Donald Trump is launching an aggressive $30 million advertising campaign targeting Vice President Kamala Harris over her support for gender-affirming surgery for California inmates. This unprecedented ad blitz raises a crucial question: can such a campaign built on hatred effectively sway voters in the upcoming election?
Recent polling suggests that Harris’s once-comfortable lead over Trump is beginning to erode. An NBC poll released on Monday indicates a tie at 48–48, compared to the five-point advantage she held in September. While Harris maintains a slight edge nationally, with a lead of around two and a half points, key swing states remain highly competitive. Concerns among Democrats about her slipping momentum are growing. Some speculate that her recent strong debate performance gave her a temporary boost that is now fading, while others attribute it to her absence during recent hurricane responses.
Despite these fluctuations, Trump’s ads, particularly one titled “Insane,” seem to have made a significant impact. The ad highlights Harris’s support for gender-affirming surgery for a prisoner involved in a violent crime, ending with a voiceover from Trump affirming its message. It has been broadcasted over 24,000 times, with a staggering viewership of nearly 550 million, capturing attention even in traditionally Democratic regions.
The Trump campaign has allocated more than $17 million to this single ad, indicating its perceived importance in swaying voter sentiment. Additional ads focusing on similar themes have pushed total spending on this messaging to around $30 million. In comparison, Trump’s other campaign advertisements, including those targeting Biden and Harris, have seen far less financial commitment.
While Trump’s campaign seems confident in the effectiveness of these ads, the underlying message is troubling. The ad combines anti-trans rhetoric with a “soft on crime” narrative, targeting not only Harris but also the broader LGBTQ+ community. The intention is clear: to provoke anger against a vulnerable group, suggesting that transgender healthcare for inmates is an affront to taxpayers and society.
Interestingly, nothing in the ad is factually incorrect. Harris has publicly supported such measures, citing the Eighth Amendment’s requirement for inmate healthcare. However, this stance, while legally sound, is being weaponized in a way that distorts the larger conversation about transgender rights and healthcare.
As Harris prepares for upcoming interviews, including one with Fox News’s Bret Baier, she faces a critical moment to address these attacks head-on. It is essential for her to highlight the scientific and legal backing for gender-affirming care and advocate for the dignity and rights of transgender individuals.
Moreover, Harris should pivot the conversation back to Trump’s divisive rhetoric, emphasizing his consistent pattern of promoting hatred towards various groups, including migrants and the LGBTQ+ community. This strategy could effectively counteract Trump’s negative messaging and shift the focus toward the issues that matter to voters, such as healthcare, jobs, and climate change.
Historically, transphobia has not proven to be a winning strategy for Republican candidates. Many past attempts to exploit anti-trans sentiment in elections have backfired, leading to significant losses for those who chose to run such campaigns. Public support for LGBTQ+ rights has steadily grown, and for many voters, issues surrounding transgender rights are not primary concerns when heading to the polls.
Cohen’s analysis illustrates that while anti-trans messaging may evoke strong emotions, it often does not translate into lasting electoral gains. Voters may react negatively in the moment but tend to prioritize more pressing issues when making their final decisions.
In 2020, Trump’s campaign did not focus heavily on these themes, indicating a shift in strategy that some analysts view as increasingly desperate. As his campaign’s spending on hateful ads climbs, it remains to be seen whether this tactic will yield the desired results or backfire spectacularly.
The hope is that this $30 million investment in hate does not resonate with voters and that, instead, compassion and understanding triumph in the electoral arena. The outcome could set a precedent for how future campaigns address sensitive social issues and the broader implications of targeting marginalized communities for political gain.
