Local opinion: Reimagining political campaigns

Imagine a soccer team where half the players speak German and the other half speak French. Now, picture three coaches: one who speaks only German, one who speaks only French and a third who speaks both languages fluently. Which coach is more likely to lead the team to victory? Clearly, the one who can communicate with all players. This is the challenge political campaigns face today. Much like those one-language coaches, political parties are only talking to their base, leaving out a huge opportunity: converting voters from the opposition.

Political campaigns typically mobilize their base, register voters already aligned with their party, and attempt to sway a narrow group of undecided voters. Visit the websites of either the Democratic or Republican party, and you’ll see content designed almost exclusively for their core supporters — rallying donations, encouraging volunteering, and reinforcing party values. Rarely do you find efforts aimed at engaging voters from the other side.

Now, let’s look at how businesses handle competition. Apple, for example, has a dedicated webpage for Android users titled “See how easy it is to switch.” Samsung does something similar, targeting iPhone users. Why? Because these companies know a large part of their potential market is with their competitor. They study what it takes to convert them, add features to appeal to them, and train their teams to win them over. They won’t get them all, but they welcome the curious with open arms.

Currently, many voter conversions happen randomly — often driven more by frustration with their own party than enthusiasm for the other. Republicans fed up with their party’s stance on reproductive rights or election lies may switch sides out of spite, while Democrats disappointed by their party’s handling of the economy or immigration might do the same. These switches are reactive, born from dissatisfaction. Conversion isn’t about token gestures or superficial appeals either. A few prominent Republicans publicly supporting a Democrat won’t suddenly convince all Republicans to cross party lines, like a celebrity ad. Campaigns often hold some of their voters hostage by positioning the opposition as a total disaster. While this may be true in some cases, this fear-based approach leaves the real issues unresolved, and it further deepens voter frustration.

Political campaigns could employ the science of persuasion, for instance, with reciprocity, social proof and framing. Campaigns must meet them where they are, listen to their concerns, and — most crucially — speak their language. It’s not enough to simply present a platform and hope it resonates. They could start by asking opposition voters the most important question: “What would it take for you to vote for my candidate?” You lose some because you don’t want to lose yourself. You gain some by budging a little. But then you may also gain some more just by how you talk — letting them save face (by allowing people to change stance without admitting they were wrong because of some new information), by showing respect and acknowledging concerns and by building rapport with charm and finding common ground. Campaigns need to train their volunteers on how to engage with opposition voters, lest they be left with the false comfort of a huge reach with subpar results.

The old playbook of mobilizing the base and hoping undecided voters tip the scales is no longer enough. Campaigns that invest in converting opposition voters through dialogue, empathy, and real engagement will be the ones that unite a divided electorate. If a candidate truly wants to be the president of the entire nation — not just their party — they must become good at it. In other words, you have to be that bilingual coach, able to lead a diverse team toward a common goal.