Rebutting GOP Crime & Immigration Attacks

The Republican Party has run one playbook cycle after cycle in the era of Trumpism: relentlessly attacking Democrats as instigators of out-of-control crime and chaos at the border. These attacks will no doubt continue to be central to Grand Old Party (GOP) messaging in 2022, as the Republican Party doubles down on exploiting fear and white grievance politics. Democrats must have a response, because these attacks are both salient and effective—not only among the GOP base, but also with some groups of swing voters.

Third Way and Global Strategy Group Research have conducted several rounds of research over the last year, most recently deploying a mail survey to 1,510 registered voters across several competitive battleground districts. Our aim was to prepare Democratic campaigns for these inexorable attacks by testing: 1) the efficacy of pre-emptively inoculating candidates against them; 2) how to best respond once the attacks land; and 3) who might be the most persuasive messengers.

This research showed that Democrats do have avenues to effectively both shield and rebut the crime and immigration attacks we know are on the horizon.

On Immigration: Pre-empt the Attack and Correct the Record.

Throughout the past ten months, we have tested every culture war attack in the book and consistently found that crime and immigration hits were most effective at undermining Democratic candidates. In our latest round of research, we focused on understanding how candidates can most effectively defuse those two issues in the midterms. Swing voters were shown two negative GOP advertisements attacking a fictional Democratic member of Congress on crime as “anti-police” and a “Defund Democrat”, and on immigration for wanting to “open our Southern border to illegal immigrants.” When swing voters were shown these mailers first, the Democrat was underwater by 17-points.

These same voters were shown post-attack rebuttal advertisements that stated the Democrat’s bipartisan record of 1) funding law enforcement to reduce crime and 2) working with law enforcement to secure the border in order to “keep our communities safe.” Following this rebuttal, swing voters were backing the Democrat by 8-points, a 25-point swing to the left, including among suburban voters (D+9), college-educated voters (D+11), and moderate voters (D+9).

This survey research next tested what would occur if voters were exposed to pre-emptive advertisements that laid the groundwork for the Democrat’s record on crime and immigration before the Republican attacks. The results showed that there was no statistical benefit for pre-empting GOP attacks on crime and defund the police; however, when swing voters were exposed to a pre-emptive correction of the Democratic member’s immigration and border security position, the Democrat built up a substantial advantage (D+18) and was largely insulated from GOP attacks that followed. Even after these “shielded” swing voters saw the immigration attack, they still supported the fictional Democrat by 9-points following the hit.

The Takeaway: Proactively delivering swing voters early positive information about a Democrat’s moderate, bipartisan efforts to secure the border helped to inoculate and minimize the damage of an attack before it was made, and it helped to correct the record where there was already an initial negative narrative in voters’ minds on the issue.

Below is the top-testing message to pre-empt immigration attacks.

On Crime: Prepare your Arrows and Blame Social Media.

Our research revealed a slightly altered, yet also effective, approach when it comes to rebutting Republican attacks on crime.

Unlike on immigration, we did not find a benefit to pre-empting GOP attacks on crime, as this resulted in the fictional Republican candidate coming marginally out ahead by one point among swing voters. Alternatively, when voters were exposed to our flight of bipartisan positive advertisements in response to the GOP’s crime attack, the Democrat came out ahead in the end by five points. This result demonstrates that when it comes to attacks on crime, it is more beneficial for Democrats to respond after first being hit, rather than trying to get out ahead.

We further added an additional messaging parameter by testing whether it was advantageous to blame social media for spreading lies about our fictional Democrat’s position on crime and immigration. Our surveys show that there is a significant effect in simultaneously correcting the record and blaming social media for spreading lies about the Democrat’s position on crime in the rebuttal ad–resulting in a 10-point swing towards the Democrat among swing voters. Blaming social media in the immigration rebuttal, however, was in fact harmful to the Democrat—voters may have found this claim misleading and not believable when it came to immigration. (Both the need to pre-but the immigration attacks and this finding indicate that the “chaos at the border” reputation is already so baked into the Democratic brand that candidates need to correct existing perceptions before the attack even lands and avoid blaming social media for that association.)

The Takeaway: By pinning the GOP crime attack on the spread of misinformation across social media, while at the same time correcting the record, we were able to strengthen the Democrat’s rebuttal. Additionally, focusing the response on what the Democrat had done to work across the aisle and support law enforcement was effective, though Democrats should avoid going too far with language that mentions sanctioning cities that defund their police, which triggered a small backlash. Unlike on immigration, we do not recommend pre-butting with paid media on the crime issue, but candidates should prepare their responses along these lines to be ready as soon as the inevitable hits begin.

Below is the top-testing message to rebut crime attacks.

On Messengers: Republicans and Law Enforcement Validators Both Work, but the Former is Even Better.

The final variable that we tested was the most effective validator to convey these pre-buts and rebuttals. When we tested identical messages on crime and immigration communicated by a self-described Republican validator and a law enforcement validator, the Republican consistently came out on top both on crime and immigration, boosting the Democrat’s vote share (D+16) more than a law enforcement validator (D+9). It is notable that the Republican messenger did not need to be a known name to the voters—simply a random person who identified themselves as belonging to the other party.

The Takeaway: This affirms that the most effective way to defang these attacks in voters’ minds is by showing a Republican delivering the message, as they may provide a permission structure to more moderate or traditionally conservative swing voters to support a Democrat who has commonsense positions on these issues. Although not quite as effective, law enforcement validators can be useful as well and should be deployed in conjunction with Republican validators where possible.

Conclusion

Democrats running for re-election in 2020 were largely caught flat-footed and without a playbook to respond when these cultural attacks came. As we approach the midterms, Democrats would be prudent to prepare for what we know is to come to defend the most competitive districts.

Methodology

Third Way and GSG Research conducted an online survey of 1,510 registered voters from target battleground districts from June 6 - June 22, 2022. The survey had a confidence interval of +/-2.5 percentage points.