Dr. Carl Senior
Reader in Psychology at Aston University in the UK, leads research on the psychology of nonverbal behaviour in leadership. His work includes analysing nonverbal cues in political contexts, focusing on the 2012 U.S. presidential election and the 2019 and 2024 UK general elections, exploring how leaders’ behaviours impact public perception and engagement.
Email : c.senior@aston.ac.uk
U.S. Election 2024
36. The tilted playing field, and a bygone conclusion (Dr David Karpf)
37. Looking forwards and looking back: Competing visions of America in the 2024 presidential campaign (Prof John Rennie Short)
38. Brat went splat: Or the emotional sticky brand won again (Prof Ken Cosgrove)
39. Election 2024: Does money matter anymore? (Prof Cayce Myers)
40. Advertising trends in the 2024 presidential race (Prof Travis N. Ridout, Prof Michael M. Franz, Prof Erika Franklin Fowler)
41. Who won the ground wars? Trump and Harris field office strategies in 2024 (Sean Whyard, Dr Joshua P. Darr)
42. Kamala Harris: Idealisation and persecution (Dr Amy Tatum)
43. Kamala Harris campaign failed to keep Democratic social coalition together (Prof Anup Kumar)
44. Revisiting Indian-American identity in the 2024 U.S. presidential election (Dr Madhavi Reddi)
45. Harris missed an opportunity to sway swing voters by not morally reframing her message (Prof John H. Parmelee)
46. In pursuit of the true populist at the dawn of America’s golden age (Dr Carl Senior)
47. Language and the floor in the 2024 Harris vs Trump televised presidential debate (Dr Sylvia Shaw)
48. Nullifying the noise of a racialized claim: Nonverbal communication and the 2024 Harris-Trump debate (Prof Erik P. Bucy)
49. A pseudo-scientific revolution? The puzzling relationship between science deference and denial (Dr Matt Motta)
50. Amidst recent lows for women congressional candidates, women at the state level thrive (Dr Jordan Butcher)
The U.S. presidential election is a highly publicized event, often regarded as the most extensively broadcasted election globally. In the weeks and months leading up to Election Day, candidates competing for the White House receive blanket media coverage, with every speech, rally, and debate widely disseminated across numerous platforms. Given the significant influence and authority vested in the presidency, this intense media focus is unsurprising, as the election outcome has substantial national and international implications.
The broadcast media’s central role in the election process is well understood by campaign managers and party leaders, who carefully craft the public image of their candidates to appeal to voters nationwide. Leaders from both the Democratic and Republican parties work to present their candidates in a way that resonates with Americans from coast to coast, whether in California, New York, the redwood forests, or along the Gulf Stream waters. This curated media presence is essential for shaping public perception and garnering support in an election landscape where image can be as influential as policy.
However, given the stark ideological contrasts between the Democratic and Republican parties, there are inevitable differences in how figures like Kamala Harris and Donald Trump perform on television. Each brought a unique style that aligned with the values and expectations of their respective voter bases. These distinct performative approaches were carefully tailored to influence specific groups of voters; after all, if their media strategies didn’t sway public opinion, there would be little reason to continue investing in such meticulously constructed personas (see e.g., Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote).
At first glance, both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump appeared to embody the ideological core of their respective parties. Harris represented the Democrat’s emphasis on collective welfare and global cooperation, while Trump reflected the Republican focus on individual liberties, economic growth, and national sovereignty, all central themes of the conservative ideology. These attributes made each of them highly symbolic figures within their own specific political landscapes.
However though ideologically opposed, Harris and Trump did share similarities in their performative styles and appeal, both aligning with principles of effective populism (see e.g., The Power of Populists). Trump, however, was in a stronger position to capitalize on traditional populist narratives, swaying undecided voters who may favour a Republican president and support his potential return to the White House. His messaging resonated clearly with the national zeitgeist, reinforcing a brand that’s already widely recognized. Harris, in contrast, faced the challenge of conveying a more complex populist narrative that balanced progressivism with inclusivity, requiring a more nuanced approach to connect with a broader audience who may be cautious about favouring her at the ballot box.
Harris, therefore, had to convey her authenticity effectively to persuade voters that she could genuinely advocate for the rights and interests of ordinary people. Such communication of authenticity is critical in establishing a connection with the public, that would have allowed her to build trust and resonate with voters on a personal level.
Mediated authenticity can indeed be a powerful asset in effective leadership, as it fosters relatability and credibility. However, few politicians manage to convey this trait convincingly, as it requires a careful balance of sincerity and strategic communication—a skill that only a handful of leaders master successfully.
The concept of mediated authenticity is well-illustrated by the political rise of Boris Johnson in the UK. Despite being polarizing and often unpopular, Johnson was perceived by many as authentic, which, combined with his distinctively performative style, helped him dominate the political landscape and secure a historic majority. His perceived genuineness gave him an edge over other politicians, resonating with voters in a way that overshadowed his low popularity scores and divisive reputation.
Johnson’s eventual fall from grace, however, was not due to a typical democratic process or shifting voter sentiment. Instead, it was his disregard for his own government’s policies and standards that led to his downfall, demonstrating how quickly public tolerance can wane when authenticity is coupled with perceived hypocrisy. His journey underscores the volatile power of authenticity in politics, showing both its capacity to elevate leaders and its potential to hasten their decline when trust is broken.
Prior to the election, both Harris and Trump were virtually parallel in terms of popularity. Which raised a crucial question regarding voter intentions: how will their distinct political styles influence their chances of success? Trump’s traditional populist approach, characterized by performative rhetoric and strong emotional appeals, clearly resonated with the electorate. Meanwhile, Harris’ emphasis on authenticity and genuine connection with voters failed to make a mark.
As the election unfolded, it was clear that Trump’s performative style would successfully propel him back to the White House while Harris’ authentic approach failed to create a compelling path to the Oval Office. The interplay between these contrasting styles determined not just the outcome of the election, but also the broader direction of American politics for the years to come.