Donald Trump has defied the laws of political gravity for months, surviving despite eschewing advice from campaign professionals. The result will test a lot of what we thought we knew about how campaigns must be run.
Even if Trump has a stronger than expected showing or outright victory, most politicians will be unable to replicate what he has done. Trump could flout political norms because he is rich and famous. I’ve argued other wealthy celebrities could follow his example. If they don’t, it would probably be folly for a conventional politician to try.
Trump has raised substantially less money than Clinton. At a critical point in the race, he was being dominated on the airwaves 50 to 1. He has since narrowed the gap but nowhere near closing it. Yet none of this has affected the fundamentals of the race.
In a 2013 meeting where Trump laid out his campaign strategy, he reportedly told attendees that he wouldn’t have to spend much on ads because he could blanket the media. “You can’t run for president on earned media,” one person at the media was quoted as saying. Trump replied, “I think you’re wrong.”
As it turned out, Trump was totally right in the Republican primaries and substantially correct in the general election. He has maintained a lead in free media throughout, even when he was (more or less) one-on-one against Hillary Clinton.
Earned media has been a mixed blessing for Trump in the general, as the coverage has been much more negative. It is possible that if he had done paid ads earlier he could have achieved parity with Clinton in favorability ratings. The fact that he is viewed more negatively than her is a major reason Clinton has generally held a modest to moderate lead over Trump throughout 2016.
If Trump loses a number of battleground states narrowly, however, his lack of ground game — and alleged non-cooperation with the Republican National Committee’s efforts on his behalf — will be viewed as a decisive factor in his defeat. (If Trump loses by a wider margin, other factors, such as his campaign alienating large voting blocs, will be more important.)
In the primaries, Trump did well in states where he could rely on his organic popularity to turn out voters. In caucuses and some smaller states where organization mattered more, the data-driven Ted Cruz campaign often beat him. Fortunately for Trump, however, the big state primaries were more numerous and mattered more to the delegate count.
Moving to the general election, Trump didn’t always enjoy a popularity advantage. In the swing states where he does, it is by low single-digit margins where a good or bad turnout operation could make a difference. So his relative lack of a traditional campaign infrastructure is a much riskier proposition than it was during the primaries.
If Trump wins in spite of all this, it will challenge a lot of our assumptions about campaigns. But with a Clinton victory, we could also easily see Trump’s unorthodox approach get him close enough for following the rules of campaigning to be the difference-maker.
