georgia voting suspended due to bomb threat; Democratic supporters accused of violence

 

Despite the surge Kamala experienced post-debate, it became clear that the Harris-Walz ticket had difficulty shaking off Biden’s legacy of inflation and rising crime rates. The Trump campaign didn’t let up on these points, doubling down on critiques of the Democratic handling of the economy. The message was simple but effective: “Do you feel better off today than you did four years ago?” This refrain reverberated across rallies and social media, tapping into economic anxieties and positioning Trump as the alternative to continued hardship.

 

The issue with the Harris-Walz ticket was the mismatch. Unlike Trump’s carefully segmented strategy, Harris-Walz struggled to integrate its strengths. Kamala is not as eloquent as Vance and certainly has no charisma compared to Trump. The funny guy between the two, Walz, is not as charismatic as Trump. The funniest and smartest guys were on the opposing ticket.

 

Harris also followed Obama’s model, wherein she tried to bring in everyone and create a coalition of sorts around moderates while also coming off as more progressive than her predecessors due to both her record and Walz’s. This meant she was doing both podcasts and combative interviews. Her podcast appearances came off as forgettable, and her Fox interview was terrible, where she got caught by the interviewer. Contrast this with Vance, whose eyes lighten up at such moments. Harris lacks Obama’s wit and charisma and hence, can follow the playbook but cannot exactly copy it. Her public persona was constantly undercut by the balancing act between authenticity and electability.

 

The real success of his campaign lies in the emotional charge it created—an amplification of the electorate’s psychological distress. While Harris fought the spectre of her unease and tried to fit herself into the moulds she was handed, Trump fed off the anxiety and anger in the American electorate. His message wasn’t just heard, it was felt. Trump’s campaign had both seasoned consultants, SV tech-bros, and his sons Donald Jr. and Barron. In marketing terms, this was a diversified team with a “startup mentality”—risk-tolerant, data-driven, and highly adaptive. Each member of Trump’s team brings specialised insights that feed into a larger, adaptable strategy, from analytics to grassroots engagement. This gives a fresh perspective on things. Barron arranged podcast interviews, Wiles and LaCivita thought of the stunts, the tech bros brought in the money and data, and Jr. acted as the glue that bound them together. A team that is certainly unusual but crafted a campaign that will be remembered for its audacity and ingenuity—one that will surely be dissected for years to come.

Janak Pandya is a consultant and analyst keen on socio-economic dynamics, writing on topics ranging from historical undercurrents to modern campaign strategies.

Pavit Singh studied Economics at Hansraj College in DU and is pursuing a master’s in Development Studies at TISS, Mumbai.